Liberals are intolerant of opposing views and opinions.

[idav]

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

Also it isn't really practical to expect anyone to have unwavering tolerance. The right knows very well they are pushing them buttons especially after seeing what happened in VA. I also think people are conflating liberals and progressives.
How to tell the difference between a progressive and a liberal
Don't know how accurate the article is but has some interesting points.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

I think it's a bit of both. Acting childish in the form of a rant as many exchanges already seem to follow in that direction through petty bickering, name-calling, feeling offended ect, and all that.

Basically a juvenile game of turnabout is fair play, and await the responses, a little letting off some steam myself as well. So I took a shot at provocation as well, and tested those limits of tolerance by which it seemingly is given. None of it was intended as jabs at any member in particular on a personal level and I hope no one took it in that way.

I guess the dialogue part deals with asking the question as to why are we acting this way, and how did we get there? What is it that happened to the country?

I guess the frustrating part is there seems to be no end to all this where we should be getting together and talking about equitable solutions that serves us as a whole. Some threads have done that already, and it's refreshing to see.

I know none of us can really change what happens in Washington, it's beyond our control once outside of the voting booth, all we can do is intellectualize and debate among each other, but it's more and more like two tribes warring against each other unwilling to budge,. Sniveling and growling like primals with little to show for it.

 

[YmirGF]

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

*

This is one devilish little conservative that isn't troubled by thoughts of an illusory Satan.

 

[Revoltingest]

And in the news, some violent lefties are busy grabbing the spotlight to make the left look bad.
Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Please. As if conservatives stood behind Obama.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally I think it's more one-sided at late with liberals being more aggressively intolerant then conservatives are.

Get back to me when a Liberal states declares your existence to be less than deserving of full rights and liberties everyone else is entitled to by default. When California passes a law that creates a right for Liberals to discriminate against Conservatives, then I'll agree you have a point.

 

[Father Heathen]

Nevermind that conservatives badmouthed Obama his entire presidency and we didn't stop them, plenty of conservatives also think Trump is a liar and an idiot. It's not just democrats. Trump bashing is hardly a partisan issue.

This. It's strange how Trump supporters seem to be either oblivious to or in denial of the fact that most members of his own party dislike him.

 

[Mindmaster]

Taken from Pew research website regarding SNS for example....

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

I just beat them to the punch... They seemed overly offended by pro-Trump, anti-Bernie/Shillary posts so I just deleted them all. Including friends from the ancient past, and anyone else. They like censorship, it saves their poor little brains, who am I to not honor their wishes? I mean, they're my friends, and I care about them - selflessly.

 

[Curious George]

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?

So then it is more noteworthy? Is there a remedy?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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 ?

I don't remember you welching about "bad mouthing a sitting president" when it was Obama's terms in office. Turnabout is fair play - and pointing out that Trump is worse because he actually is is completely reasonable.

Also, the OP is funny. 'Watch out, those liberals are the ones saying mentally ill folks probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns and refuse to tolerate neo-Nazis who want to exterminate whole sections of the population'.

The conservative Right has been engaging in nothing but false equivalence and reactionist whataboutery on a grand scale ever since Charlottesville. Demanding that liberals tolerate intolerance is a corruption of tolerance and strongly supports Popper's Paradox which posits that a society which is tolerant without limit will eventually see that tolerance destroyed by inherently intolerant people.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

Are you actually trying to conflate criticism of Trump's policies, behaviours & attitudes with attacking the Office of the Presidency?

 

[Curious George]

I think it's a bit of both. Acting childish in the form of a rant as many exchanges already seem to follow in that direction through petty bickering, name-calling, feeling offended ect, and all that.

Basically a juvenile game of turnabout is fair play, and await the responses, a little letting off some steam myself as well. So I took a shot at provocation as well, and tested those limits of tolerance by which it seemingly is given. None of it was intended as jabs at any member in particular on a personal level and I hope no one took it in that way.

I guess the dialogue part deals with asking the question as to why are we acting this way, and how did we get there? What is it that happened to the country?

I guess the frustrating part is there seems to be no end to all this where we should be getting together and talking about equitable solutions that serves us as a whole. Some threads have done that already, and it's refreshing to see.

I know none of us can really change what happens in Washington, it's beyond our control once outside of the voting booth, all we can do is intellectualize and debate among each other, but it's more and more like two tribes warring against each other unwilling to budge,. Sniveling and growling like primals with little to show for it.

There is an important dialogue that needs to happen regarding the issues of concern to the right and left. Some are so heavily emotional that dialogue seems impossible. Isms are among those issues. Some want to say racism, sexism, etc-isms no longer exist; some want to make it seem like the world is going to end tomorrow because of these issues. Guns are among those issues too. Some want to say that guns are necessary for daily functioning; some want to say daily finctioning will be impossible until guns are eliminated. Abortion is among the issues as well; so too are transgender identity, police violence/corruption, terrorism, immigration, and the list goes on from major world issues to who gets a trophy for football (let alone whether competitive, contact sports should exist). Some take one extreme, some take the other. Most fall somewhere in the middle. Most, in truth, only have a dog in some of the fights and don't really care about the others.

Villifying the ones ones who argue against you on some of the issues as libtards, sjws, fascists, or hate mongers is rhetoric.

The sad part is, not all people on either side do this. So, when someone says "turnabout is fair play" I think...but what about those who never acted that way in the first place? What about the liberals who never called all conservatives fascist or the conservatives who never called all liberals crybabies? How is it fair play to lump them in when they never took a turn in the first place?

Why are people so emotionally invested? I could understand if the attacks were somewhat connected. A pro-lifer accusing me of not valuing life or a pro lifer accusing all pro choicers about not caring about life. But it is not. It has become more and more abstract. So now some people just bash liberals or conservatives?

What is a liberal? It is a person whose overall tends to agree with a liberal viewpoint on issues. No one fits neatly into a box. But if we can analyze groups based on trends. So it is not unreasonable to talk about liberals. But we need to remember that we are already working with a generalization once we use the term. The same applies to conservatives. So saying something like liberals hate guns or want stricter gun control is already committing an error. There are many people with liberals who argue for the exact opposite, some even adamantly so. That someone is a liberal does not entail that they adhere to ALL liberal views.

It is better to focus on the issue. Now your study was talking about liberals in general form, so this is not the same type of error. The error was in suggesting that all liberals are x. This time we have an error because you are using data regarding a trend to represent ALL liberals. That is not what the data said.

So if we were to reword your OP to ask, why do liberals as a group tend to demonstrate less tolerance than conservative counterparts? Or why are some liberals less tolerant than some conservatives? The latter question doesn't really get to the heart of the issue because it allows people to rationalize. Certainly some liberals are less tolerant than some conservatives just as some conservatives are less tolerant than some liberals. This is true by virtue of the fact that people are different in their tolerance and ones tolerance is not contingent on their political affiliation.

But you were addressing precisely that their is a trend toward intolerance based on political affiliation. Therefore, I think the former question focusing on liberals as a group (instead of qualifying some or generalizing all) is better.

So in response to this question I would say that the research shown in the article you linked puts the discrimination and intolerance on a pretty equal footing. The pew research does seem to indicate that liberals as a group tend to block more people. But does that mean they are more intolerant or that conservatives as a group are more offensive?

A note in the article you linked mentioned:

To be sure, they found that people high in religious fundamentalism were more cold and dehumanizing toward people low in perceived fundamentalism.​

Now without this marker, things are apparently more even. But this might explain the difference in the pew poll vs the actual research. The pew poll was done in 2012? So it could have been related to some of the Obama bashing that occurred on the internet at that time as well. I wonder if it changed around february of this year. Further it could indicate that liberals as a group are more easily offended by social media posts.

But whoever told you liberals were tolerant was making a sweeping generalization as well.

Cheers

 

[Revoltingest]

This. It's strange how Trump supporters seem to be either oblivious to or in denial of the fact that most members of his own party dislike him.

Actually, of the Trump supporters I know, they're not only
aware that his party dislikes him, they like this about him.

 

[Revoltingest]

So then it is more noteworthy?

What 2 things would you have me compare for noteworthiness?

Is there a remedy?

For how our memories work for for violence by lefties?

 

[Quetzal]

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.

Right, but that was never part of the deal, was it? Many progressive liberals are staunch on topics that define what they are as a collective group. So on topics such as gay marriage, civil rights, womens rights, social equality, etc; they are not tolerant. That is the idea, to further what they believe to be for the best. This is true of both sides.

 

[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.

What I think we're seeing is that liberals in the news are more intolerant.
Note that a very small percentage of both libs & cons make the news,
& this is quite often when they're misbehaving. One cannot generalize
about either from this.....the spotlight fallacy, you know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, but that was never part of the deal, was it? Many progressive liberals are staunch on topics that define what they are as a collective group. So on topics such as gay marriage, civil rights, womens rights, social equality, etc; they are not tolerant. That is the idea, to further what they believe to be for the best. This is true of both sides.

But liberals are generally for free speech (eg, political, religious) & a free press.
Yet some violently opposing these things.

 

[Quetzal]

But liberals are generally for free speech, eg, political, religious.

That is true. I would agree with the idea that attempting to disrupt free speech is not a desirable plan of action, even if there is disagreement.

 

[DavidFirth]

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.

So you let others determine whether you're right or wrong? That's not the Nowhere Man I know.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

For me, the issue is not about "tolerance" or "intolerance." Of course, if someone disagrees with someone else, either they can agree to disagree - or they can become really upset and abusive. This can happen on both sides, so neither side can claim the moral high ground on this point.

But the real issue, as I see it, is about whether their actions are consistent with their stated principles.
To me, most liberals strike me as a bunch of sell-outs who have compromised their beliefs for material gain. Their greatest sin is in supporting corporate globalism and outsourcing, which has not only hurt American workers and our economy, but also helps facilitate the exploitation of workers in the developing world.

Similarly, they disingenuously use the immigration issue to justify exploitation of undocumented workers who have helped bring enormous profits to corporate farmers who claim it would be "ruinous" to their businesses if they had to hire workers who are legally able to work in the US.

Even when they purport to be "fighting intolerance" and racism, they do so in such a left-handed way, essentially ridiculing and demeaning people for being poor. They use abusive terms such as "hillbilly" and "trailer trash," demonstrating their true colors and their unmitigated hatred towards the lower classes.

When it comes to issues like marijuana legalization, liberals have been mostly hypocritical sell-outs on the matter. Neither Clinton nor Obama were supporters of legalization (even though they were both users at one time), so what does that say about "liberals" and their stated principles? I remember seeing a debate between Charles Rangel (liberal) and William Buckley (conservative), where Rangel was against legalization and Buckley was for it. Go figure.

And then there's foreign policy and US military adventurism. There was once a time when liberals marched against war and US interventionist policies (sometimes called "US imperialism"), but yet they continue to support the same militaristic policies favored by hawkish politicians.

Liberals, by and large, are really just a huge disappointment. That's what they've turned out to be.

But I'm not saying they're all bad, nor would I say that about conservatives. Living and working among both sides of the spectrum, I've found that neither is really the "devil with horns" that the other side perceives them to be. They're just...Americans.

And oftentimes, we Americans can be a headstrong, bull-headed lot. And we're real tough and manly, too - we don't flinch or run from a fight. If we think we're right, then we know we're right - and anyone who thinks we're wrong will get a bunch of attitude and lip - or they might even get a fat lip. We're tough.

Even with liberals - there's nothing about "liberalism" which necessarily means "wimpy," even if that's what most of them have turned out to be recently. The feminists are actually tougher than the male liberals. The feminists have often talked about "toxic masculinity" and its harmful effects, but America is currently awash in that sort of thing, so we might as well give in and join the fray.

The conservatives also have strong convictions and are convinced that they're right, while perceiving liberals as naive at best, or at worst, traitors and/or infiltrators working for some outside evil entity or organization which wants to destroy our country and the American way of life (an attitude which was encouraged during the Red Scare). That's how some may gravitate towards conspiracy theories which echo such perceptions.

I sometimes think back and wonder if our political perceptions might have also been influenced by those "cat-and-mouse" cartoons we all saw when we were kids. In real life, the cat will always defeat the mouse - although sometimes the mouse gets away. But here, we're conditioned to the idea that the mouse will prevail, oftentimes by using the cat's own weapons against him.

It's similar with the Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons. The "liberal" Roadrunner represents the weak and oppressed would-be "prey" of the "conservative" Coyote, who ostensibly has much greater resources and the ability to purchase powerful tools and weapons in the pursuit of his quarry. In contrast, the impoverished Roadrunner has to rely on handouts of the occasional "free bird seed" which the Coyote puts out as bait.

The liberals are much like the Roadrunner going "beep-beep," as a way of taunting and ridiculing the conservative Coyote, as if to say "Ha-ha, you can't touch meeee!" And it's true. The conservatives would see it as some utter defiance of physics and other natural laws in the universe. That ACME catapult, ACME rocket skates, ACME earthquake pills, and all those other ACME products should have worked. The Coyote might think there's some sort of conspiracy at work.