Again on the intolerant 'left' ...

[Yerda]

I asked in another thread what it means to tolerate opposing opinions.

In conditions of tolerance, citizens agree to respect the right of others to hold and express views that they might regard as mistaken, foolish or objectionable and perhaps even pernicious. The bounds of tolerance are, however, subject to the constraint that the basic rights of others – including their rights to express and openly advocate their views – are respected and protected. Crucially, tolerance does not involve suspending all judgment and criticism concerning the ideological commitments of other groups and parties. Much less does tolerance presuppose that all groups hold equally ‘valid’ or worthwhile views or outlooks.

Why religious identities are not immune to robust criticism | Aeon Essays

You tolerate opposing opinions when you respect the rights of other to hold and express them.

 

[Revoltingest]

In conditions of tolerance, citizens agree to respect the right of others to hold and express views that they might regard as mistaken, foolish or objectionable and perhaps even pernicious. The bounds of tolerance are, however, subject to the constraint that the basic rights of others – including their rights to express and openly advocate their views – are respected and protected. Crucially, tolerance does not involve suspending all judgment and criticism concerning the ideological commitments of other groups and parties. Much less does tolerance presuppose that all groups hold equally ‘valid’ or worthwhile views or outlooks.

Why religious identities are not immune to robust criticism | Aeon Essays

You tolerate opposing opinions when you respect the rights of other to hold and express them.

Sounds good to me.
I wonder how widely held this view is?

 

[idav]

In conditions of tolerance, citizens agree to respect the right of others to hold and express views that they might regard as mistaken, foolish or objectionable and perhaps even pernicious. The bounds of tolerance are, however, subject to the constraint that the basic rights of others – including their rights to express and openly advocate their views – are respected and protected. Crucially, tolerance does not involve suspending all judgment and criticism concerning the ideological commitments of other groups and parties. Much less does tolerance presuppose that all groups hold equally ‘valid’ or worthwhile views or outlooks.

Why religious identities are not immune to robust criticism | Aeon Essays

You tolerate opposing opinions when you respect the rights of other to hold and express them.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Sanzbir]

Worst remains to be seen, I said most controversial.

No. This is what you said:

one of the most bigoted presidents in history.

You did not say most controversial. You said "bigoted".

Which is historically ignorant given the amount of bigotry present in American presidents historically.

If you're going to lie about what you said you should at least go back and edit your original post to reflect your statement about its contents. That'd make the deception work better.

 

[idav]

No. This is what you said:



You did not say most controversial. You said "bigoted".

Which is historically ignorant given the amount of bigotry present in American presidents historically.

If you're going to lie about what you said you should at least go back and edit your original post to reflect your statement about its contents. That'd make the deception work better.

You'll notice I italicized "one" of the most bigoted. See post 38 for my broader stroke claim, "the most controversial". Unlike some people I use qualifiers when necessary cause you posters pay too close attention and I might get called on it almost immediately.

 

[Sanzbir]

You'll notice I italicized "one" of the most bigoted. See post 38 for my broader stroke claim, "the most controversial". Unlike some people I use qualifiers when necessary cause you posters pay too close attention and I might get called on it almost immediately.

Yes, but even with one highlighted I don't see how it compares to, say, every president before 1960 (and a few after that date even). I think you lack perspective. Even Lincoln wanted to deport black people after freeing them from slavery because he thought the races were "incompatible". I'd say the vast majority, even supermajority, of presidents were more bigoted than Trump. Which isn't to excuse Trump, it's just historical reality of historical bigotry.

I did not address your broader stroke claim, I responded to your comment about "the most bigoted" with confusion.

So your reply of:

I don't know why the claim confuses you, Trump will go down as the most controversial president in history.

What was that meant to say??

"Trump will be one of the most bigoted presidents in history!!"
"That confuses me because there are plenty of bigots."
"Why would that confuse you?? He will be one of the most controversial presidents!!"

So how does your reply of him being most controversial prove he is most bigoted?? Your comment, in full context, is a non-sequitur.

So from what I gather you are either trying to change the subject mid-conversation because you don't want to defend the comment you originally made, or you claimed with your comment that bigotry and controversy are the same thing.

Either way, now I'm just more confused as to what the devil you are even trying to argue at this point in time. It's either that controversy proved bigotry, or just a bunch of non-sequitur.

 

[idav]

Yes, but even with one highlighted I don't see how it compares to, say, every president before 1960 (and a few after that date even). I think you lack perspective. Even Lincoln wanted to deport black people after freeing them from slavery because he thought the races were "incomparable". I'd say the vast majority, even supermajority, of presidents were more bigoted than Trump. Which isn't co

I did not address your broader stroke claim, I responded to your comment about "the most bigoted" with confusion.

So your reply of:



What was that meant to say??

"Trump will be one of the most bigoted presidents in history!!"
"That confuses me because there are plenty of bigots."
"Why would that confuse you?? He will be one of the most controversial presidents!!"

So how does your reply of him being most controversial prove he is most bigoted?? Your comment, in full context, is a non-sequitur.

So from what I gather you are either trying to change the subject mid-conversation because you don't want to defend the comment you originally made, or you claimed with your comment that bigotry and controversy are the same thing.

Either way, now I'm just more confused as to what the devil you are even trying to argue at this point in time. It's either that controversy proved bigotry, or just a bunch of non-sequitur.

Well don't be confused, you took out my qualifier which is called quote mining. One of the most bigoted, wow, I guess italicizing it was no help. No it's simple, as bigoted as far back as you want to go, Trump will be top of the list almost as bad as Wallace but Wallace never made it to the White House.

This has been said for over a year.
Trump and the racist ghost of George Wallace

 

[Sanzbir]

Well don't be confused, you took out my qualifier which is called quote mining. One of the most bigoted, wow, I guess italicizing it was no help. No it's simple, as bigoted as far back as you want to go, Trump will be top of the list almost as bad as Wallace but Wallace never made it to the White House.

This has been said for over a year.
Trump and the racist ghost of George Wallace

No, I left the qualifier in. But it still baffles me because when considering all presidents, he is not even "one of the most". Because there's a LOT of competition in that category. And it still baffles me that you are now ignoring your attempt at a subject-change.

He is not more bigoted than the man who threw people into concentration camps for their ethnicity. He is not more bigoted than the many men who wanted to keep black people in slavery. He is not more bigoted than even the man who freed the slaves but wanted to deport them all back to Africa because he felt they were genetically inferior.

If you let me go back as far as I want then there are plenty of US presidents who top him on the list. Trump, for all his faults, doesn't even come close to the top of the list. Again, that's what I'm saying, you are either historically ignorant, or trying to whitewash America's bigoted past.

Because if you, as you say, want to take it as far back as I want to go in the history of presidents, Trump is not at the top of the bigot list. He's not even close.

But you want to ignore America's uncomfortable history, I guess??

 

[idav]

No, I left the qualifier in. But it still baffles me because when considering all presidents, he is not even "one of the most". Because there's a LOT of competition in that category. And it still baffles me that you are now ignoring your attempt at a subject-change.

He is not more bigoted than the man who threw people into concentration camps for their ethnicity. He is not more bigoted than the many men who wanted to keep black people in slavery. He is not more bigoted than even the man who freed the slaves but wanted to deport them all back to Africa because he felt they were genetically inferior.

If you let me go back as far as I want then there are plenty of US presidents who top him on the list. Trump, for all his faults, doesn't even come close to the top of the list. Again, that's what I'm saying, you are either historically ignorant, or trying to whitewash America's bigoted past.

Because if you, as you say, want to take it as far back as I want to go in the history of presidents, Trump is not at the top of the bigot list. He's not even close.

But you want to ignore America's uncomfortable history, I guess??

I'm open for some examples but your not even giving names, unless I missed it. Trump even goes down as one of the only presidents to make electoral officials second guess voter decisions.

 

[Sanzbir]

I'm open for some examples but your not even giving names, unless I missed it. Trump even goes down as one of the only presidents to make electoral officials second guess voter decisions.

...

Okay. I get it. Historically illiteracy drove your comments. Because generally speaking the presidents I mentioned are common knowledge.

Alright, so first thing you need to know is that many of the first presidents, such as Washington, as one example, were slave-owners. And most of the first presidents up until Lincoln wanted to keep slavery legal. I apologize, as I thought this was common knowledge.

Franklin Roosevelt literally threw Japanese-Americans into concentration camps because of their race. Again, I apologize, as this is generally also considered common knowledge.

Lincoln, who freed the slaves, was ethically opposed to slavery, sure, but was still horribly bigoted and believed and stated that the races of "white" and "black" were "incompatible", and advocated deporting all of the freed slaves to Africa. Ironically enough, he was assassinated before he could get to that phase of his slave-freeing plans. So even Lincoln was more bigoted than Trump.

Granted, that last one is not common knowledge, like the other facts (Americans tend to whitewash Lincoln of his flaws), but that is why I stated that it was the president who freed the slaves, because the fact that the identity of the president who freed the slaves was Lincoln, again, tends to be common knowledge for society at large.

But I am no longer confused by your stance!! If you were this ignorant on history that you didn't know about the slave-owning presidents, American-run concentration camps, and casual racism of many American presidents, than I can totally see where you were coming from!!

If you were unable to tell from my references which presidents I was talking about, when such facts are generally common knowledge, I can understand how you would think Trump will be "one of the most bigoted" since you are that ignorant of American history and its bigotry.

Also if you need more bigots to add to your historical knowledge, as I now understand you may indeed need the education on the matter:

Jackson slaughtered and forcibly deported Native Americans to the point he was nicknamed the "Indian killer". Jackson and Van Buren together deported Native Americans to barren desert wasteland in what is now called the "Trail of Tears".

Theodore Roosevelt kicked Native Americans out of their hunting grounds because he wanted his own private parks to play in.

Arthur forbade Chinese people specifically from immigrating to the country in what was originally only supposed to be a 10 year ban, but Harrison later made it permanent.

In addition to Washington mentioned above, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson and even Grant all owned slaves.

Polk stole vast amounts of land from Mexico.

Pretty much any president you pick before the 1950's was a racist on some level, and made racist comments.

And even if you want to go more modern, we had Clinton calling black youth "superpredators" back in the day, Clinton enacting the Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell putting open LGBT people out of the military, Bush supporting profiling Muslim Americans with the No-Fly List, and Obama also supporting profiling Muslim Americans with endorsing the effort to expand the No-Fly List to revoke second amendment rights from those Muslim Americans targeted as well!!

So yeah!! Bigotry is notable all throughout the American Presidencies!! It's not new!!

But if you didn't even know about the concentration camps, I can understand how all of this might seem new to you.

 

[gnomon]

Is the issue one of intolerance towards nativism and bigotry or how that intolerance manifests?
At what point does tolerance become facilitation?

Dear God what another useless exercise.

 

[Spiderman]

Alot of smart people here. This thread is full of pearls

 

[idav]

...

Okay. I get it. Historically illiteracy drove your comments. Because generally speaking the presidents I mentioned are common knowledge.

Alright, so first thing you need to know is that many of the first presidents, such as Washington, as one example, were slave-owners. And most of the first presidents up until Lincoln wanted to keep slavery legal. I apologize, as I thought this was common knowledge.

Franklin Roosevelt literally threw Japanese-Americans into concentration camps because of their race. Again, I apologize, as this is generally also considered common knowledge.

Lincoln, who freed the slaves, was ethically opposed to slavery, sure, but was still horribly bigoted and believed and stated that the races of "white" and "black" were "incompatible", and advocated deporting all of the freed slaves to Africa. Ironically enough, he was assassinated before he could get to that phase of his slave-freeing plans. So even Lincoln was more bigoted than Trump.

Granted, that last one is not common knowledge, like the other facts (Americans tend to whitewash Lincoln of his flaws), but that is why I stated that it was the president who freed the slaves, because the fact that the identity of the president who freed the slaves was Lincoln, again, tends to be common knowledge for society at large.

But I am no longer confused by your stance!! If you were this ignorant on history that you didn't know about the slave-owning presidents, American-run concentration camps, and casual racism of many American presidents, than I can totally see where you were coming from!!

If you were unable to tell from my references which presidents I was talking about, when such facts are generally common knowledge, I can understand how you would think Trump will be "one of the most bigoted" since you are that ignorant of American history and its bigotry.

Also if you need more bigots to add to your historical knowledge, as I now understand you may indeed need the education on the matter:

Jackson slaughtered and forcibly deported Native Americans to the point he was nicknamed the "Indian killer". Jackson and Van Buren together deported Native Americans to barren desert wasteland in what is now called the "Trail of Tears".

Theodore Roosevelt kicked Native Americans out of their hunting grounds because he wanted his own private parks to play in.

Arthur forbade Chinese people specifically from immigrating to the country in what was originally only supposed to be a 10 year ban, but Harrison later made it permanent.

In addition to Washington mentioned above, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson and even Grant all owned slaves.

Polk stole vast amounts of land from Mexico.

Pretty much any president you pick before the 1950's was a racist on some level, and made racist comments.

And even if you want to go more modern, we had Clinton calling black youth "superpredators" back in the day, Clinton enacting the Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell putting open LGBT people out of the military, Bush supporting profiling Muslim Americans with the No-Fly List, and Obama also supporting profiling Muslim Americans with endorsing the effort to expand the No-Fly List to revoke second amendment rights from those Muslim Americans targeted as well!!

So yeah!! Bigotry is notable all throughout the American Presidencies!! It's not new!!

But if you didn't even know about the concentration camps, I can understand how all of this might seem new to you.

Jeez I am not going to correct all your ill assumptions of my knowledge. There is more to all of that for example Washington often talked of ending slavery. Plus Trumps already being equated with concentration camps so that's covered too. There is plenty of fuel Trump has given, talking horribly of almost any minority group I can think of. Your just being condescending now, good day.

 

[Revoltingest]

Alot of smart people here. This thread is full of pearls

Aye, people keep casting them before me.

 

[Politesse]

Real tolerance does not tolerate the violation of another man's rights.
Real tolerance understands that being offended and having your rights violated are not the same thing.
Tolerance celebrates the differences in humanity rather than judges them.
Tolerance understands the difference between an addiction and an addicted person.
Tolerance is an act of love not hate.

One cannot oppose the violation of rights, and also celebrate those who do the violating. If someone expresses a desire to expel non-whites from the country, allowing that to go unchallenged is not showing "love" to them, but encouraging them along a path that will harm both themselves and others.