Liberal Tolerance

[jackstar7]

It seems that this requires pretty constant explanation, so why not have a discussion about it?

Liberal tolerance is about those things about a person that do not involve choice, including (and not limited to): sex, age, skin color, eye color, sexual preference, gender identity, disability, etc.

It does not include: choices and ideas.


Do I have this wrong? Does it need changing? Help me get it right.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think I know why you've said no to choices and ideas, but I disagree, at least to some extent. Religious belief is a choice and I think unless their expression of that belief involves being an ass to other people, IMO live and let live.

IMO:

Be excellent to each other.
Party on dude.

If someone starts being an ass to other people, being liberal and tolerant does not extend to tolerating that.

 

[sandorski]

I think I know why you've said no to choices and ideas, but I disagree, at least to some extent. Religious belief is a choice and I think unless their expression of that belief involves being an ass to other people, IMO live and let live.

IMO:

Be excellent to each other.
Party on dude.

If someone starts being an ass to other people, being liberal and tolerant does not extend to tolerating that.

Pretty much this.

 

[jackstar7]

I would say that frequently religious belief is not a choice, but I understand what you're saying. It's also something personal that ought to never affect another person... but we know how that goes.

I can absolutely get behind the Wyld Stallyns philosophical treatise though. Would that more people took that message to heart.

 

[Commodus]

One thing I'd add: the ideal of liberal tolerance is that you tolerate the expression of ideas, but you don't necessarily tolerate the ideas themselves. I support someone's right to claim that Islam is inherently evil and must be banned from the US; however, that doesn't change that this person is hateful and wrong, and that giving them the power to act on that idea would suppress others' rights.

In other words: you have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that people can't call you out on your crap.

 

[jackstar7]

Real Liberals are tolerant.
What is protetsting outside of Trump Tower,probably not.

What makes you say that?

This is the discussion area of the boards, so please elaborate on your point so discussion can be had.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It seems that this requires pretty constant explanation, so why not have a discussion about it?

Liberal tolerance is about those things about a person that do not involve choice, including (and not limited to): sex, age, skin color, eye color, sexual preference, gender identity, disability, etc.

It does not include: choices and ideas.


Do I have this wrong? Does it need changing? Help me get it right.

It's not accurate since race (white privilege)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
and gender (male privilege)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege
don't involve choice, but are still used to persecute a goodly portion of the population in this country. That somehow men can be blamed for their gender or that Caucasians should be blamed for their race.

 

[jackstar7]

It's not accurate since race (white privilege)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
and gender (male privilege)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_privilege
don't involve choice, but are still used to persecute a goodly portion of the population in this country. That somehow men can be blamed for their gender or that Caucasians should be blamed for their race.

What blame?

Those concepts merely ask that people appreciate their lives in those roles lack of systemic persecution and harassment. Seems pretty reasonable.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I support someone's right to claim that Islam is inherently evil and must be banned from the US; however, that doesn't change that this person is hateful and wrong, and that giving them the power to act on that idea would suppress others' rights.

Person 1 - Gay people must be killed

Person 2 - People who say "gay people must be killed" should not be allowed to enter this country

Why is Person 1 acceptable but Person 2 not acceptable? What about that statement makes Person 2 "hateful and wrong"?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What blame?

Those concepts merely ask that people appreciate their lives in those roles lack of systemic persecution and harassment. Seems pretty reasonable.

It classifies all white people as racists and all men misogynists without requiring any action on an individual basis. It target a group of people for blame even if they are blameless. Hardly a "tolerant" viewpoint.

 

[jackstar7]

It classifies all white people as racists and all men misogynists without requiring any action on an individual basis. It target a group of people for blame even if they are blameless. Hardly a "tolerant" viewpoint.

It doesn't actually do that. If you're going to purport that it does, then back that up with the evidence to support it, please.

 

[Craig234]

Person 1 - Gay people must be killed

Person 2 - People who say "gay people must be killed" should not be allowed to enter this country

Why is Person 1 acceptable but Person 2 not acceptable? What about that statement makes Person 2 "hateful and wrong"?

Here's why.

The view "gay people must be killed" is repugnant.

But, repugnant is part of freedom. If you do kill a person for being gay, you get punished for murder, because enough citizens disagree with you.

In our democracy, we could bring back slavery or kill all gay people or nuke Canada if people voted for it (enough to change the constitution).

Now, we might like to have some sort of litmus test - you can't come to America if you have repugnant views. Then, even if you do that, you get into an issue of practicality - one is where to draw the line? How about, "gay people should not be allowed to marry"? Another is, are you going to interview everyone, and trust their answers?

It's just not practical. And in cases where someone is known to have been especially offensive, we actually do block a number of people on that basis.

(Just as the UK barred Donald trump entering their country).

The problem with #2 is, it's likely to be a mask for bigotry. "Hm, I hate Muslims. How can I get them banned? I know! Use the bigotry card and say it's to protect gays!"

So, we don't let #2 get out of hand, with people saying "lots of Muslims are anti-gay, let's ban all Muslims."

Hope that helps with the reasons.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

The view "gay people must be killed" is repugnant.

Agreed.

But, repugnant is part of freedom. If you do kill a person for being gay, you get punished for murder, because enough citizens disagree with you.

Yet predominately moslem countries do punish homosexuality, some with death. So in those countries you may not be punished, or only lightly punished, for killing a homosexual, if the state doesn't kill them for you.

In our democracy, we could bring back slavery or kill all gay people or nuke Canada if people voted for it (enough to change the constitution).

Yes, but we don't because we aren't a predominately moslem country. FWIW, slavery is still not illegal in many moslem countries, and is still widely practiced, even in Saudi Arabia where it is "illegal."

Now, we might like to have some sort of litmus test - you can't come to America if you have repugnant views. Then, even if you do that, you get into an issue of practicality - one is where to draw the line? How about, "gay people should not be allowed to marry"? Another is, are you going to interview everyone, and trust their answers?

It's just not practical. And in cases where someone is known to have been especially offensive, we actually do block a number of people on that basis.

(Just as the UK barred Donald trump entering their country)

Why not ban them all until their society bans those practices? If they were to become a majority here, whether it happened in 10 years or 100, they very well could make slavery legal and homosexuality illegal.

The problem with #2 is, it's likely to be a mask for bigotry. "Hm, I hate Muslims. How can I get them banned? I know! Use the bigotry card and say it's to protect gays!"

So, we don't let #2 get out of hand, with people saying "lots of Muslims are anti-gay, let's ban all Muslims."

There are several more reasons to keep them out, that one just tends to resonate more with liberals than others, even more so than their oppression of women.

 

[agent00f]

Politics is interesting in that many of the people above know they're not qualified to post in the other threads here but seem to know everything about this.

 

[Craig234]

Reply 13 seems to have a lot of Muslim bigotry and double standards.

If we're going to start banning people from countries with bad behavior, how about Americans not allowed to visit anywhere over the Iraq War, arms sales and other things?

 

[mikeymikec]

AnonymouseUser, don't you think it's a touch hypocritical to be talking about banning people because they're not progressive enough for you when your sig includes a link labelled 'Bring back the Crusades', for which that site's 'about' page says this:

Western Spring is a growing British-based movement representing the interests of White people everywhere, but in particular the interests of the White people indigenous to the British Isles: the English, the Irish, the Welsh and the Scots. As such, our aims are inextricably linked to the cause of Western civilisation – steeped in history and tradition as it is – while at the same time concerned with the vital task of renewal and of forging radical new tactics and survival strategies if our people are to have the energy, the confidence and the will needed to survive and thrive in an increasingly hostile world.

and from another page on the site says this:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/essential-truths/

The BNP at its zenith consisted of some 14,000 members, but has now been reduced to around 2,500, even counting those people who bought life membership, many of whom now want nothing more to do with the party. Of the other groups that exist, none has more than a few hundred members and some have as few as a dozen.

This is a deplorable state of affairs and not one that I describe to you with any pleasure, however it is necessary for nationalists to confront this uncomfortable truth if we are to make any headway in promoting our cause and saving the British people from genetic and cultural obliteration.

Wow dude. I'm just wondering if I read any more from that site whether I'll find an anti-homosexual agenda as well....

and what a surprise:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/homosexuality-and-society/

Time to go for the hat-trick:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/feminism-an-aberration/

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Wow dude. I'm just wondering if I read any more from that site whether I'll find an anti-homosexual agenda as well....

and what a surprise:

http://www.westernspring.co.uk/homosexuality-and-society/

Good read. Thanks for sharing.

Posts like this are not allowed here in the Discussion Club.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[AnonymouseUser]

If we're going to start banning people from countries with bad behavior, how about Americans not allowed to visit anywhere over the Iraq War, arms sales and other things?

I did not and do not support those atrocities.

 

[Ancalagon44]

One thing I'd add: the ideal of liberal tolerance is that you tolerate the expression of ideas, but you don't necessarily tolerate the ideas themselves. I support someone's right to claim that Islam is inherently evil and must be banned from the US; however, that doesn't change that this person is hateful and wrong, and that giving them the power to act on that idea would suppress others' rights.

In other words: you have a right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that people can't call you out on your crap.

Tell that to speakers who have been uninvited from universities because of how controversial their ideas are. There was a Muslim woman who had a politically incorrect opinion of Islam - banned from speaking.

I can look for other examples, and there are many.

Look at the couple from... was it Yale or Harvard - that were forced to resign because he or she wrote an email urging their students to be tolerant even of costumes that were offensive.

Look at the Canadian university students who snatched a Trump supporters hat off his head.

Look at the violence that Clinton supporters have inflicted upon Trump supporters.

Look at Twitters recent purging of alt-right people.

If one thing is clear, liberals do not like other opinions, at all. If anything is even remotely offensive, you not only ban the expression of it, but you try to shame people who have that idea into thinking they are inferior human beings.

Voted for Trump? Racist, sexist misogynist. Possibly all three.

Female and voted for Trump? Definitely Stockholm syndrome.

Don't like Hilary Clinton? It's because you don't want a female president.

 

[jackstar7]

This thread is in the Discussion Club.

Please abide by the goals of this area of the board and be open to discussion. This is not a platform for ranting. If it is clear you have no desire to have your mind changed, please head back to P&N.


If it helps, think of this as a the CMV area of Reddit.

 

[Craig234]

I did not and do not support those atrocities.

Yet you talk about banning everyone from a country even if they did not supporting something bad the country does.

 

[Craig234]

If one thing is clear, liberals do not like other opinions, at all.

You are confusing something.

Opposing people who lie terribly and post hate speech is one thing. People who disagree without those things are something else.

So liberals do not oppose other opinions. They oppose people lying and they oppose hate speech.

But you are equating lying and hate speech with all disagreement with liberals. It might seem that way, but they're not the same thing.

And you are not persecuted from expressing legitimate opininions by not being allowed to post egregious lies and hate speech.

Remember that's the crowd responsible for things like years of lying that Obama wasn't born in the US. How is demanding evidence for that position, and when there is none pointing out that it's
irresponsible lying and limiting its promotion, opposing legitimate opinions?

It's a tricky issue because people who abused the power could censor the truth claiming it's false, but on the other hand the so-called alt right crowd is capable of both destroying the environment for speech smothering it in lies, and in forming dangerous movements promoting harm to innocent people. So, sorry, but this balance is the right one.

And it has nothing to do with not liking legitimate different opinions.

Voted for Trump? Racist, sexist misogynist. Possibly all three.

Female and voted for Trump? Definitely Stockholm syndrome.

Don't like Hilary Clinton? It's because you don't want a female president.

I'll agree with you that not every trump voter fit those categories.

But on the other hand, supporting trump did largely support those policies. So even if you voted for trump for other reasons, you helped those issues also. Just as if you voted for Hillary for something like her better position on climate change, you got her foreign policy as part of the package.

And I'll agree many Hillary supporters wrongly attacked all trump voters as having those motives.

On the other hand I think a lot of bigots don't realize they're bigots.

Trump did promote racism, and sexism, in various ways. And it's right to criticize that and note that supporting him for whatever reason, includes supporting him on those things.

 

[agent00f]

Yet you talk about banning everyone from a country even if they did not supporting something bad the country does.

Perhaps more notably he also enthuses about ethnic cleansing them.

Let's tell it like it is: a lot of people want to say this and that about other (usually ethnic) groups without fear of being looked down upon. This is particularly the case if they grew up doing it and enjoy the company of others who do it. That's why they despise "political correctness", because who are these establishment elitist libtards to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.

The accusation is said libtards are "intolerant" of these people. As is often the case, this is a definitional/linguistic dilemma where two somewhat differing concepts are represented by the same word.

When libtards talk about tolerance, they're talking about treating everyone fairly. I'm sure there are really shitty muslims who deserve that's coming to them, to whom acceptance as respectable equals do not apply.

When the conservative critics are using "tolerance" here, they mean everyone and anyone literally the same, even them, when clearly that's not how the word was meant. For some of their slower representatives, it might be the case they just can't figure out that others' usage of a term might not match theirs, but IMO not all of them operate at that level.

 

[Ancalagon44]

But you are equating lying and hate speech with all disagreement with liberals. It might seem that way, but they're not the same thing.

No, looks to me like you are doing that.

Liberals hate other opinions, period, whether they are lying or hate speech or not.

It is quite convenient to call opinions you don't agree with, hate speech.

Hell there was a feminist professor in the US who had her class lodge a grievance against her for something trivial, like asking whether people were too sensitive these days.

Was this hate speech?

Here is another example. Was that lady - a progressive feminist no less - guilty of hate speech?

I can dig up more examples, if you want. There are PLENTY. It is interesting that your first instinct would be label all such examples as hate speech.

Did the professor in the first example commit hate speech when he sent that letter out? Which group was he inciting violence towards by urging them to be more tolerant of each other?

 

[Craig234]

I see no room for civil or constructive discussion with this one.