dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,391
- 33,048
- 136
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,391
- 33,048
- 136
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Agreed, someone who uses the brain dead troll term "brain dead leftists" certainly is in no position to start a serious discussion.
Conservatives have nothing to do with this but I would expect this from you. You really need to learn the difference between Conservatives and Republicans, two totally different things.
And excellent job on ignoring the thread
No, it's a difference in the degree of intolerance. I never said the difference wasn't large, that it was only a hop, skip and a jump. Similarly, to take your example, the difference between American liberals' desire to redistribute wealth through progressive taxation is a difference in degree from communism - a large difference in degree. These things exist along a continuum. The degree of something matters a lot, of course. I never said it didn't.
I use an extreme example only because it starkly illustrates a point of logic, so that you can more easily see the difference between excluding someone because of group affiliation versus excluding someone because of an opinion they hold which you do not respect. I felt you weren't seeing it because you view opposition to gay marriage as a reasonable opinion or at least not one that is not totally unreasonable, so I picked one I knew you'd find totally reprehensible to illustrate the point.
I think you missed my point so I'll try to say it differently. Bigotry is intolerance based upon membership in a group. Strong disapproval of someone's opinion to the point where you are uncomfortable affiliating with that person is an entirely different thing. It may be that the person's discomfort is unwarranted or that they are over-reacting to something, but that is a different thing than bigotry itself.
I think the problem here is that there is a more reasonable version of the conservative argument which is basically saying that many liberals over-react or are over-sensitive about bigotry or perhaps they perceive something as being much worse than it is. If that is the argument, it's certainly a matter of opinion, and I think it's probably accurate in some cases. However, the form of the argument which is trying to equate this over-reaction/over-sensitivity to bigotry itself is illogical, premised on a false analogy. It is, in fact, a purposeful over-statement of what might at core have some legitimacy, and this over-statement is pure propaganda.
No, in the real world, the people who disapprove of the bigots are not the bigots. The bigots are the bigots. White is not black. Up is not down. "Liberals are bigots because they don't tolerate intolerance" is conservative double-think.
- wolf
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Accept, of course not...but tolerant of other's viewpoints, that's what we're talking about. This is a fundamental distinction.
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
You really need to learn more about my posts. I regularly point out the difference between true conservatives and Republicans.
Doesn't change the fact that the evangelical and highly religious part of the Republican party calls themselves "conservatives", though.
I recognize the OP for what it is; laughable.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
What requires a liberal to tolerate a viewpoint they find repugnant? I don't see what in the liberal philosophy necessitates an open door policy for anyone and everyone. Conservatives have their specific set of values, and liberals have the same. Neither side profess to accept any and all ideas no matter what to my knowledge.
This weird gleefulness by people who seem to self-identify as conservatives as catching liberals out to be hypocrites strikes me as immensely childish - both in the very poor humour of the incident and in the tarring of all liberals with the same brush from the actions of one organization. Play it off as fun if you must though.
Last edited:
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,391
- 33,048
- 136
What do you mean by "tolerant of other's viewpoints"?
What I mean is, if I don't like the way someone thinks about a certain subject, does that make me intolerant? I wouldn't think so. If I say that someone that thinks a certain thing in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence is stupid, does that make me intolerant? I still wouldn't think so. What exactly qualifies as intolerance?
Right. And - is there any real distinction between the degree to which liberals are "intolerant" of conservative views and the degree to which conservatives are "intolerant" of liberal views. Of course there isn't.
Let me explain the 'liberal tolerance' issue to you on the right, since you don't get it.
The left is talking about not being intolerant *against those who don't deserve it*.
Now, the right doesn't understand that many people many of them are intolerant against, hateful against, discriminatory against, don't deserve it.
So here's what the right things liberals are saying: "anything is ok, we have no values".
Quite the opposite, really.
But then the right likes to have it both ways. "You liberals are tolerant of anything, you have no values! Oh, and you criticize us for our bigotry, you're intolerant!"
Exhibit #1: Person deals meth to 12 year olds.
Exhibit #2: Two gay men love each other.
Liberals don't say "be tolerant of the meth dealer". They might say all kinds of humanistic things - don't execute him, provide rehab for the meth users.
But we're generally very against the meth dealer (unless the people are fans of meth, which exist on the right and left, but that's not the 'progressive position').
But they do say "hang on, turns out some people are born gay, and they deserve respect as people - don't discriminate because of bigotry. Don't say 'they can't marry' just because you're afraid of them or ignorant of them and think they're somehow 'doing evil' even if you can't explain that other than to say Hurricane Katrina happened to New Orleans because it had gay parades (sorry, Republican Mississippi for your blowjob).
Or that they belong executed or in jail or banned from security work or the military or teaching schoolkids or being rented to, all of which have happened.
(Religious teachings are more tricky, but if you cite that I'll ask why you don't follow other teachings equally - like the Bible saying a woman has to marry her rapist.
Discussing whether religion says what they think it says or they're just a modern version of people who used the bible to justify racism is a discussion.
And abortion is a unique issue where the right feels they are protecting innocent people from discrimination by the left, a reversal of the normal situation.)
Thing is, to many on the right it seems they can't tell the difference between #1 and #2. They think liberals are tolerant of each equally because they're just 'tolerant'.
And so they when they say, for example, "gays shouldn't be allowed to teach our kids, they want to recruit them and turn them gay" - liberal California had a ballot initiative on exactly this subject in the 1970's - and liberals say "you're a bigot and you're immoral for treating people with discrimination unjustly", they don't get it - all they're doing is standing up for what they believe, right? And ut comes the "I thougt you liberals were supposed to be tolerant" line.
Liberals are intolerant of bigotry as they should be. They fight for individual rights insofar as unjust discrimination. So they're for 'freedom of religion', as for being anti-discrimination - not the twisted version which says 'how dare you not let my religion be the official religion or not have prviliges more than others'. They fight against discrimination against women, against races, against the handicapped, against short people, against long haired people, against LGBT people, all kinds of groups.
Common theme there - unjust discrimination, bigotry and selfish reasons. It might just be men liking to keep the vote for themselves; or racism; or other bigotry.
A couple disclaimers.
Progressives make mistakes, are wrong at times. We still are in areas. A liberal a century ago was likely to be racist - it was in the air of the culture. Before that a liberal was one who beat his slaves less often. We have liberal commentators who attack Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for their weight. Blacks who are mostly liberal in many ways are a leading group of anti-gay bigotry. Liberals aren't perfect on the issue.
But progressive values generally follow these principles.
As for being intolerant of bigots? Proudly. Progressives opposed the bigots who wanted to deny women the vote, to have segregation, to deny rights to gays, and so on.
That's standing up for the rights of people, for values, against those lacking values who would discriminate against others wrongly - however much they don't even understand they're doing it, as anti-gay groups can have whole volumes discussing reasons to discriminate against gays without mentioning gays once - all under the word "family".
So, understand where progressives stand on 'tolerace' - tolerance where it's deserved. Not universal tolerance, for wrong.
Of course, I'm not saying the right supports univerals tolerance including wrong either; they seem to have a preference for the wrong, but the tolerance isn't universal.
Ya, that last point is a cheap shot, with some truth in it. The right isn't out to be evil, it stumbles into it. Once it does understand better it improves, somewhat. For example, few on the right are actively supporting as policy denying women the vote, or paying them less, or bringing back slavery or segregation. Now they oppose those things too. And later this century they might think opposing gay marriage is wrong, too. They just need liberals to teach them.
I can't think of a group the right has led the way on for anti-discrimination much, except gun owners. They use the 'tolerance' language - to demand more than equal rights.
One more comment: sometimes the left's 'tolerance' doesn't support the people in question, but opposes excessive discrimination. For example, that meth dealer above - arrest him, put him in jail - but the left while opposed to his actions will oppose his being executed, tortured, raped in jail, generally. The right too often views that as being 'for' the meth dealing, which is incorrect. It's possible to be against something with limits.
This is long enough that I won't say much here about the area of 'tolerant of free speech' - but sometimes opposition to a view is misunderstood as opposition to the right to free speech.
There are lines to draw between saying 'I disagree with your opinion to bring back slavery' and how that view - especially if in danger of becoming policy - should be fought.
There's speaking against it, there's non-violent civil disobedience, there's rioting, there's murder. Who wouldn't kill Hitler, to oppose the Holocaust?
I hope this helps the right understand the left's position better so we can not have post after post with sarcastic comments about the left being intolerant of intolerance.
Save234
The left is talking about not being intolerant *against those who don't deserve it*.
Now, the right doesn't understand that many people many of them are intolerant against, hateful against, discriminatory against, don't deserve it.
So here's what the right things liberals are saying: "anything is ok, we have no values".
Quite the opposite, really.
But then the right likes to have it both ways. "You liberals are tolerant of anything, you have no values! Oh, and you criticize us for our bigotry, you're intolerant!"
Exhibit #1: Person deals meth to 12 year olds.
Exhibit #2: Two gay men love each other.
Liberals don't say "be tolerant of the meth dealer". They might say all kinds of humanistic things - don't execute him, provide rehab for the meth users.
But we're generally very against the meth dealer (unless the people are fans of meth, which exist on the right and left, but that's not the 'progressive position').
But they do say "hang on, turns out some people are born gay, and they deserve respect as people - don't discriminate because of bigotry. Don't say 'they can't marry' just because you're afraid of them or ignorant of them and think they're somehow 'doing evil' even if you can't explain that other than to say Hurricane Katrina happened to New Orleans because it had gay parades (sorry, Republican Mississippi for your blowjob).
Or that they belong executed or in jail or banned from security work or the military or teaching schoolkids or being rented to, all of which have happened.
(Religious teachings are more tricky, but if you cite that I'll ask why you don't follow other teachings equally - like the Bible saying a woman has to marry her rapist.
Discussing whether religion says what they think it says or they're just a modern version of people who used the bible to justify racism is a discussion.
And abortion is a unique issue where the right feels they are protecting innocent people from discrimination by the left, a reversal of the normal situation.)
Thing is, to many on the right it seems they can't tell the difference between #1 and #2. They think liberals are tolerant of each equally because they're just 'tolerant'.
And so they when they say, for example, "gays shouldn't be allowed to teach our kids, they want to recruit them and turn them gay" - liberal California had a ballot initiative on exactly this subject in the 1970's - and liberals say "you're a bigot and you're immoral for treating people with discrimination unjustly", they don't get it - all they're doing is standing up for what they believe, right? And ut comes the "I thougt you liberals were supposed to be tolerant" line.
Liberals are intolerant of bigotry as they should be. They fight for individual rights insofar as unjust discrimination. So they're for 'freedom of religion', as for being anti-discrimination - not the twisted version which says 'how dare you not let my religion be the official religion or not have prviliges more than others'. They fight against discrimination against women, against races, against the handicapped, against short people, against long haired people, against LGBT people, all kinds of groups.
Common theme there - unjust discrimination, bigotry and selfish reasons. It might just be men liking to keep the vote for themselves; or racism; or other bigotry.
A couple disclaimers.
Progressives make mistakes, are wrong at times. We still are in areas. A liberal a century ago was likely to be racist - it was in the air of the culture. Before that a liberal was one who beat his slaves less often. We have liberal commentators who attack Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for their weight. Blacks who are mostly liberal in many ways are a leading group of anti-gay bigotry. Liberals aren't perfect on the issue.
But progressive values generally follow these principles.
As for being intolerant of bigots? Proudly. Progressives opposed the bigots who wanted to deny women the vote, to have segregation, to deny rights to gays, and so on.
That's standing up for the rights of people, for values, against those lacking values who would discriminate against others wrongly - however much they don't even understand they're doing it, as anti-gay groups can have whole volumes discussing reasons to discriminate against gays without mentioning gays once - all under the word "family".
So, understand where progressives stand on 'tolerace' - tolerance where it's deserved. Not universal tolerance, for wrong.
Of course, I'm not saying the right supports univerals tolerance including wrong either; they seem to have a preference for the wrong, but the tolerance isn't universal.
Ya, that last point is a cheap shot, with some truth in it. The right isn't out to be evil, it stumbles into it. Once it does understand better it improves, somewhat. For example, few on the right are actively supporting as policy denying women the vote, or paying them less, or bringing back slavery or segregation. Now they oppose those things too. And later this century they might think opposing gay marriage is wrong, too. They just need liberals to teach them.
I can't think of a group the right has led the way on for anti-discrimination much, except gun owners. They use the 'tolerance' language - to demand more than equal rights.
One more comment: sometimes the left's 'tolerance' doesn't support the people in question, but opposes excessive discrimination. For example, that meth dealer above - arrest him, put him in jail - but the left while opposed to his actions will oppose his being executed, tortured, raped in jail, generally. The right too often views that as being 'for' the meth dealing, which is incorrect. It's possible to be against something with limits.
This is long enough that I won't say much here about the area of 'tolerant of free speech' - but sometimes opposition to a view is misunderstood as opposition to the right to free speech.
There are lines to draw between saying 'I disagree with your opinion to bring back slavery' and how that view - especially if in danger of becoming policy - should be fought.
There's speaking against it, there's non-violent civil disobedience, there's rioting, there's murder. Who wouldn't kill Hitler, to oppose the Holocaust?
I hope this helps the right understand the left's position better so we can not have post after post with sarcastic comments about the left being intolerant of intolerance.
Save234
Last edited:
The degrees of seperation would make for an interesting discussion.
I dont think its as wide as one would assume, considering the "recentness" of sodomy laws.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Not true:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerant
If you do not respect the beliefs opinions, usages, manners, etc, which are different from your own, you are a bigot and intolerant.
Liberals support tolerance of liberal positions.
See them calling anyone who is opposed to redefining marriage (to be inclusive of homosexuals, but not a host of other people) bigots and homophobes :\
There have been liberals on this very forum that were okay with a crack whore who had had 7 children removed from her, because she abused and neglected them, having more children if that is why she wanted :\
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
This is mentioned a lot, but I can address it. Unless the person is Jewish or living in the Biblically mandated land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), the Levitical Laws do not apply to them. And then even if they do, many of the laws cannot be applied today due to both the loss of the Temple and the loss of Semicha (Semicha is required in order to designate someone as a full religious judge - no judge means no court and no court ordered events).
We can get into the whole "why was it ever that way", but that is way OT.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,391
- 33,048
- 136
The religious nutbars call themselves Conservatives but everything they do goes against Conservative values and they are NOT Conservatives
One more thing.
The right largely seems to have a simple, black and white, 'you're for them or against them' view on this, at least for others.
So, let's say for the sake of discussion there's a 'conservative' who is bigoted against Muslims.
Now, two of my opinions are that we shoud treat Muslims with respect insofar as deserved, i.e., I'll tell the bigot he should not be bigoted, not be 'against building any more mosques in the US' as one example from the recent Republican primary; and another is that Muslims are a group with especially high bigotry against gays, which I oppose them on and will criticize them for.
So, on the one hand I'll tell the bigot, 'stop hating Muslims', and the next I'll say 'Muslims have too many in their group and too much teaching that is anti-gay bigotry'.
Problem is, the conservative can't seem to make sense of the fact of these views with one 'for' and one 'against', and so he demands to file it as either 'anti' or 'pro'. If I defend the building of a mosque then it's 'pro' and I can expect an earful about all his criticisms of Muslims he decides I now support - like 'terrorism'. I'm defending terrorism.
That really does seem to be a big problem that comes up again and again, this simple 'you're either totally for or against a group'. It's not the case.
The liberal is for fairness and justice; the conservative more often doesn't talk about that but about being 'for' or 'against' them.
The conservative has limits, as I noted earlier - but it's not hard to find inconsistencies.
If I said "do you think Muslims should not have the right to free speech", they'd likely say no, they should have that right; but try to get them excited about an actual situation on the issue, such as protesting that the US refusal to carry Al-Jazeera on cable channels, the lack of any 'Muslim point of view TV shows', is a problem. Hardly.
They're 'against' the group, so they're not about to fight for them to have more equal rights, they'd prefer there not be any such channels or shows.
The right largely seems to have a simple, black and white, 'you're for them or against them' view on this, at least for others.
So, let's say for the sake of discussion there's a 'conservative' who is bigoted against Muslims.
Now, two of my opinions are that we shoud treat Muslims with respect insofar as deserved, i.e., I'll tell the bigot he should not be bigoted, not be 'against building any more mosques in the US' as one example from the recent Republican primary; and another is that Muslims are a group with especially high bigotry against gays, which I oppose them on and will criticize them for.
So, on the one hand I'll tell the bigot, 'stop hating Muslims', and the next I'll say 'Muslims have too many in their group and too much teaching that is anti-gay bigotry'.
Problem is, the conservative can't seem to make sense of the fact of these views with one 'for' and one 'against', and so he demands to file it as either 'anti' or 'pro'. If I defend the building of a mosque then it's 'pro' and I can expect an earful about all his criticisms of Muslims he decides I now support - like 'terrorism'. I'm defending terrorism.
That really does seem to be a big problem that comes up again and again, this simple 'you're either totally for or against a group'. It's not the case.
The liberal is for fairness and justice; the conservative more often doesn't talk about that but about being 'for' or 'against' them.
The conservative has limits, as I noted earlier - but it's not hard to find inconsistencies.
If I said "do you think Muslims should not have the right to free speech", they'd likely say no, they should have that right; but try to get them excited about an actual situation on the issue, such as protesting that the US refusal to carry Al-Jazeera on cable channels, the lack of any 'Muslim point of view TV shows', is a problem. Hardly.
They're 'against' the group, so they're not about to fight for them to have more equal rights, they'd prefer there not be any such channels or shows.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
When will these cons ever learn the talk radio/media is BS?
I remember back in the heat of the Iraq war the meme was that liberals were pacifists too.
Conservatives seem to have finally learned that one was crap.
I have an idea cons, whenever reality makes no sense when it comes to what talk radio tells you, it's tabloid bullshit.
When someone tells me 2+2=5 they should be corrected and if they continue to believe they should be laughed at and derided.
If it screws up their little fantasyworld tabloid narrative then too bad, cons should try joining reality and lay off the "political soap opera for bored old dudes".
It's as annoying as listening to a old lady gossip about daytime soap opera relationships. And about as reality based.
Hey conservatives! Did you have a good time humping your dog last night when your wife went to bed? Cuz I heard you guys like that same-sex dog humping thing. And ya know...I heard it on TV/Radio/Internet it MUST be true...morons.
I remember back in the heat of the Iraq war the meme was that liberals were pacifists too.
Conservatives seem to have finally learned that one was crap.
I have an idea cons, whenever reality makes no sense when it comes to what talk radio tells you, it's tabloid bullshit.
When someone tells me 2+2=5 they should be corrected and if they continue to believe they should be laughed at and derided.
If it screws up their little fantasyworld tabloid narrative then too bad, cons should try joining reality and lay off the "political soap opera for bored old dudes".
It's as annoying as listening to a old lady gossip about daytime soap opera relationships. And about as reality based.
Hey conservatives! Did you have a good time humping your dog last night when your wife went to bed? Cuz I heard you guys like that same-sex dog humping thing. And ya know...I heard it on TV/Radio/Internet it MUST be true...morons.
Last edited:
zsdersw
Lifer
- Oct 29, 2003
- 10,505
- 2
- 0
Now now, no matter how many times I tell you that the defining characteristic of a bigot is his inability to see his bigotry, that he always reasons in a circle around what he cannot see, you still do it when you respond to my implication that how you think is bigoted.
What you have done here, for example, is turn my words on bigotry against homosexuality into your own interpretation of what I said. I didn't even mention or have in mind anything about gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage is a specific manifestation of anti gay bigotry not the core of the bigotry, which is the inculcated and unconsciously accepted notion that homosexual activity is evil and opposed by a Supreme Being, thereby justifying any and all religious folk who have not been transformed by the true meaning of the Christian religion, that we should love each other and not hate, into self justified actors for the Devil, monsters convinced without thought or analysis, that gay people are evil and justifiably exterminated, just as the Germans convinced themselves in their hideous need to blame somebody, that Jews are evil.
You personally may not go to that extreme but you provide aid and comfort to those who will by your unconscious acceptance that homosexuality is an evil. This is what makes your bigotry monstrous. You are on the side of evil by being self justified. Take away your sacred book and you are totally empty of any reasons for your holy opinion.
You are just not honest and conflate the redemptive potential of your religion with bigoted hate. You will not see that the bigotry of your holy book could not have come from God and had to come from bigoted men.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter