Liberals are intolerant of opposing views and opinions.

[Twilight Hue]

I admit it! I freely block and report anyone who posts porn spam, animal abuse, advocates violence, or calls me a **** for calling them out on attempting to use the law to deny others basic human rights, especially on my own timeline. I'll also block and report stalkers.

I guess I'm just an intolerant liberal feminazi for doing so.

That deserved 10 hours of. . ...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I'm going to step out onto a limb here -- probably to my regret: As something of a liberal myself, I think you may have something. When you suppose that you are the "defender of the downtrodden" (AKA the "poor, huddled masses yearning to breath free") it's kind of easy to see yourself as being in the absolute right, beyond criticism.

For myself, I do not believe that most individual humans, conservative or liberal, do not care about their fellow man. Where we largely differ is in how we believe we can do the most good (and also possibly on how much we are each willing to sacrifice to achieve that good). Welfare or workfare: which is best at achieving the most good? "Tough love:" does it always work, or is there a time for pure sympathy?

Questions like these divide, because though we may want to help, we often simply don't know how...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

It's almost like there isn't really a single, coherant group called 'liberals'...

 

[Valjean]

It's almost like there isn't really a single, coherant group called 'liberals'...

There are a number of groups that have been showing up at various demos for some time, which have been lumped into a "liberal" demographic.
The right has been actively mining the web and news broadcasts for misbehavior that they can attribute to a generic and violent "left."

 

[Revoltingest]

The right has been actively mining the web and news broadcasts for misbehavior that they can attribute to a generic and violent "left."

The left does the same.
I don't know if one learned it from the other.
Seems to be human nature.

 

[metis]

It is. Beside from Berkeley have you ever heard of Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington? Altogether different circumstances, but the theme remains the same which is practiced intolerance, by it's leftist sjw students carrying baseball bats.

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me even though I'm not familiar with that incident. Seems nowadays just about everyone has to be "politically correct"-- or else.

 

[idav]

The left does the same.
I don't know if one learned it from the other.
Seems to be human nature.

The left sure doesn't have to try very hard to find viotrol they can get begin in opposing.

 

[Revoltingest]

The left sure doesn't have to try very hard to find viotrol they can get begin in opposing.

That's true for all sides.
Vitriol is in no short supply.
Btw, the most vicious rule breaking personal attacks I've endured on RF are from hard left members.

 

[idav]

Btw, the most vicious rule breaking personal attacks I've endured on RF are from hard left members.

I shouldn't talk about what I see.

 

[Revoltingest]

I shouldn't talk about what I see.

Hah!
You're just a big fuzzy ball of warmth & almost-going-to-far hugginess.

 

[Stevicus]

Your the one painting with the broad brush with nothing to back it up. That's not a right or left thing that's a pretty common fallacy in debate, I addressed each of your opinions separately without bias. Try some fact checking before accusing liberals or Obama or Clinton of anything with such broad strokes.

Right, that is my point. Your perspective and anecdotes don't mean much of anything outside of your own experiences. It is fun to dress up and play judge and jury, but until you forfeit the idea of "one size fits all" in regards to political labels, your manifestos will fall flat in my opinion.

Well, I think you're both taking this far too personally. I certainly did not direct any of my comments at either of you individually, nor did I have either of you in mind while I made them. So, I can't see why you're taking offense or feeling the need to rush to the defense of behaviors which you ostensibly deny even exist. Based on your responses, you totally missed the point of what I'm saying.

I addressed each of your opinions separately without bias.

Maybe you did. I'll admit that I stopped reading the moment your responses were not defense of the left, but attacks on the right. Learn to defend the left first, before you can attack the right. A good defense is not always a good offense. I think that's the point of this entire thread: "Liberals are intolerant of opposing views and opinions." Even when I'm trying to give constructive criticisms, you both go off like I've made some terrible insult against your religion.

And by the way, when you say I have "just opinion with little else to back it up," that's your opinion, and you have nothing to back it up. I wrote quite a bit, and if it was too long for you to read or you didn't grasp my meaning, then I'd be happy to clarify.

Anyway, I'll respond to your previous post:

Is it like some new art form or something to constantly over generalize people and conflate various ideologies?

If none of it applies to you, then there's no reason to respond or get upset. Seriously.

Right, the old "they are doing it too" argument.

Gee, you missed the point entirely. Let me try to walk you through this.

1. The OP stated that liberals are intolerant of opposing views.
2. I responded: "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."
3. In other words, I stated that "tolerance" of opposing views is irrelevant. What liberals do is eminently human - they get angry when faced with someone who disagrees with them or challenges their views (as both you and Quetzal are demonstrating, even if what I said had absolutely nothing to do with either of you). This is a HUMAN trait. It's perfectly normal for humans to get mad under a variety of circumstances.
4. All I said was that "liberals are human, too."
5. Your response didn't really address that point. Even if I was saying "they are doing it too," your response doesn't answer anything. And you certainly can't claim that it's "addressing [my] opinions without bias" since your own bias prevented you from even understanding what I was trying to say.

One of the big reasons on opposing Trump is because he is part of the problem in a system further separating the rich from the poor and he doesn't care. Clinton actually was voting against corporate policy, Trump sends work to China.

Did I mention anything about Trump? Why are you bringing up Trump? What does this have to do with the liberals selling out to Corporate America? Clinton signed NAFTA and sent a lot of work to China as well. He and other liberals supported the very same Reaganite policies I'm attacking, and yet, you deny that?

This isn't about Trump at all, and if you could have seen past your own bias and obsessions over the man, you would have been able to see that.

And talk about not backing up one's opinions....When has Clinton ever voted against corporate policy?

They? Mighty broad brush your have there.

Well, I didn't mention you by name, did I? So there's nothing you need to defend here, if you're not one of those doing it.

That the right is fighting for the working class is the fattest lie this season..

And since I did not say anything of the sort, I can't understand why you're making this statement.

But on that subject, if the right is not fighting for the working class, then why has the left sold out and/or given in to the right? Where is their fight? What is the left fighting for? Not the working class.

"Lefties do not do that". I live in a blue state and we are all very tolerant of each other as far as I can tell and I find those adjectives like hillbilly and trailer trash quite offensive. "Lefties" are the ones accepting all walks of life, as if the left are all middle class, a huge portion of the left is the lower class minority.

I can cite examples I've seen in this very forum of lefties trashing poor people. I would rather not call people out individually, but I've seen such abuse tolerated here on RF. If you haven't seen it, then you must be blind or simply not paying attention - or just in denial.

That is also a lie, both Obama and Clinton were for lessening criminalization of all drugs. Your proof is pointing at someone elses view and debate you saw. Go figure.

Both Administrations are on record as opposing legalization of marijuana, even as individual state ballot propositions were being voted on. I don't care if they were for "lessening criminalization," since that's not the same thing as legalization. By failing to address my point and attempting to move the goalposts, you're the one guilty of lying, not me.

The "proof," in case you haven't noticed, is that marijuana is still illegal under Federal law, which both Clinton and Obama had the opportunity to change. But they didn't. Go figure.

With that no party is doing us any favors, certainly not Trump the warmonger. He even threatened Venezuela with military action just a few days ago.

That's not surprising. It doesn't make today's liberals a bunch of peaceniks. They've all but abandoned the peace movement.

No doubt with all that misinformation and lies your believing.

That's your opinion, and you haven't exactly demonstrated much honesty here, so who are you to talk? You don't even seem to understand the points I'm making or anything I'm saying at all. Instead of defending liberals (which is what you should be doing), all you're doing is demonstrating the characteristics of an intensely partisan political hack. You might as well just sum up every utterance you make with "Democrats goooood, Republicans baaaaad."

I ask, "Well, what's so good about the Democrats anyway?"
You say, "Democrats goooood, Republicans baaaaad."
I ask, "What about NAFTA and globalism that the Democrats support?"
"Democrats goooood, Republicans baaaaad."
I ask, "What about the wars they support?"
"Democrats goooood, Republicans baaaaad."

Don't tell me that you're not doing this either. You call me a liar, but you need to examine yourself.

Or at the very least, you might consider standing up for principles rather than defending personalities.

Oh well good because you kept saying they, so it seemed pretty broad.

And maybe if you'd take the chip off your shoulder, you'd have seen that I was actually trying to be understanding. I was pointing out that the assertion that "liberals are intolerant of opposing views" is actually a very American characteristic which is a part of the culture in general, not just with liberals.

But okay, go on: "Democrats goooood, Republicans baaaaad."

Yeah

Oh god feminism. I didn't believe they had a real issue, but Trump changed that for me. Misogyny is a huge problem.

I agree that misogyny is a problem, but I don't think Trump is the reason for that. Again, all of these issues existed before Trump, so the fact that you keep obsessing over the guy is quite telling.

I've also noticed that you and others tend to focus more on words and symbols, yet seem to ignore the concrete and tangible.

And yet, you have the audacity to claim that I haven't backed up my opinions. I can prove that the Democrats support free trade (and even some who identify as Democrats here in this forum support free trade), and yet you say that it's just my opinion without support. I can prove that immigration reform hasn't really happened to any great degree, and undocumented workers are still in limbo and vulnerable to exploitation. I can prove that marijuana is still illegal under Federal law, and you say that's a "lie."

All of these things I'm stating are easily verifiable, so I just can't believe the utter gall you display in accusing me of anything.

Yup I bet, the liberals will destroy the country with there do gooder attitudes and unfiltered optimism for the future.

That's not what I said. What were you saying earlier about a "new art form"? You seem to be coming up with your own right now.

I was outlining how conservatives see liberals. I can see now where part of your problem is your inability to step outside yourself for a moment and try to see things from the other side's viewpoint. I've seen this phenomenon across the board.

I think more that our political perceptions are influenced by archaic tribalism not allowing opposing views to come to an agreement. Like you said both think they are right and neither wants to budge. It reminds me of the local football craze where the best high school football team happens to be the their son or daughter goes to, the problem is when people take all that too seriously. The current major political parties give us false dichotomies to choose from not leaving much room for compromise.

And I choose to reject those false dichotomies, while too many others choose to embrace them.

 

[Quetzal]

Well, I think you're both taking this far too personally. I certainly did not direct any of my comments at either of you individually, nor did I have either of you in mind while I made them. So, I can't see why you're taking offense or feeling the need to rush to the defense of behaviors which you ostensibly deny even exist. Based on your responses, you totally missed the point of what I'm saying.

I don't take things personally on here. A critique of your approach does not mean that I take offense to what you say.

 

[idav]

I don't take things personally on here. A critique of your approach does not mean that I take offense to what you say.

I second that ^ ^. I don't take things personally on here.

 

[Akivah]

The use of the word "some", or even "many", would be helpful.

Agreed. I made the change.

 

[Akivah]

I'm going to step out onto a limb here -- probably to my regret: As something of a liberal myself, I think you may have something. When you suppose that you are the "defender of the downtrodden" (AKA the "poor, huddled masses yearning to breath free") it's kind of easy to see yourself as being in the absolute right, beyond criticism.

For myself, I do not believe that most individual humans, conservative or liberal, do not care about their fellow man. Where we largely differ is in how we believe we can do the most good (and also possibly on how much we are each willing to sacrifice to achieve that good). Welfare or workfare: which is best at achieving the most good? "Tough love:" does it always work, or is there a time for pure sympathy?

Questions like these divide, because though we may want to help, we often simply don't know how...

Good post. I am definitely in the 'teach a person to fish' camp rather than the 'give a person a fish' camp. Both sides want to help a person, we just disagree on methodologies. There shouldn't be any screaming or violence involved.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't take things personally on here. A critique of your approach does not mean that I take offense to what you say.

Very well, but the thing is, your "critique" missed the entire point. It was also cavalierly dismissive and vague, without any elaboration. So, how can I interpret this? You didn't like what I wrote, but you won't give me any specifics. You quoted several paragraphs and answered with a single line that it was "so much opinion and little else to back it up." Yeah? Which part?

I second that ^ ^. I don't take things personally on here.

Okay, maybe not, but you seemed to be counter-punching and taking a confrontational approach in post #66 when such was not at all warranted. By your overall tone, you seemed to be either annoyed or angry at what I had written, which doesn't usually happen when someone isn't taking something personal.

 

[idav]

Okay, maybe not, but you seemed to be counter-punching and taking a confrontational approach in post #66 when such was not at all warranted. By your overall tone, you seemed to be either annoyed or angry at what I had written, which doesn't usually happen when someone isn't taking something personal.

In that post I explained in the first sentence which was pointing at "over generalizations", a pretty common fallacy. I then proceeded to go through your list.

 

[Stevicus]

In that post I explained in the first sentence which was pointing at "over generalizations", a pretty common fallacy. I then proceeded to go through your list.

Yes, I addressed that above.

 

[Quetzal]

Very well, but the thing is, your "critique" missed the entire point. It was also cavalierly dismissive and vague, without any elaboration. So, how can I interpret this? You didn't like what I wrote, but you won't give me any specifics. You quoted several paragraphs and answered with a single line that it was "so much opinion and little else to back it up." Yeah? Which part?

The critique was simple and can be summarized in one sentence that applies to your entire post. No details are necessary. Here it is again:

...until you forfeit the idea of "one size fits all" in regards to political labels, your manifestos will fall flat in my opinion.

 

[Stevicus]

The critique was simple and can be summarized in one sentence that applies to your entire post. No details are necessary. Here it is again:

I still don't see what your point is. Just as one example, do you agree with Idav that my statement that marijuana is illegal under Federal law is a "lie"? Are you suggesting that the existence of NAFTA and Democrats' support of it is merely a figment of my imagination? Are you saying that Democrats have NEVER supported war or interventionist policies favored by Republicans?

until you forfeit the idea of "one size fits all" in regards to political labels, your manifestos will fall flat in my opinion.

Of course, I never said "all" Democrats, so your critique about my alleged "one size fits all" approach is false and meaningless. But the majority of Democrats obviously supported Clinton and Obama, thus proving my statements to be true.