Yes, very nihilist; I believe both that philosophy and nihilism found its fullest expression in Nietzsche (or Crowley; what is "will to power" but a rationalization for "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law?") I really had in mind more what Wikipedia et al. refer to as "Meta-ethical relativism," but we seem to be drifting toward what it refers to as "Normative relativism" (though the difference is, IMHO, mainly semantic; in practice they are indistinguishable, the bases just differ slightly.)

And of course, it CANNOT lead to "ought" statements, because, just as meta-ethical relativism takes "ought" off the table as non-existent, normative relativism removes it as existent, but unobtainable. Yeah, these beliefs are real, exist and have subscribers, even advocates. That last makes them dangerous, in the "dispute at every opportunity" sense rather than the "lock safely away" sense. Obviously, it is false to say everyone with a "Coexist" sticker or T-shirt belongs to that group. It is, however, pretty accurate to say everyone who belongs to that group likes the stickers and T-shirts, and for all the wrong reasons.

Intelligent rational ecumenicalism/multiculturalism must retake its philosophy from those harmful idiots as surely as Christianity must retake its from OTHER harmful idiots. It is an unenviable dual obligation for some, but goes with the territory. Just saying, "that's nice, Grand Dragon *pat pat*" is not living Christianity or tolerance.


If they choose not to act on harmful beliefs, that is an acceptable temporary compromise, but, so long as they do not advocate violence, I actually prefer they speak their mind. It is more honest (a virtue to cultivate) and tells us whom to dispute and reason with, not to mention in whose company we must be cautious. Simply muzzling their beliefs with group censure and ostracism, but no attempt to persuade them of others, both conceals the enduring problem and deepens the resentment, alienation and ignorance that created it. It is not them holding to a moral code, but us holding them to an increasingly unwelcome one, and only as long as we are watching. Dialogue is the only antidote to provincial ignorance, inclusiveness the only antidote to xenophobia.

I do not pretend to have regained the ability to state that case civilly and respectully, but strive for that goal, because it is vital. More so daily.


Tolerance=/=acceptance. When my dislocated shoulder refused to go back in its socket I tolerated the excruciating pain for an hour or two until a doctor could reinsert it, yet sought that doctor out with all haste because I did NOT accept it. But, yes, tolerance includes me; again, if all beliefs are "just fine" so long as the harmful ones are not enacted, which of my comments is debatable? "Nobody's wrong, if everybody's right," as it were.

It is not (or should not be) about supporting everything people might believe, but tolerating everything they might believe while trying to peacefully change harmful beliefs. The sticker does not use a "racism symbol" (is there such a thing?) but neither does it use exclusively religious ones; the peace symbol in the "o" signifies peace and, depending on whom one asks, the "e" signifies either both sexes or homosexuality. In practice, however, religion tends to be closely related to race, culture, sexuality and sex, and I have always understood the "coexist" stickers/shirts to advocate tolerance for each, and generally. More importantly, I would wager dollars to donuts the next person you see bearing the sign would agree; peace implies general tolerance (not necessarily acceptance, which, again, is my point.)

That is fine; universal tolerance is generally good. It encourages openness, honesty, dialogue and exchanging perspectives that break down ignorance and prejudice, thereby diminishing harmful beliefs that produce harmful acts. That is much better than accepting bigotry/brutality on the condition it remains non-violent and/or in the closet, where it festers and grows in clandestine resentment and unfamiliarity with others (apart from imagined fears of them.) That provides only the illusion of progress, but the reality is people working all day in fields alongside other races, then donning white robes at night to burn crosses on their lawns. That no one knows the next morning who strung the rope makes that more horrific rather than less, because even the law is often impotent. Tolerance can reduce, even eliminate such atrocities; acceptance simply perpetuates them covertly.