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

[Revoltingest]

Détente is not any better than actual progress.
It is just a nice-looking word for avoidance and postponing. By definition, it solves nothing.
It relies on external events to hopefully keep the situation tolerable or perhaps even ameliorate it somehow.
Most real-life political situations of any significance have the exact opposite tendency, that of becoming more complex and difficult to deal with when left neglected for significant periods of time.

I'm surprised at your objection.
As I recall detente with the Soviets, we went from a cold war (which almost
erupted into nuclear warfare several times) to peace & friendly relations.
Ref....
Milestones: 1981–1988 - Office of the Historian

Sure, nothing is forever.
Now they have Putin, & things are tense at times.
(And China & N Korea are ramping up risks of war.)
But I'll take a temporary peace over a few decades of continued
hostilities....& the risk of another sensor glitch starting nuclear war.
Ref....
False Alarms in the Nuclear Age — NOVA | PBS

It's different for me....the missiles would head my way. But you're lucky.
Brazil just wouldn't matter enuf to be anyone's target in a superppower
nuclear war. Still.....you'd have to protect against radioactive fallout.

 

[Revoltingest]

What? No post pointing out that it's not only liberals who are intolerant?

There's no need.
Conservatives generally don't claim to be tolerant.
And everyone (including them) knows they aren't.
When they appear to be, it's really a trick to entice
me to stop hating God, & join them for Kumbaya.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm surprised at your objection.

The two of us seem to have a knack for surprising each other.

As I recall detente with the Soviets, we went from a cold war (which almost
erupted into nuclear warfare several times) to peace & friendly relations.

(..)

I take it that you mean to suggest that this is evidence that Détente is a form of progress?

Why, sure, it is better than all-out war. But it is also worse than actual progress, which can only happen with some form of mutual understanding.

It's different for me....the missiles would head my way. But you're lucky.
Brazil just wouldn't matter enuf to be anyone's target in a superppower
nuclear war. Still.....you'd have to protect against radioactive fallout.

I know, right? On my defense, I never voted Republican. Nor would I if I had the means.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's no need.
Conservatives generally don't claim to be tolerant.

That is a good thing, too. And we should keep in mind why they don't, and realize that one-sided tolerance is not sustainable.

And everyone (including them) knows they aren't.
When they appear to be, it's really a trick to entice
me to stop hating God, & join them for Kumbaya.

Good thing that people are wising up to their ways, uh?

 

[Revoltingest]

I take it that you mean to suggest that this is evidence that Détente is a form of progress?

It is.
Any time war or the risk thereof stops, that's a big improvement.
And cessation of hostilities creates opportunity for further progress.

Why, sure, it is better than all-out war. But it is also worse than actual progress, which can only happen with some form of mutual understanding.

And the latter was what happened in "detente" with the Soviets.
I don't think that word means to you what it means to me, which
has special meaning for a specific event in history.
You weren't around then.
At the time, I was designing weapon systems, & lived in various targeted areas
(LA & DC). And before that, we had nuclear war drills in public school. Bad stuff.
So naturally, I'd have a greater interest in Americastan's warming up to The Evil Empire.
There was the very real risk that I & everyone around me would die.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is.
Any time war or the risk thereof stops, that's a big improvement.

On a board game, that may easily be true.

On real life, we must consider what the alternatives are and what price is being paid.

Détente is an artificial smothering of still-existent hostilities. It can hardly be an "improvement" except when the only other alternative is understood to be faster destruction.

And cessation of hostilities creates opportunity for further progress.

I take it that you mean to say that it fails to completely impede such progress?

For opportunities to be created it takes actual willingness to create them.

And the latter was what happened in detente with the Soviets.

That people managed to dissolve a détente without engaging in open conflict makes it no less true that détente is unstable, fruitless stagnation.

Which is in itself both wasteful and dangerous. It just turns out that there are situations when that is a lesser evil.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is a good thing, too. And we should keep in mind why they don't, and realize that one-sided tolerance is not sustainable.

Are you one of the intolerant liberals being discussed?
It's a real question....I do not understand you at all.
(All I'm getting out of this so far is a higher post count.)

 

[Revoltingest]

On a board game, that may easily be true.

The opposite.
It's in the real world that peace, even temporary, is better than hostilities.

On real life, we must consider what the alternatives are and what price is being paid.
Détente is an artificial smothering of still-existent hostilities. It can hardly be an "improvement" except when the only other alternative is understood to be faster destruction.

This is a very strange objection.
No one is arguing for what you envision.
And I've little idea what you're arguing for.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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

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

I have heard that argument before.

I use argue and defend gay rights often, and I listened to the other side. Yep, I listened to them to tell me what a horrible person I am, that I am corrupting America, I am mentally ill, God hates me, I am genetically defective, I am going to hell, it is unnatural, it is an abomination, homosexuality leads to pedophilia and bestiality, all of society will collapse if same-sex marriage is allowed, horses will eat people, and Nazis will ride dinosaurs across the land. OK, maybe those last two are hyperbolized a bit, but I have been told all the ways in which I am the root of all evil, over and over and over though out my life.

At some point I wised up, and said I am not listening anymore, one of the best choices I have made. To which the general reply was, "Oh, you won't listen to me that makes you intolerant and prejudice to my views." So, I have heard this argument before, and it sounds fairly reasonable on the surface, but somethings are just not worth listening to. And if I am at "fault" of being intolerant of homophobia, then I think I am doing OK.

Everyone should have a voice that is true, and we should seek equality and freedom for everyone, but it does not mean every voice is worth listening to. Just imagined if nobody had listened to Hitler.

So some students walked out and some people booed, big deal. It is such a trivial thing to be crying about. How about the Republican who was elected in Montana that physically attacked a reporter for asking a question? So while the Right elects a thug to Congress I am suppose to get upset that some students walked out?

 

[crowfeather]

As opposed to the maturity of saying that liberals are all part of a venomous beast out to destroy all life on Earth?

You don't see any connection there, do you? All part of the disease i guess.

 

[Kirran]

You don't see any connection there, do you? All part of the disease i guess.

The disease of being less conservative than you? Dude, you gotta give the condescension a rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

....I listened to the other side. Yep, I listened to them to tell me what a horrible person I am, that I am corrupting America, I am mentally ill, God hates me, I am genetically defective, I am going to hell...

I thought that even before I found out you're gay.
(Satan hates you too, btw.)


OK, anyone who wants can slap me silly for that one.
But he's the one who plays straight man in this team.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I thought that even before I found out you're gay.
(Satan hates you too, btw.)


OK, anyone who wants can slap me silly for that one.
But he's the one who plays straight man in this team.

Shouldn't you be somewhere making a post about how important your thoughts are and how no one will listen to you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Shouldn't you be somewhere making a post about how important your thoughts are and how no one will listen to you?

Oh, that won't do as a retort.
I thought you people were supposed to have a wicked wit?

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you one of the intolerant liberals being discussed?

Apparently I would not know.

It's a real question....I do not understand you at all.
(All I'm getting out of this so far is a higher post count.)

I am an enemy of false equivalencies and of settling for slow decadence. Does that qualify me as an intolerant liberal?

The opposite.
It's in the real world that peace, even temporary, is better than hostilities.

Deténte is far inferior to true peace.

This is a very strange objection.
No one is arguing for what you envision.

I am.

And I've little idea what you're arguing for.

So it would seem.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Oh, that won't do as a retort.
I thought you people were supposed to have a wicked wit?

"you people"

White? Male? American? What "people" am I?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am an enemy of false equivalencies and of settling for slow decadence. Does that qualify me as an intolerant liberal?

I don't know what the first sentence means....a nonsequiter plus an inscrutable term.

In the past, I've better understood your posts.
Is one of us having a stroke?

 

[Revoltingest]

"you people"

White? Male? American? What "people" am I?

Not gay apparently....not with the wit of a straight white Baptist abstinence counselor.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Not gay apparently....not with wit of a straight white Baptist abstinence counselor.

Mine is bigger than yours.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know what the first sentence means....a nonsequiter plus an inscrutable term.

In the past, I've better understood your posts.
Is one of us having a stroke?

We have talked about false equivalencies more than once in the past. Don't you remember that?