Psychologists use the term "cognitive dissonance" to explain the phenomenon of people strongly condemning a particular behaviour, while at the same time engaging in the behaviour that they are condemning. The difference between such behaviour and pure, outright hypocrisy, is that the person condemning the behaviour and doing it themselves, is unaware of their own actions. Worse still, when their hypocritical behaviour is pointed out to them, they are unable to understand that they are doing what they are condemning in others.

Such attitudes are symptomatic of people who possess authoritarian attitudes. They are so convinced that they are right and that their opponents are wrong, that they really do believe that the rules of behaviour that they demand of others should not apply to themselves.

Examples are.

Those who preach tolerance who are intolerant of those who have opposing opinions.

Those who decry racism who are routinely racist towards white people.

Those who decry stereotyping who routinely stereotype their opponents as something resembling pure evil.

Those who denounce racist names like "ni**er" who routinely label the white people they despise as "rednecks", "crackers" and "bogans."

Educated people who demand a classless society while routinely sneering at their working class social inferiors.

Just get on Youtube and you will see people who oppose the immigration of South African whites into Australia because Boers are "racist." And they are unable to see the self evident contradiction of their attitude. Or people saying that it OK to say disgusting things about white people, because that is not racist. Their logic is that it is impossible for minorities to be racist towards whites, which is a racist belief in itself.

This inability to perceive their own contradictions is the hallmark of the true authoritarian fanatic. This particular behaviour is now glaringly obvious in just about every contemporary left wing cause. It is the reason why the pendulum has swung and now intelligent people are turning away from leftism. Those with IQ's above 85 can not abide the outright hypocrisy and double standards left wing "logic.".

LEGO,

Much of your reply affirms the content of my article. Thank you.

<<This inability to perceive their own contradictions is the hallmark of the true authoritarian fanatic. This particular behaviour is now glaringly obvious in just about every contemporary left wing cause>>

I don't think it's only the main territory of left wing, authoritarian fanatics.

I've seen it with Christians who oppose homosexuality, saying these people go to hell. A leading Rugby player said it. But they seem to overlook the fact that some biblical homosexual teaching is in a passage by the Apostle Paul where those who indulge in other sexual sins, adultery, idolaters, theft, greedy people, drunkards, the abusive, and those who cheat people,are included. All of these wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-11).

Or, is that selective reading?

Since writing my article, I've become aware of Ben Crenshaw's article, '“Shut Up, Bigot!”: The Intolerance of Tolerance', at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/08/15398/

While showing the foundation of the new tolerance is built on the shifting sands of postmodernism, his assessment was:

"We must challenge postmodern thought at a fundamental level and reintroduce the old vision of tolerance into society. This will be most effective if we practice the old tolerance, visibly and powerfully demonstrating that it is possible to hold to objective truths and dissenting views while being respectful and loving toward those with whom we disagree. Such interpersonal virtues are rarely seen in a culture where social media exchanges and comment threads overflow with vitriol".

As far as I am concerned.

Margaret Court was/is a National Icon in Australia.

She has been awarded trophies - too numerous to mention here.

However, she is opposed to "same sex marriage" - SO WHAT!

She has her belief, I also have mine - this is a democratic society.

But those who wish to pull her name of a "Tennis Centre - dedicated in her name" - due to her differing view on same sex marriage, says it all to me.

If you don't agree with same sex marriage - not matter who you are - will we come for you and destroy your business or livelihood?

For those reading my post saying - oh no this didn't happen, try doing some research.

Then come back to me - I have "heaps" of examples.

And this is "democracy" in Australia today.

has anyone called for the removal of all Martin Luther Kings statues? Why not? He was opposed to the homosexual lifestyle.

Good points OzSpen. On a rational view intolerance for the sake of being tollerent isn't logical and moves a person to rationalizing their own intolerance instead of justifying their intolerance.

To make the point under the debate clear, there are issues worth being intolerant about. There is also the other side of the coin of giving second chances and to tolerate something that you don't agree with. Both of these points that support tolerance are worth while for a healthy responsible person to engage in everyday life. But make no mistake, there are things that should not be tolerated. That's actually the whole point of the legal system, so that certian actions are not tolerated but instead punished.

The next rational point that should be given should be instead of tolerance and intolerance of intolerance; instead it should be why is this not tolerated. Why is it faught against. Doing anything less then this as OzSpen has pointed out, is an act of rationalizing a person's own intolerance without actually giving a reason for their own intolerance. Give a reason why and this is answered without going in circles fighting for tolerance.

To Ozpen.

Within any population of people, there exists a percentage of the population who think entirely in absolutes. Morality is black and white. Moral quandaries and moral priorities are concepts which are beyond their comprehension. Fifty shades of grey morality have no meaning to them. Almost all of this demographic are attracted to absolutist ideologies which state plainly, in black and white, what is right and what is wrong.

You are correct in saying that right wing people can also think in absolutes. It does not matter if the ideology is religious or secular. Social or political. There are people who are absolutists in every ideological position. The causes and the ideologies they support can differ from the right, the left, or the religious, but the mindset (the way of processing information) is exactly the same.

Interestingly, people who think in absolutes utterly despise other absolutists who support absolutist causes opposed to their own. Both ideologies are in competition to attract the same sort of people with the same sort of absolutist mindsets.

Similarly, absolutist thinking people think that every other person thinks exactly like they do. Therefore, they are simply unable to understand people who take moderate views. Absolutists think that if their moderate opponents take a different view to themselves, then they must be the polar opposite of themselves. Since they are epitome of virtue, then their moderate opponents must be unspeakably evil. They can never consider that their opponents as just people who consider multiple aspects of any issue before deciding on what is the best response. They shout them down. "No platform" them. Don't bother debating them.

Absolutists tend to be driven people who often succeed in attaining high office in moderate organisations and then they turn them into absolutist organisations (eg, The Greens, Australian Democrats) . Throughout history, thinking people have battled the absolutists for the leadership of nations and organisations. The reason why the Western world rocketed ahead of the rest of the world was because for four hundred years, western thinking people were able to exercise some control over the absolutists.