Everyone knows about the paradox of tolerance. The solution is simply to choose intolerance. The thing about SJWs is that they continue to call intolerance "tolerance." Herbert Marcuse, doyen of the New Left, coined the term "repressive tolerance" for it, which is of course an oxymoron.Me too.
They love such wordplay. Makes them feel clever. It gives me the shivers.
We keep getting told "don't be angry" by people who are perpetually outraged. We get told to be "tolerant" by people who simply cannot tolerate disagreement.
Fuck that noise.
I believe that violence, anger, and intolerance, are all necessary things, at the right time, and the right place. Living by anger, being controlled by it, is Wrath. But some things - like the repeated rape of 1400+ girls while officials looked the other way out of fear of being called racist? - deserve anger. The people who think we should never be angry can never accept it, and cannot control it. We choose what to tolerate, and what is intolerable. We discriminate, and judge, because some things are better than others, for anyone with values. I choose to accept that violence is part of the spectrum of possible actions, in part because those who would do evil will turn to violence in turn, and sometimes nothing else can stop it.
To say that no-one is better than anyone else, that nothing is better than anything else, that no choice is better than another, is to say you value nothing.
I do not choose the path of wrath or unthinking bigotry, but I absolutely choose to accept that there are things worthy of anger, and things which cannot be tolerated, or left to sand.
I embrace the full breadth of what it means to be human.
The Cruxshadows said it well in the Eye of the Storm (yes, Ringo was referring to the song in his book title)
There is no love untouched by hate
No unity without discord
There is no courage without fear
There is no peace without a war
There is no wisdom without regret
No admiration without scorn