The evolution to "acceptance" has been a slippery slope scenario.
At first, it was "tolerance," which most people could get on board with since, at least at the time, the thing society was asked to tolerate was equal rights for any given group. Most of America was fine with that, which is why LGBT couples, for instance, can now get married in America.
However, as most activist groups do, once the initial goal was achieved, they didn't stop. The goal went from being equal rights to supremacy. The LGBT activist community began attempting to force themselves on society, proclaiming that any resistance to their desires is discrimination and hate. While there is an endless number of examples of the LGBT activist community attempting to force itself on our country, the most prominent example remains a simple baker in Colorado who refused to make a gay wedding cake.
To this day, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop is still fending off lawsuits and attacks by the LGBT community after initially refusing to bake a gay wedding cake over his Christian beliefs.
This is no longer about tolerance; this is about forced acceptance. In fact, "acceptance" became the new battle cry of the LGBT activist community, making the word something of a modern virtue.
But acceptance is not a virtue. Acceptance is a trap.
Acceptance is a loaded word primarily because it's a one-way street. Using Phillips as an example again, the LGBT activist community will not accept that the baker's Christianity stops him from participating in LGBT ceremonies of any kind. They accuse him of being bigoted and hateful because of this, yet if you asked many of these activists to bake a cake celebrating a Christian, they'd likely scoff at the idea.
They certainly don't want to accept the idea that parents should have control over their own children, yet we're supposed to accept the idea that they should be able to guide our children in the ways of the LGBT community, and they try to pass us off as bigots if we don't.
It's "acceptance for me, but none for thee."
This is why acceptance isn't really a virtue. It's a form of submission and one that has brought us closer and closer to societal collapse.
The line at which we accept things should be very shallow. For instance, I don't accept the idea that shoplifting and thievery are a form of recompense for some wrong that no person today ever experienced. I don't accept that we should be looking at identity before skill or merit in the workplace brd on some misguided DEI nonsense.
Acceptance is sold as a quality for a strong moral character, but, in truth, it's just a way to feed the monster that will eventually eat society.
Tolerance for other's lifestyles, so long as they don't impact yours, is perfectly fine. I am not my brother's keeper, and what my neighbor does within the confines of his own home is his business, as mine is mine. I'm not necessarily just tolerating his lifestyle that I may disagree with, but I am agreeing to a mutual form of privacy and freedom.
But acceptance is the idea that my neighbor should not only be able to do what he does in full view of me but that I should applaud and rejoice in what he does in public. It's the idea that, if he so chooses, he should be able to teach my kid about what he does with or without my consent, and I should sit and let it happen in the name of "acceptance."
This is not a virtuous action. As I said before, this is actually a submission to another.
When you hear someone talk about acceptance, understand that this is what they really mean. Their true aim is to get you to submit to their ideas and agendas.
As in all things of this context, do not comply.