For the left, ‘tolerance’ means getting conservatives to abandon principled beliefs. The left NEVER abandon any principle belief they hold. They just get there a little slower via incrementalism, their ability to get us to cave in a bit at a time, finally gets them what they want.
We need to start exposing this and calling them on the carpet every time they play this card. We need to expose the shady tactic. The shady tactic is appearing to make a phony plea for ‘tolerance’ which only requires the conservative to completely abandon their belief.
It is simply a way for them to use the Hegelian Dialectic and the Delphi Technique to take two opposing views, and from them, either get the person to agree with them, or if not that far, to synthesize a compromise position that still takes the conservative off their view.
Under the guise of tolerance they get their cover. “Why, who wouldn’t want to be tolerant? Are you just a mean person? Haven’t you stopped beating your wife yet? Can’t you move an INCH from your objection?”
You have to take them off the specific issue and explain to people exactly what they are doing. The ony way I can be ‘tolerant’ is to abandon my belief. They are trying to frame the issue. They win no matter what. They have no compromise to make, it’s only me. My compromise gets them closer to their goal, and it takes me away from mine. If I refuse to compromise, since they have already framed the issue as a tolerance issue, I automatically become intolerant and now they can begin the demonization process of myself and my position. If I cave in, they get closer to what they want, they have not compromised a bit, they have gotten me to move towards their idea, and off mine. They remain true to their principle, I have abandoned mine. This is called the Delphi Technique, which is nothing more than framing the debate to the outcome you want to happen. If you can get the person to compromise, you win because they are now closer to what you want to happen and you can praise them for being tolerant, being enlightened, etc. If they don’t, because you framed this as a tolerance or fairness issue, now you can go after them as being intolerant and hypocritical without fear anyone will come after them for unfairly demonizing the other side. They will use the opportunity to use a broad brush and paint everyone who opposes the issue as intolerant and unfair.
Now you understand the Delphi Technique, and what this person is trying to accomplish.
Give you a good example. Abortion.
Pro-life position would be no abortions under any conditions. The pro-abort opposing view would be abortion on demand for any reason.
One side is NEVER in favor. One side is ALWAYS in favor. Absolutes in opposition.
The Delphi Technique is utilized by the pro-abortion side. As a matter of a fundamental right to health care. As a matter of a right to privacy. As being fair, giving people control over their own bodies.
“So you’re not for giving women fundamental health care?” “So women cannot control whether or not they want to have a child?” “So even if a neanderthal troglodyte rapist rapes your wife, you wouldn’t let her terminate a pregnancy from the rapist?” “How uncaring and unfair are you?”
They have just framed the issue and can win either way. If you cave, you are off your NEVER belief. That is a huge win for them. They have not compromised ONE BIT but have made you abandon your principle. They now just have to keep working on you incrementally and continue to get you closer to their viewpoint. And now that they know you are weak enough to cave, it becomes easier to get you to compromise, either through threat of humiliation/demonization, or praise for being open-minded enough to enlighten yourself on the issue.
They can win the second way if you stay on your belief because then, because of the premise they have put out there (fairness, tolernace, etc) because you have not compromised, you automatically become intolerant, mean, unfair, etc. They can say it more like a fact rather than an attack, because the premise was already floated out there during the discussion.
You have to reject the premise when it is tossed out there. If one is intolerant and unfair by sticking to their belief and not compromising, then they could equally be intolerant and unfair because they are not giving anything up. They are not moving towards my position, they are attempting to incrementally move me over to theirs. And if I don’t, they attempt to paint me and those who hold my view as bad people.
The other thing is that you need to put the argument back on the issue at hand. It isn’t about tolerance or fairness, etc. It is about the principle of “x” (in this case, the sanctity of human life). It is about protecting and defending human life in any and all conditions, shapes and sizes. And make a point that some issues are not ones that can be compromised. And get it back on the substance of the issue at hand.
When you have an issue that is an absolute, a great analogy is to say, If we were debating taking something that was a lethal poison, and I was against it totally, and another person was debating people should take it, if I compromise my belief, who is closer to getting their belief implemented? What if I say I can accept poisoning under certain conditions, or if I say I would accept putting 1% poison in all foods, as a compromise with the other side? Who has really compromised here, them or me? Me. Now all that needs to be done is to keep expanding the conditions, broadening them, or increasing the percentage of poison in food over time. Eventually one side wins. And it isn’t mine. I have stood up for nothing, the other side never compromised but got me to.