More generally, the Information Age means that we need less and less peopleware to manage data and shepherd people.
The last holdout, of course, is government.

Your capacity to rationalize fascism by laundering it through re-purposed terminology befits a prior century. *Golf clap*

So you seem to say that disagreement == bigotry? Or is my refusal to accede to you bogus reasoning, itself, bigotry? Am I venturing into microagression territory here? Should I put a trigger warning on all my posts? Is this a subtle white privilege play? Do all roads lead to racism? Could you be more mockable?

The unintentional hilarity of YOUR shiny, new, fascist tribalism is its nihilistic inability to perpetuate hooey, but not the tribe itself.
I denounce myself afresh as the bad guy for upholding the notion that Form Follows Function; Flees Foolishness; Flames Falsehood.

Heh heh heh. Yeah.

No, that was Hastert.

<Beavis and Butthead laugh>You said "cock-pit"</Beavis and Butthead laugh>

I'm afraid of heights?

Accusing someone of bigotry, just because they don't concur with an idea, is not the same as showing a specific instance of intolerance toward the subscribers of an idea.
I hope you can understand that you're leaving yourself wide open for fascism here.
The real issues involve power and money, of course. No one quite seems to grasp that, if there was not so much societal sculpture afoot via the tax code, we could all just do our thing much more in peace.
But try to share some real analysis, and get called a troll, or worse. What are you going to do?

If you've got a dog in your cockpit, that's TMI. But I hope you've a speedy recovery.

I saw Third Stage Design Problem open for Flaming Reentry in Kalamazoo, MI in '87.

I'll take your lack of specific examples of bigotry, even against the dictionary definition: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" as an admission that you're blowing smoke. Disagreeing with "their ideas" is not "intolerance toward those".
You seem to play d_r's game of raping the language in support of Holy Progress. Or am I overlooking something?

Jeb who? If the little brother somehow threads it, it won't be due to the religious right. See 2012 election, where said constituency kinda left Romney hanging in the breeze.
If you want to posit an anti-Mormon bias, that's OK. But what substantial religious qualifications does Jeb have?
tl;dr: I think this argument is weak tea, myself.

Bill Dog: why do you object to being a co-pilot? It's an important job.