"Liberals think they're tolerant, but they're not."

[Revoltingest]

Being uncivil when confronted by the hateful or opportunistic is not something one should be ashamed of.
No tolerance for the intolerant.

It sounds like a winning formula for the illiberal liberal...
Just deem someone intolerant, & then it's open season.

I'm reminded of a better way....
Black Man Gets KKK Members To Disavow By Befriending Them | HuffPost
So there's a choice.....
1) Change the intolerant with friendship.
2) Don't change'm, but have fun giving'm verbal wedgies.

 

[Sunstone]

I notice Zakaria, along with some of the posters in this thread, seem to conflate simple protests of liberals against speakers with other protests of regressive leftists meant to silence speakers. When graduates walk out on Mike Pence at Notre Dame, their actions do not threaten Pence's right to free speech, as Zakaria and others seem to imply.

 

[Sunstone]

Projecting one's own behavior onto others, and hating them for it, definitely is something to be ashamed of.
But it's never easy to admit to oneself, that one is a complete failure.

Speak for yourself. You are certainly projecting when you describe Sartre as hating anyone.

 

[Sunstone]

Being uncivil when confronted by the hateful or opportunistic is not something one should be ashamed of.
No tolerance for the intolerant.

Being intolerant of intolerance is not a genuine contradiction, as some people think.

 

[Sunstone]

Alas! If only Stalin's victims had thought to make friends with him! Then there would have been no gulags.

 

[crowfeather]

Speak for yourself. You are certainly projecting when you describe Sartre as hating anyone.

Who's projecting now? Whoever Sartre is, I've certainly never mentioned him or addressed anything towards him personally, although if I had, I'm sure it would be true.
I answer posts, declining to rape, murder and pillage, unlike many others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes because trying to have reasonable conversations with the prejudicial and extreme always works out well.

It worked for the guy in the article.
But people will be who they are.
Some pursue friendly diplomacy.
And others would emulate Mr Trump.

 

[Sunstone]

Who's projecting now? Whoever Sartre is, I've certainly never mentioned him or addressed anything towards him personally, although if I had, I'm sure it would be true.
I answer posts, declining to rape, murder and pillage, unlike many others.

Quit being disingenuous. Your post quoted his and was a clear response to it. Now you pretend you don't even know who he is. What kind of fools do you think the members of this board are?

 

[crowfeather]

Quit being disingenuous. Your post quoted his and was a clear response to it. Now you pretend you don't even know who he is. What kind of fools do you think the members of this board are?

I have no idea. I've never encountered fools of such magnitude before.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did you know that only a few years back, conservatism was considered the standard of normal by which normal was measured?
By 'only a few years back', I refer to an era when things worked, countries and their citizens knew who they were, and people were polite to each other.
Now it's a case of conservative = skinhead nazi fascist pig.
Interesting development, eh? I fear it does not bode well.

You should indeed consider how and why that came to be.

It was not without due reason, and it is not because conservatism got a raw deal.

 

[crowfeather]

You should indeed consider how and why that came to be.

It was not without due reason, and it is not because conservatism got a raw deal.

The reason is that conservatives try to accommodate what look like their own people, not realizing that what they try to coexist with is a venomous beast that will devour everything in its path until every trace of life is exterminated. The left only had the success it's had because those who ran things gave it to them.
But soon, survival mode will reestablish itself. It's not gonna be pretty.

 

[Sunstone]

I would go a step farther and say that "regressive leftists" are removing a platform for speech, not their right to free speech. There is a distinction between the two.

I am opposed to regressive leftism more on the asinine grounds whereby they justify their infantile behavior than on anything else.

EDIT: See Nick Cohen for an excellent treatment of the rationale of the regressive left.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being intolerant of those who are being intolerant towards those that are being tolerant to to the tolerant is not inconsistent.

That's too much of a mouthful though.

Thinking of conflict on a larger scale, I offer Suzanne Massie.
(She also came up recently in a thread evaluating Reagan's presidency.)
Remember back when Reagan was the tough talking anti-commie ready to do battle with the Russkies?
She humanized them in his eyes, opening the door for movement towards peace.
Ref....
Suzanne Massie - Wikipedia
I suppose we could've just gone to war instead.
But peace is cheaper.

 

[crowfeather]

Thanks for making that line between intelligent conservatives like yourself and Nazis nice and clear

Are you without a brain as well as without a Soul? Is context a completely alien thing to you?
"Sometimes Neo-Nazis are the sanest people in the room."
If Neo-Nazis are the ONLY people in the room, as they were in the OP, then regardless of how sane or insane they may have been, they were the sanest people in the room.
Nowhere does my post claim they were either sane or insane.
But I waste my energy, as always.
The haters gonna hate, while accusing non-haters of hating.
That's humans for you.

 

[Stevicus]

I notice Zakaria, along with some of the posters in this thread, seem to conflate simple protests of liberals against speakers with other protests of regressive leftists meant to silence speakers. When graduates walk out on Mike Pence at Notre Dame, their actions do not threaten Pence's right to free speech, as Zakaria and others seem to imply.

I would agree that they're not threatening anyone's right to free speech, but what good does it do to walk away? I don't think different sides have to become friends, but it's counterproductive for them to view each other as intractable enemies either. If we can't talk to each other or open a dialogue between disparate factions, then it can only get worse.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It sounds like a winning formula for the illiberal liberal...
Just deem someone intolerant, & then it's open season.

I'm reminded of a better way....
Black Man Gets KKK Members To Disavow By Befriending Them | HuffPost
So there's a choice.....
1) Change the intolerant with friendship.
2) Don't change'm, but have fun giving'm verbal wedgies.

Idealism only works out well so often. Whether we like it or not, human nature is not ideal, so befriending bigots and morally bankrupt people is not always the wisest decision.

 

[LuisDantas]

The reason is that conservatives try to accommodate what look like their own people, not realizing that what they try to coexist with is a venomous beast that will devour everything in its path until every trace of life is exterminated. The left only had the success it's had because those who ran things gave it to them.
But soon, survival mode will reestablish itself. It's not gonna be pretty.

Come back when you want to discuss reality as opposed to unfettered fantasy, will you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Idealism only works out well so often. Whether we like it or not, human nature is not ideal, so befriending bigots and morally bankrupt people is not always the wisest decision.

OK then.....
Do you think it's ever a good idea?
What do you think is the best default approach to changing the minds of backsliders & reprobates?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Fareed Zakaria: Liberals think they're tolerant, but they're not - CNN.com

What do you think? Does he make a good point?

I think his points only apply to a subset of liberals and that he's generalizing too much. On the whole, it seems to me that liberals are pretty tolerant, although there are areas in which the left could certainly improve, such as blunt criticism of certain religions.

A thought experiment that, in my mind, illustrates the tolerance of liberals in general is to imagine a world governed by liberals as opposed to one governed by any other ideological group. Since I know which one I'd want to live in, I don't think the answer to Fareed Zakaria's statements is ambiguous.

 

[Sunstone]

I would agree that they're not threatening anyone's right to free speech, but what good does it do to walk away? I don't think different sides have to become friends, but it's counterproductive for them to view each other as intractable enemies either. If we can't talk to each other or open a dialogue between disparate factions, then it can only get worse.

I used to believe in open dialog myself. That was back when conservatives were generally rational people. Things have changed in my sixty years. You cannot reason with an unreasonable person.