Liberals are intolerant of opposing views and opinions.

[Twilight Hue]

'Why are liberals crybabies is no more acceptable than 'why are conservatives crybabies.' I wasn't on staff when that thread was made, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's why that user was banned.

If you want to delete my other contested thread go ahead, I'll make it a formal request for you to do so if it means saving some time for something that is not acceptable on this forum.

I'm not angry about it, or upset if it's gone.

I think I'm going to retract from political subjects for a while after this one, and just stick to religious themed topics.

Sometimes in order to find out whether I am right or wrong, is to just sit back and observe to see if it's really the case or not, or if it's just me. That's what I will do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And the rampant Trump spamming, bad mouthing a sitting president is somehow different and remains accessible without hindrance?

It seems turnabout just isnt fair play ?

Sorry, but from my Canadian viewpoint, the person most responsible for "Trump spamming" and "bad mouthing a sitting president" is the sitting president himself. History will eventually decide that Donald Trump is both objectively and subjectively awful. But only because it is true. He is childish, obsessively self-absorbed, combative, unwilling to negotiate if he's not already winning.

This isn't a liberal/conservative thing -- it's a Trump thing. The US electorate made a mistake. With luck, they'll be able to correct that mistake before it does too much harm (though remember, China has declared that if Pyongyang acts first, it will remain neutral, but if the US reacts first, it will side with Pyongyang -- and that could lead to a nuclear war within a day if anybody makes a mistake.)

Finally, I hate this idea that there are only two things people can be -- liberal or conservative -- and that only one of them can be right (or, in your view, that only one of them is intolerant). For the record, it ain't that simple. I myself have been a life-long liberal, who has voted for right wing, left wing and (frankly) socialist parties over the many elections I've been privileged to participate in.

My political viewpoint is based on a lot, and they can't be neatly "summed up" and categorized as just one thing or another. I believe in:

• Maximal human freedom of choice in how to live, so long as nobody else is harmed
• Maximal business freedom of competition, so long as nobody is harmed (beware of that one)
• The ability of government to make laws respecting what constitutes harming others
• The ability of government to establish some rules in both personal and business relationships based on the above
• The ability of government to commit some of the resources of the state to help those in need, and who cannot presently help themselves.
• The individual human rights and freedoms declared by Canada, the US and the UN, along with many other nations.

I'm only intolerant when any of those are threatened.

 

[Father Heathen]

Being tolerant doesn't mean you also have to be uncritical.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Being tolerant doesn't mean you also have to be uncritical.

True, but sometimes it seems that distinction does gets blurred on occasion.

 

[Father Heathen]

And the rampant Trump spamming, bad mouthing a sitting president is somehow different and remains accessible without hindrance?

It seems turnabout just isnt fair play ?

The difference is that the "trump spam" contains legitimate criticisms. Calling a spade a spade isn't "crying".

 

[Twilight Hue]

The difference is that the "trump spam" contains legitimate criticisms. Calling a spade a spade isn't "crying".

I can understand that, but what about the office of the presidency itself and what it signifies?

In the old days, even when people didn't like whoever was elected they at least stood behind the president and tried to move forward till the next election best that it can be. Today it's very different.

A climate exists where everything just feels counterproductive at every turn.

 

[idav]

The difference is that the "trump spam" contains legitimate criticisms. Calling a spade a spade isn't "crying".

Trumps so controversial he has conservatives distancing themselves, and we think religion can be controversial.

I can understand that, but what about the office of the presidency itself and what it signifies?

In the old days, even when people didn't like whoever was elected they at least stood behind the president and tried to move forward till the next election best that it can be. Today it's very different.

A climate exists where everything just feels counterproductive at every turn.

Yeah it is different these days, I have a best friend on social media who has been badmouthing Obama for eight years, you might guess he voted for Trump and we are still best of friends regardless of differing opinions on various topics. I recently kinda asked how he thought Trump wa doing, IDK kinda got mixed signals on it.

 

[David1967]

Reading this thread title on my smart phone the title reads, "Liberals are intolerant of. .Nowhere man."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah it is different these days, I have a best friend on social media who has been badmouthing Obama for eight years, you might guess he voted for Trump and we are still best of friends regardless of differing opinions on various topics. I recently kinda asked how he thought Trump wa doing, IDK kinda got mixed signals on it.

Yep, I made it no secret that Trump wasn't my first choice, so once it was certain he would be running as the president-elect I figured I'd back him as that stick of "dynamite".

Not that he'd be a particularly great and beloved president in recorded history, but rather in hopes that our elected officials would essentially wake up to the fact that things are going terribly wrong, and a massive shake-up was in order to get people going again in a positive and productive manner so that our country can recover from many of the systemic problems and issues that are progressively tearing this country down little by little.

I'm hoping in 4 years, people will start taking things a bit more seriously and start working together instead of against each other to really make America great again.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Reading this thread title on my smart phone the title reads, "Liberals are intolerant of. .Nowhere man."

There is no, "Nowhere Man". Sez Screaming Monkey Practicing bomb poo Zen.

 

[YmirGF]

Had an eye-opener last night. Was visiting friends who are decidedly dyed in the wool socialists and I quickly discovered that they were also deeply racist and what was troubling -- they seemed quite proud that they were racists. Yep, I was pretty glad to get home...

I don't think they are typical socialists but it was something to see nonetheless. What got me was that the husband especially was so overt about it. He did settle down a bit when I told him he was ludicrous and full of horse-****.

 

[Ingledsva]

...

Are you sure it's not because conservatives are afraid Satan is in the computer, and thus use them less?

*

 

[Curious George]

I suppose there's only one way to find out......

Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think

I don't see much tolerance in liberalism at all made towards people who hold opposing opinions and criticisms.

Liberals, you are just not as tolerant as you may think you are. A lot of your ideologies do not reflect your real-world behaviors and have a hard time accepting any criticism directed towards liberalism and the Democrat Party in general. But you can sure dish it out in volume.

Am I right or wrong about this?

Sounds like you want to make sweeping generalizations. If your point was that some liberals do this, then I would agree. Your point however seems to suffer from much of what many of these types of conversations do. Is it really that hard to use qualifiers?

 

[Curious George]

'Why are liberals crybabies is no more acceptable than 'why are conservatives crybabies.' I wasn't on staff when that thread was made, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's why that user was banned.

Methinks this is a violation of the rules. Just want to remind users, as a member, to discuss moderation of posts in site feedback.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sounds like you want to make sweeping generalizations. If your point was that some liberals do this, then I would agree. Your point however seems to suffer from much of what many of these types of conversations do. Is it really that hard to use qualifiers?

That's why I used a Pew Research Poll containing the terms liberal and conservative which included the graphic.

I think most people would have viewed that as being generalized rather than in sweeping terms involving SNS. But I can see how it could be viewed that way.

 

[Curious George]

That's why I used a Pew Research Poll containing the terms liberal and conservative which included the graphic.

I think most people would have viewed that as being generalized rather than in sweeping terms involving SNS. But I can see how it could be viewed that way.

It seems a lot of people want to lump people together and count the misses and ignore the hits.

I have heard complaints from lots of people bemoaning "liberals," "feminists," "atheists," etc that seem to categorize the groups in a way that is far from representative. Now this is done by some feminists, atheists, and liberals with respect towards other groups as well. I am merely indicating that this tendency is not helpful or honest. Making statements like "liberals are intolerant" and "liberals, you are not as tolerant as you think you are," is part of the problem.

It is combative and counterproductive to dialogue (but I suppose not as counterproductive as ignoring it). Just spitballing here, but why are you opening up with cobative language? Are you seeking dialogue or just making a rant?

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally I think it's more one-sided at late with liberals being more aggressively intolerant then conservatives are. I don't think liberals practice what they preach about fairness and free opinion and expression over ideologies that go against any liberal mindset.

Liberals in my opinion just don't want to hear it, and would rather remove strong opposing opinions and views out of sight then face issues head on through whatever means, including use of censorship, both in private and public media.

I see it happening more and more and it's getting more prevalent and noticible like Google, YouTube, and throughout various internet forums like this one, amongst other forms of media.

That's how it's been looking to me.

I won't pronounce libs more or less tolerant than cons.
But with libs, the intolerance is more striking because
they're the ostensible champions of tolerance.

Of course, there is individual variation within the group.
Many are not such hypocrites. But they're noticed less.

 

[Curious George]

I won't pronounce libs more or less tolerant than cons.
But with libs, the intolerance is more striking because
they're the ostensible champions of tolerance.

Of course, there is individual variation within the group.
Many are not such hypocrites. But they're noticed less.

Do you think that the ones who are not internally inconsistent are "noticed less" because it is not as notworthy? Not as beneficial to attempts at villification? Not as common? Or something else?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

From my own experience as a centrist, and from speaking with other people who are reality based in their views, I can see why many of us tend to be intolerant of right wing views. (Please note that as a reality-based person, our views are considered by the media and by other right-wingers as nutty moonbat leftist blah blah blah.)
The reason is that the right has gone so far off any outside edge of reality and sanity that their arguments are all truly incoherent garbage. When your group claims that white people are superior to nonwhites: that global warming is a hoax: that evolution is a farce: that science is (and scientists are) inherently unethical: that working toward renewable energy sources is a fool's errand; that the US is meant to be a Christian nation: coorporations are people: god hates homosexuals: women should be subservient to men: trickle-down economics will work: etc....etc....etc... And your group clings to these lies, tighter and tighter as you are handed more and more evidence that you are indisputably wrong.....
....then yes.....
Even the most calm and rational "lefty" will eventually give up hope of trying to help you out of the cesspool you've not only chosen to live in, but also that you are trying to drag the rest of us into.

So @Nowhere Man , your OP is wrong, in that it is misleading. Liberals, IMO are not intolerent of the opinions of other people. When a subject is open to opinions, then liberals, like anyone else, are open to discuss those opinions. But when little Jimmy Rightwinger wants to argue with his math teacher that 2+2 does in fact equal 23, and that he cannot be told he's wrong, because its his opinion, and opinions are never "wrong". Well then Jimmy Rightwinger gets a pointy hat, and a trip to the principal's office. And no, he shouldn't be allowed to use the school intercom to teach his version of math to the other students.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think that the ones who are not internally inconsistent are "noticed less" because it is not as notworthy? Not as beneficial to attempts at villification? Not as common? Or something else?

I think it's about how memory works.
People remember what stands out more so than what's ordinary.
Think of driving......
Are you more likely to remember the driver that cut
you off & gave you the finger, or the one that didn't?