Do liberals really believe the “golden rule”

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Is this hypocrisy?

So, in your mind, intolerance is fulfilling the Golden Rule?

It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress

That must suck, being told someone else's morality is the only true morality.

Any examples?

We prefer causing no harm to people. We should be ashamed ourselves by not tolerating those who don't see other people as people deserving of rights.

Many conservatives I know tend to be "I got/want mine, Jack. Screw you".

Or, "I didn't get mine like the Fuhrer said I would, so I'm going to make sure no one else gets it either."

You’re lumping all conservatives as hateful

You're the one with the OP suggesting that the Golden Rule is about being intolerant to others and why oh why can't people just let you do it?

This is the path one takes if he is fearful, resentful, indifferent, and/or selfish. To him, the world is a dangerous place. He can't have enough guns or walls. He can't hoard enough.

And it's stupid because this isn't the 18th century and the government doesn't care how many assault rifles you have, as tanks and nukes and other such things make such "preparations" look laughable in comparison.

If the government wanted you dead, you'd be dead.

This is the reaction of a person who feels safe, that he has enough, and connected to those around himself. It's conducive to tolerance, kindness, and sharing.

People living a crappy life CAN be sharing, though. Even in the bible, Jesus was more impressed with the woman who gave what she had left versus those who only gave a small percentage of what they were worth. I've seen lots of videos where they do experiments, giving homeless people money, and they GIVE, not TAKE. A recent example is a homeless guy who gave a stranded person his last 20 bucks. Now, through crowdfunding, he bought his own home. Conservatives of certain stripes want us to believe it's all dog eat dog, but that's simply not the case. The lion can lie down with the lamb. Dogs and cats can get along. It's just not really that hard. They don't WANT to, is the problem.

You’re fooling yourself if you think liberals are not tribal.

My tribe is everyone on Earth (until aliens are a confirmed thing). Why think so small?

 

[sun rise]

...
My tribe is everyone on Earth (until aliens are a confirmed thing). Why think so small?

Amen.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Liberals always say they treat others like they would want to be treated more than conservatives do. Then comes their famous quote “I don’t tolerate intolerenace”(course most of it isn’t intolerance. It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress). Is this hypocrisy?

Both liberals and conservatives can be hypocritical. However, conservatives are FAR more guilty of the practice. Like spending the past 8 years insisting that reducing the deficit is their number one priority and THEN passing a tax bill that adds at LEAST a trillion dollars to the deficit. Unfortunately their followers are too ignorant to realize that they're constantly getting screwed over.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Never a fan of the golden rule myself. I do what I do because I believe it to be the right thing to do. You do what you feel is the right thing to do.

Hopefully we can find common ground within that.

But isn't the golden rule a pretty reliable means of figuring out what the right thing to do is? After all, if you don't like the thought of someone steeling your stuff, then you probably shouldn't steel other people's stuff. If you don't like the thought of being raped by another person then you probably shouldn't rape other people. If you don't like the thought of another person murdering you then you probably shouldn't murder other people. Not sure what there is about such a philosophy to not be a fan of.

 

[Kenny]

But how that gets played out is different, such as we're now seeing with this new budget proposal and how the two parties are reacting differently to it. Even though there is some overlap between the two, nevertheless that is a rather distinct difference between them, especially when it comes to the safety-net, as well as how they deal with minorities and some other thingys as well.

Maybe pray on this over the weekend. And remember, it's "pray for people" not "prey on people".

Yes, it is night and day although our individual positions are not so black and white.

As my wife is from Venezuela as is a good part of Venezuelan native indian, trust me when I say that I understand minorities. And as an American who lived in a foreign country, I also understand what it is to be a minority

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yup. It's why I don't like the Golden Rule, the self-righteous (literally), self-promotion of morality.

There are many versions of the Golden Rule, and they are all very subtly different from one another. The Christian version is generally given as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I personally find this inadequate, and potentially even dangerous. (I'll poke fun at myself and say that as a gay man, when talking to an very attractive straight man, the Golden Rule stated that way seems to give me rather more license than I think would be considered acceptable. )

I prefer the version that says, "do not do to others that which you would find hateful if done to yourself." Because it is stated that way, it does not give me any right or license to do anything to anyone -- only constrains me from doing things to others that I wouldn't like if they did it to me. Seems to work quite well, in my view.

 

[Vaderecta]

Liberals always say they treat others like they would want to be treated more than conservatives do. Then comes their famous quote “I don’t tolerate intolerenace”(course most of it isn’t intolerance. It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress). Is this hypocrisy?

You are already separating yourself whether you subscribe to a liberal view or some other view. You are never going to offer a unique or constructive argument until you realize you are not some labeled team member but are just who you are. You might like the way the New York Yankees play on the field but you are not on the field. Even the players on the field may not be New York Yankees for long.

There is the driving need to split into groups so you have something to say and can argue against or for various ideas. Most Yankee and Red Sox fans I know are all american yet they would kill each other over the divide in their beliefs in a sports team. What is going on there? Why do republicans want to kill Democrats and that latin phrase for the opposite? Almost all people in the US are on the same team and the people on the other team are having a bit of fun finding ways to pit them against each other. Black lives matter vs All lives matter or Blue lives matter. Blacks vs Whites. Trump supporters vs anti-trumpers. People see categories and rush to fill the bleachers and fulfill the role as best they can instead of being who they really are.

 

[Sleeppy]

Healthcare is one of the best examples.

Daniel Doherty - Reminder: Every Senate Democrat Voted in Favor of Exempting Themselves From Obamacare

Not just Democrats..

And it's actually not an exemption from Obamacare altogether; it's a work-around to get the subsidies they enjoyed before. Still wrong.

 

[Politesse]

Liberals always say they treat others like they would want to be treated more than conservatives do. Then comes their famous quote “I don’t tolerate intolerenace”(course most of it isn’t intolerance. It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress). Is this hypocrisy?

Who ever promised to treat others as they would want to be treated? That sounds like a diasastrous policy that would allow the selfish and self-interested to flourish at the expense of the good; they would want to be treated with deference and submission, and would be under no obligation to return the favor.

The Golden Rule, as it was taught to me, says not to treat others as you yourself would not wish to be treated. That, I can get behind a little more. And I don't see how not tolerating hatred and bigtory and so forth makes me a hypocrite. If I were to say something cruel or bigoted, I certainly hope my friends would call me out on it. I am not afraid to confront the biases against others with which I was raised; sometimes it hurts to have these things pointed out, yes, but without that basic honesty and self-examination, the world will not progress.

Are liberals themselves sometimes hypocrites? Of course they are. Hypocrisy is a very popular human pastime, regardless of politics. But I don't see opposing intolerance as this. Indeed, claiming to dislike bigotry, while knowingly allowing it to fester in one's society unchallenged, would seem much more hypocritical to me. If there's something I don't like in liberal society, it's how easily the liberal elite forgets to call out prejudice when it benefits them personally; they are happy to decry things like imperial conquest in theory, for instance, but much less keen on actually returning land rights to indigenous peoples.

 

[QuestioningMind]

There are many versions of the Golden Rule, and they are all very subtly different from one another. The Christian version is generally given as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I personally find this inadequate, and potentially even dangerous. (I'll poke fun at myself and say that as a gay man, when talking to an very attractive straight man, the Golden Rule stated that way seems to give me rather more license than I think would be considered acceptable. )

I prefer the version that says, "do not do to others that which you would find hateful if done to yourself." Because it is stated that way, it does not give me any right or license to do anything to anyone -- only constrains me from doing things to others that I wouldn't like if they did it to me. Seems to work quite well, in my view.

" when talking to an very attractive straight man, the Golden Rule stated that way seems to give me rather more license than I think would be considered acceptable."

How so? Unless you think it's okay for people to make unwanted sexual advances against you, why would you believe that this gives you a license to make unwanted sexual advances against someone else?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(I'll poke fun at myself and say that as a gay man, when talking to an very attractive straight man, the Golden Rule stated that way seems to give me rather more license than I think would be considered acceptable. )

How I poke fun at it is that although I love getting pierced, I don't think too many people would much appreciate if I walked around with some clamps and needles and offered to pierce them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

" when talking to an very attractive straight man, the Golden Rule stated that way seems to give me rather more license than I think would be considered acceptable."

How so? Unless you think it's okay for people to make unwanted sexual advances against you, why would you believe that this gives you a license to make unwanted sexual advances against someone else?

Look a little closer, and you'll see that you have simply supported what I wrote. You seem to be having trouble with positive and negative formulations. Let me try to show you.

Let's begin with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If that is the Golden Rule that I followed, then I can think of quite a few things that I would have that attractive man do unto me -- and therefore that version of the GR suggests that I should therefore go right ahead and do those things "unto him."

My version says, "do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself." I would not want that attractive man to hit me, or steal from me, or a whole bunch of others things. But while the things I would like him to do to me remain unchanged, my version of the GR does not grant me any rights in respect of doing them to him.

 

[Scott C.]

Liberals always say they treat others like they would want to be treated more than conservatives do. Then comes their famous quote “I don’t tolerate intolerenace”(course most of it isn’t intolerance. It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress). Is this hypocrisy?

I believe that neither liberals nor conservatives have a corner on hypocrisy, when it comes to the Golden Rule. I see plenty from both groups. Unfortunately, I probably have my own share of hypocrisy.

"I tolerate all ideas except hatred". That sounds reasonable on the surface. But self righteousness, bias, and ignorance often make people believe their ideas are based on love while the opposition's are based on hatred.

Most people who support or oppose most issues that come before society, base their position on what they believe will help most people in the best way.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's about claiming victimhood. When called out for being a bigot, the bigot gets to claim "you're bigoted against bigots! Therefore I am the REAL victim here!" It's ridiculous and stupid, but you'll see this tactic all the time.

 

[Altfish]

What does political leans have to do with a religious principle?

That question has always baffled me, especially in the US.
Now, I am not religious, but was taught all about Jesus as a kid, and read/studied the Bible as part of my RE lessons. If Jesus was around today he'd be to the left of Bernie Sanders by a long way. Yet the GOP have managed to fool the evangelicals and most of the other religious groups into following their right wing policies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That question has always baffled me, especially in the US.
Now, I am not religious, but was taught all about Jesus as a kid, and read/studied the Bible as part of my RE lessons. If Jesus was around today he'd be to the left of Bernie Sanders by a long way. Yet the GOP have managed to fool the evangelicals and most of the other religious groups into following their right wing policies.

By what he said and taught, by our modern standards and labels and Jesus would be a hardcore Socialist. Socially he'd be pretty centrist/moderate, and I don't see him getting involved much in things like gay rights other than to speak his mind, which did include minding that mote in your own eye instead of the beam in your brother's.

 

[Revoltingest]

That question has always baffled me, especially in the US.
Now, I am not religious, but was taught all about Jesus as a kid, and read/studied the Bible as part of my RE lessons. If Jesus was around today he'd be to the left of Bernie Sanders by a long way. Yet the GOP have managed to fool the evangelicals and most of the other religious groups into following their right wing policies.

No, the Bible indicates that Jesus would be a Libertarian.

 

[Altfish]

No, the Bible indicates that Jesus would be a Libertarian.

Oh right, I must have missed that gospel. Is that the Gospel according to Koch?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh right, I must have missed that gospel. Is that the Gospel according to Koch?

Notice how Jesus wore socks with his sandals?
That's our uniform.

 

[Altfish]

Notice how Jesus wore socks with his sandals?
That's our uniform.

It all becomes clear now; was he a member of the Bildeberg Group too?