A topic that has been explored before. Additional thoughts…

Acceptance, though desirable, may not be possible for all groups seeking it. Toleration is more accepted by groups possessing sets of perspectives that are incompatible with other groups. Laws can be enforced to instill toleration but no law that attempts to force acceptance can be enforced. To suggest that laws can force acceptance is to suggest mind control. That is not yet possible and never will be acceptable.

Programming the population through what is termed “education” but is in reality “mind-washing” is to seek the destruction of what are considered by the “progressive elite” unpalatable groups.

Many decry homogenous groups like the Japanese as xenophobic. They criticize such populations, stating that a lack of diversity stagnates innovation. (Japan being a hotbed of innovation) On the other hand, in the name of “social justice”, the destruction of diversity by forcing acceptance of every group no matter how outlandish, thereby creating a homogeneity, is labeled goal worthy.

“Progressive” groups (in quotes because these groups are self-labeled progressive and there are no standards by which progressive change can be identified) desire an impossible idealistic society in which all differences, no matter how they effect society, are acceptable. If family units are destroyed and become only a quaint object of the past it is of no concern to these SJWs (self-labeled “social justice warriors”). If sexual promiscuity leads to a hedonistic society no thought is given to the fact that people will stop working, stop learning, stop producing. Starvation and extinction is not even remotely on these self-proclaimed progressive’s mind.

Change has always been promoted as good. However, what if the family unit, that of a man and woman with children, was the epitome of the results of change? What if that traditional family unit was the peak of development and to change it was to decrease progress rather than to enhance it? Two parents, a mother and father, seeing to it that offspring were provided for and protected as well as encouraged. What if to change it meant a decline into extinction?

Conclusions:

• Change may or may not be advantageous and there is no way to ascertain whether that change is beneficial or detrimental until the damage or non-damage has occurred. There are simply too many nuances.
• Toleration is possible and enforceable. Acceptance is unenforceable. There will always be disputes and disagreements.
• SJWs and other self-proclaimed progressives are on an ego trip believing that they know what is best for all and are willing to enact laws and force acceptance in an effort to enact their version of what an ideal society should be. They use public schools and media in an effort to alter society to their will. In the end it is they that become the catalyst for hate and societal unrest.
• Diversity may lead to a decline of innovation and productivity rather than the increase sought.
• No one has the right to delineate or force the adoption of parameters that a homogenous group must conform to.
• The word “progressive” used as a noun,  is nebulous, undefined, and impossible to apply. What is progressive and what is not is debatable and cannot be determined before enacted.