In recent history, western society has excessively emphasized the principles of inclusiveness and accommodation. This preference has manifested a cultural environment where tolerance is the keystone of social acceptance.
It is currently considered more worthwhile to be sympathetic than it is to be accurate. Critical thinking is devalued, and tolerance is given extreme consideration. This pervasive tendency is hindering scientific education and genuine progress, while also casting its dark shadow over the socio-political landscape.
Utilizing political correctness as a general mechanism for managing society as a whole ultimately fails to address countless important issues. The social emphasis placed upon tolerance is easily exploited by politicians and pundits, who often employ it as a means of influence, control, and misdirection.
As a society, we often say “yes”, when we should be saying “no”. Such an attitude inherently implies rejecting unpleasant facts, as well as fostering a general avoidance of the negative – an unwillingness to “feel bad”, coupled with a crippling inability to bear unpleasant realities.
Excessive reliance on tolerance fosters the insidious belief that the only requirement for integrity is an easygoing, sympathetic, and shameless attitude. However, objective critical evaluation is an absolute requirement to any sort of genuine integrity – the very integrity that is a minimum requirement for truly solving the problems faced by our tribes, communities, nations, and the world itself.
The false integrity of superficial tolerance can only avoid difficult truths, because it would be too uncomfortable to address them directly. Subjective valuation must be applied in synergy with objective evaluation, where neither approach is neglected or overemphasized.
We cannot simply discard that which we do not prefer, without examination, if we wish to have any legitimate understanding of the world. Nature is both nurturing and cruel; allowing personal preference to be expressed, while also balancing such preference with the objective realm of fact and necessity.
There are many individuals who believe that embracing leniency grants them a measure of moral superiority. However, this surface openness very often conceals a covert intolerance towards criticality, towards “no” itself! These individuals affirm themselves and others, but are not willing to accept the need to reject, to forbid, to exclude, and to evaluate the world objectively.