Friday, September 12, 2014

Zero Tolerance

"Zero Tolerance" is a way of saying "I care so much more about this than others." If politicians really meant it, they would apply that standard to Hollywood, to journalists, to entertainers, and to other politicians. But those groups can cause trouble for politicians, make fun of them, embarrass them, slyly hit back. NFL Players don't have that power - they are easy targets. Charlie Sheen, Nicholas Cage, Sean Penn, Alan Grayson - no tolerance? Athletes are famous, but their power over others is nonexistent.

One group is also whiter than the other, which may also figure into it. Attacking people who can't fight back is a lot of how politicians make their living.

6 comments:

Sam L. said...

Not just politicians. I'd add educrats next.

Texan99 said...

There's something else going on, too: zero tolerance is applied to whatever is the cause du jour, and you get special credit for identifying it correctly. Many decades ago, a movie star could ruin his or her career with an unauthorized sexual dalliance or a drug charge. These days, no one cares. An entertainer (movies or sports) is more likely to get in trouble by doing something anti-feminist, but it has to be the right kind of thing for that month's styles. The entertainer might get away with some casual anti-Semitism, but anti-black racism will be judged harshly.

Being outraged at the right time, by the right thing, and more vigorously than anyone else, is as important as what you wear to the Oscars. It shows that you have truly internalized the diktat and are not merely dragging your feet like a bourgeois.

Sam L. said...

The first man to stop applauding Stalin's speech will be taken out and shot.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

"It shows that you have truly internalized the diktat and are not merely dragging your feet like a bourgeois."

Yes. We may disdain it, but I must point out that it is difficult to get the nuance correctly. Missteps are easy, and punished severely.

Texan99 said...

It's about tracing the hierarchy correctly, too: knowing which moral precepts have to give way to others is as important as understanding who gets to walk first through the dining-room door.

ymarsakar said...

Yes. We may disdain it, but I must point out that it is difficult to get the nuance correctly. Missteps are easy, and punished severely.

That's why a Leftist is not merely someone that disagrees with people politically. A Leftist is what the Left decides is a Leftist, because they purge and determine who their members are.

Someone that doesn't get along with the group mind, like Lieberman, is quietly excised. And those like Juan Williams, are punished and will be welcomed back to the Fold, if they atone for it by going all in on some other thing. Won't save his son, of course.