conversational intolerance

8/2/2019 Conversational Intolerance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conversational-intolerance 1/6

Conversational intolerance: The Invisible Pink Unicorn

This unicorn is both pink, and invisible. It exists. It is not subject to anylaw, of any kind. It just is. It created the universe, but is not subject to thesame laws as human beings are. And, just because you can't see it,

doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can however; see through it.

The IPU is satire, and is no different than most of the conversationalintolerance that occurs in social strata; whether on Internet forums,social networking platforms, or meet-ups in person but especially in venues with a strong focuson personal beliefs.

The IPU is often used as a symbol for Atheism or in use by Atheists; the IPU itself is notAtheism.

The IPU is considered to be the goddess of parody and paradox. It is used to levy argumentswith Theists that hold beliefs in the supernatural, venerate a deity, and adhere to a theologically-

based faith system. The IPU serves as an allegory to demonstrate the paradoxical nature ofdeity. If the IPU were to replace [fill in the blank] deity, it would have no literal difference ininterpretation (to a non-believer). The IPU does not follow the laws that apply to man, as thus itcan be both invisible and pink. It is considered to have great magical powers, because it can beboth invisible and pink. The reasoning here is juxtaposed with faith-based logic found in manyreligions. Just because you cannot see her, doesn’t mean she is not pink, or does not exist.This concept is used to point out to Theists the absurdity of their defense of such a belief. Thecontradiction of terms, that a deity can be both invisible and pink defeats itself within the satire.The satire has already stated that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not adhere to the laws of man.Thus, it cannot be a contradiction of terms that it can be both invisible and pink. The IPUbecomes a circular argument levied against Theism. In fact, it can run around in circles all dayand achieve nothing but the discourse it desires. The ‘debate’ presented is merely to mock the

beliefs of a Theist. This can only incite the Theist to point out the intentionality of the mockery.It may also be used to point to Theists (Group A) and label them as [fill in the blank] insult byNon-Believers (Group B), to position arguments in socio-political arenas.

The IPU’s defining aspect is that it satirically ridicules those that hold beliefs considered by theself-identified rational, to be irrational. The irrational would then also be considered incapable ofhaving the proper logic needed to make political decisions and/or deal with social issues. Itdoes not however resolve conflict between believers and non-believers. The IPU presents itsown argument against non-believers; thus spinning the paradoxical wheel of fortune. If the IPUrepresents the irrationality of believing in something that cannot be proven to exist (thus nottrue), this opens the issue of belief wide-open.

There are many beliefs held that have not been scientifically proven; in fact many may be basedsolely on theory in the absence of evidence to support it. It would then be considered invisibleby evidence, but pink by faith. When considering the laws conceived by man, there are manythings we consider law, simply because we have stated it is law. Take for instance mathematicsas the universal language of the known universe. There are volumes of writing whichassociates math with complex notions, simply because we have applied it. Newtonianmechanics1 would disagree with this notion, but to levy the ‘proof’ required to support a truth,

1Newtonian Mechanics: Causal relationship in the natural world between force, mass and motion.



‘Newton’ then would have to be invalidated. If you are well-read in the area of physics, I’m surethat statement made the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. If face to face, I would beprepared for your intolerance of my ideas, and your disputes with how I use ‘facts’, to providethe wedge needed to demonstrate the absence of Absolute Truth2. And so the wheel spinsround and round. It is one thing to bring these ideas into our own minds, it’s quite another tohave conversations about them.

“I don’t agree with you.” “I think you’ve misunderstood.” “I believe you are misinformed.” “Your demonstrable lack of comprehension tells me much about you”. “I will not accept your ideas as my own.” “I cannot relate to your position.”

This is polite, in real world situations people tend to speak more frankly and direct.

“What are you fuckin’ stupid or something?” “Are you insane?”

“LMAO you believe what?” “Why don’t you go back into your cave and worship your imaginary friends!” “Thank spaghetti you are not in politics!”

What is Conversational Tolerance?

Conversational tolerance implies that all conversation will be tolerated. When a social groupenforces such a policy it tends to segregates the group:

Group A - TolerantGroup B - Intolerant

Thus, any person within the social group that falls into Group B would be treated accordingly. Agroup may choose to also enforce a Code of Conduct3. Any person joining the group wouldthen agree to the Terms and Conditions4 of the group. This sounds all very cut and dry, but Iassure you that it is not. Policies are often ignored, even if a person has agreed to the terms ina verbal or written contract.

Newtonian Mechanics (M.I.T. Introduction text), W.W. Norton & Co, 1971, ISBN# 03930997092

Absolute Truth: Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. Philosophy, Stanford University.3

Code of Conduct: Responsibilities used to manage behavior, group ethics, and honor.4 Terms and Conditions: Terms outlined by the group’s administrators. Conditions for continued

participation in the group.



What is Conversational Intolerance?

Conversational Intolerance may be (but not limited to) a blatant disregard of policy. This is oftendue to personal experience, and emotionality. Sometimes extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence. When dealing with the religious, that evidence may not be available toeveryone. It would be considered UPG (Unverifiable Personal Gnosis), and in some casesUGG (Unverifiable Group Gnosis).

Conversational Intolerance implies that some conversation will not be tolerated. When a socialgroup enforces a Conversational Tolerance Policy (CTP), it invites discourse. A CTP should beall encompassing and not exclusionary of any topic; even if those topics are uncomfortable,taboo, or challenging. Many social groups will exclude touchy subjects from a CTP to maintainharmony in a group and avoid discourse. Topics such as Cannibalism, Incest, Nazism,Genocide, Sexuality, Rape, Murder, Abuse, Discrimination, Bigotry, Racism, just to name a feware often avoided.

If a social group has a CT policy, but exceptions to the rule, the group’s focus has now shifted toa paradox and parody of its original purpose; much like the IPU.

The brain as an organ is highly complex. We learn more about it all the time, and its truth is notabsolute. In existential ontological arguments, the organ is often divided between ‘brain’ and‘mind’. The brain being the biological organ, the mind what the organ produces in humanexperience.

Take for example the idea of ‘witnessing’ in religious faith. This concept is to allow the adherentthe validity needed to testify to the extraordinary claims made by the religious group he belongs

to. This deals directly with UPG as well as UGG presented as evidence to support.Comparably, it can be levied against a non-believer of deity that holds beliefs in the super-natural or para-normal.

If say you don’t believe in ‘gods’ but believe in displaced spirits; how different a belief is thisreally? Many non-religious believers of the supernatural provide just as much (if not more) UPGevidence, to support their extraordinary claims. So, this is not limited to dealing with the‘religious’ exclusively, even if the religious is its primary focus.

So, where does this leave us in social strata?

Conflict: Group B does not agree with the policy in place of Group A. A disagreement willchallenge the policy in place. If the policy is challenged, those enforcing it are faced withconflicted participants. How then is this conflict resolved?



There are a number of choices one could make, from the choices available:

1. Enforce the policy; remove those that fall in Group B from the social group.

2. Discuss the policy: Administrators could open the floor for discussion to foster an

understanding as to why the policy is important to the group.

3. Take a poll: Administrators may opt for an opinion poll from the participants. If the majoritydoes not agree with the policy, it may be the catalyst for the administrators to change policy.

Say for instance your social group is faith-based, and non-believers want to participate. Wouldthey be tolerated? Would their ‘conversations’ be tolerated?

Why are people so afraid of being intolerant?

In the last few decades a strong focus on being politically and socially ‘correct’ has been forcedupon us by influencing agents. Being intolerant has become a dirty word in the U.S. and evenmore so in other nations as it becomes a personal danger to discuss taboo topics, or use whatis considered archaic language. In some instances, depending on the culture, there are beliefsthat will not be tolerated, and are punishable by imprisonment or death. Fear is a survivalmechanism, but it can also be an avoidance shield. When people feel powerless, they avoidany opportunity that may arise to enact their personal power. Fear is often used to avoidimportant sociological issues. Many of those issues affect not just the individual, but entirepopulations of people. People have become so bankrupt of any real sense of self, that theydon’t even know how to recognize power in their very being.

What does it mean to be tolerant in a forum?

When people assemble to discuss a specific focus topic, movement, or body of ideas, itbecomes a forum. Social Networking on various websites is interchangeable with ‘forum’, whenfocus groups form. When a group has a strict CTP, it may be implied that all conversationsshould be tolerated to participate. If you decide to be intolerant, and the administrators havemade both the policy and code of behavior clear; you should be willing to be held accountablefor your behavior and words; but especially when it regards your own principles and key aim5.A forum is often a platform that can be used to assert discourse with an individual or groupobjective. Self-management allows you to hit your target with a more sinister approach.

This is particularly important when addressing ‘cyber -bullying’. If you’ve been issued theScarlet Letter B , you can either wear it proudly or refuse to be identified as this modus operand(MO). This label is often applied when no bullying has occurred. It’s a pretty common adhominem debate tactic. Your key aim may be to cause discourse. Discourse is ‘friction’ and isoften the catalyst for growth, and action; it is not bullying unto itself. Harmony could beconsidered stagnation and inaction. Especially when your key aim is to accomplish goalsthrough group efforts.

5Target and/or goal.



How do I regard Conversational Intolerance?

While I will guard a person's right to believe in the most whacked-out ideas, it doesn't mean Ihave to tolerate them. There is much I do not tolerate. Conversational intolerance is policed byimposing morality6, e.g. “That's Intolerant! You should Respect another person's beliefs!”

Says who? By what authority? Yours? A person, as well as their beliefs, have to earn myrespect. In earning my respect there must be some demonstrable deed backed by those beliefs.If those beliefs cause a person to take an action that is not beneficial to me in any way, mynatural course is to oppose it. Why then should I tolerate their views? Beliefs? Actions? I willnot. I will not tolerate beliefs or actions that oppose me. This does not mean that I don’t exploredissenting views and opinions. I explore them as a matter of habit for contrasting andcomparing to my world view (introspect). It is often in that way that I am able to make my ownthoughts and ideas distinctly mine.

What actions do I take when being intolerant?

Each person and situation is unique, but there are often times when ‘groups’ of people areintolerable. Just because I am intolerant, does not mean that intolerance and hatred aresynonymous. I can be intolerant to child abuse, for example. It does not mean I hate the childabuser. There are often extenuating circumstances in each case, and I don’t believe in profilingor pigeon-holing individuals. I hold humanistic values, in that I recognize the trials andtribulations of the human condition, and I work actively to exceed my own humanity. In mypersonal axioms, I believe all men can be redeemed by their actions; words are words. Justbecause the words have been spoken, does not mean they symbolize an action worthy ofredemption. While I have a minor concern with what people believe, my major concern is what

people do. What people do may require both my intolerance and action to neutralize a currenton the move. In neutralizing it, I am directly blocking its path to allow it momentum. Even if Iam only a minor obstacle, the movement will have to find a way around me, over me, or throughme thus creating the potential to become a major block in its path. With enough focus, and self-management I can become a formidable force in the face of the mass. Lest we forget thatmovements begin with an idea, followed through with an action, and gaining momentum as itgains density. I will go directly to the source of that fuel, and stomp it out with my boot.

Conclusion

In a world of such diverse people and on-going social conflict, each person will have their own

internal morality; which may or may not have been fostered by social ethics

7

. They may even beconsidered immoral or amoral depending . If your moral principles dictate that you be intolerant,then follow through with an action; and learn your target. I don’t believe in people that talk a lotof shit, and follow through with zero action. Have the back-bone to stand by your convictions; or

6Imposing Morality: Social Morality imposed upon individuals, to directly affect their personal ethics and

internal morality. 7

Social code of ethics, societal standards for living and behaving.



else find yourself the serpent under foot8, never realizing your power, and destined to becomenothing more than parody and paradox.

The age of the Politically Correct, is coming to an end. What will this new age bring us?

Behold! I present to you the INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN!

SIN JONES

The Poison Applewww.the-poison-apple.comMarch 2011[Updated March 2012]

8 Madonna and the Serpent, SIN JONES, April 2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29913140/Madonna-and-the-Serpent










conversational intolerance

Documents