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

[Revoltingest]

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

The posts all blur together.
Simpler, clearer, & more direct posts would help.
I lack the brainpower to grok yours lately.

 

[Mr.weirddude 91231]

There are radicals on both the left and right that are very intolerant of people that hold values and beliefs that differ from there own. radicals tend to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone that disagrees with their own values are "the bad guys" or "the dumb guys" and of course they view them selves as "the good guys" or "smart guys" (which gives them a sense of superiority). When they view people as the "bad guys" its easy for them to perceive people's intentions to be evil. For example when a man proclaims to be pro-life, he's perceived by the radical left as being a horrible women hating misogynist. If a woman proclaims to be pro-choice, she's seen by the radical right as a psychopath that likes to murder babies. All types of radicals (left or right) are bigots that will never be happy unless they could somehow force everyone in the world to think and act just like themselves.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Personally I am intolerant of anti-science religion, extremism that advocates violence as a solution to name a few. If given some further thought I could possibly come up with quite a few things I am intolerant of, or I struggle to find a reason to tolerate them . . .

As you well know, tolerance as a principle does not mean tolerance of anything and everything. When we say that we opt for a tolerant society, what we mean is for different kinds of people living different kinds of lives side by side without attempting to control or oppress one another. Obviously, there is no duty to tolerate intolerance. Those unwilling to tolerate their law abiding neighbors need to be stopped if we are to achieve a tolerant society.

This is called hypocrisy by some, but such an opinion represents a misunderstanding of what we are advocating and what we stand for.

 

[Revoltingest]

It sounds like Fareed Zakaria has a problem with tolerance of liberals.

That's hard to swallow.....
(Waiting for @columbus to pounce on that.)
....since he appears to be one, & has even identified as one at times, & oft been called one.
He's criticizing particular behavior, which is reasonably argued to be "intolerant".

Personally I am intolerant of anti-science religion, extremism that advocates violence as a solution to name a few. If given some further thought I could possibly come up with quite a few things I am intolerant of, or I struggle to find a reason to tolerate them . . .

A problem is that "intolerant" is a nebulous word.
From what I observe, you are not intolerant of anti-science religion. Instead, you oppose it, but
tolerate its advocacy in the sense that you are civil, non-violent, & reasonable in your criticism of it.
Less tolearance is appropriate when someone "advocates violence as a solution" because unlike
anti-science religion (which is generally benign), to advocate violence poses real physical danger.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

One's political ideology seems incidental regarding whether they are intolerant or not. Intolerance seems like a detestable personality trait of certain people representing all ideologies and creeds. What we seem to have more of, in times like these, are people who are self-righteous in their intolerance. Those are the most dangerous, and annoying, kind.

 

[Revoltingest]

One's political ideology seems incidental regarding whether they are intolerant or not. Intolerance seems like a detestable personality trait of certain people representing all ideologies and creeds. What we seem to have more of, in times like these, are people who are self-righteous in their intolerance. Those are the most dangerous, and annoying, kind.

You're committing the sin of "false equivalence".

How, you wonder?
By making intolerance a personality trait which runs throughout humanity, it would
make both liberals & conservatives vulnerable. You don't allow that one is better
than the other, which is certainly the case. Thus, it's false equivalence.

Which is better?
It depends upon whom you ask. Taking a poll on RF (which is 84% liberal), I found
that 84% believe liberals are better, so much so that to even compare them with
conservatives is a logical fallacy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're committing the sin of "false equivalence".

How, you wonder?
By making intolerance a personality trait which runs throughout humanity, it would
make both liberals & conservatives vulnerable. You don't allow that one is better
than the other, which is certainly the case. Thus, it's false equivalence.

That's not how false equivalence works. Also, your argument here bares no resemblance to anything Kilgore said - they are not suggesting that one side cannot be better than the other, they are simply stating that intolerance is a trait that exists in many people on multiple sides of the political divide. Nothing that they said was false equivalence.

Which is better?
It depends upon whom you ask. Taking a poll on RF (which is 84% liberal), I found
that 84% believe liberals are better, so much so that to even compare them with
conservatives is a logical fallacy.

They didn't compare them. They just explained that both sides have individuals who are intolerant.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not how false equivalence works. Also, your argument here bares no resemblance to anything Kilgore said - they are not suggesting that one side cannot be better than the other, they are simply stating that intolerance is a trait that exists in many people on multiple sides of the political divide. Nothing that they said was false equivalence.
They didn't compare them. They just explained that both sides have individuals who are intolerant.

It was sarcasm tailored for Kilgore.
I mock the over-use & misuse of labeling things as informal
logical fallacies, when the root is really just disagreement.
I agree with his view that human failings are universal.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You're committing the sin of "false equivalence".

How, you wonder?
By making intolerance a personality trait which runs throughout humanity, it would
make both liberals & conservatives vulnerable. You don't allow that one is better
than the other, which is certainly the case. Thus, it's false equivalence.

Which is better?
It depends upon whom you ask. Taking a poll on RF (which is 84% liberal), I found
that 84% believe liberals are better, so much so that to even compare them with
conservatives is a logical fallacy.

I pay no attention to accusations of not playing by the rules, when I never agreed to play the game in the first place. This causes some people agita, but I've never been one to take responsibility for other people's neuroses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It was sarcasm tailored for Kilgore.

Are you serious?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you serious?

Yes.
Although my mirth has an element of genuine criticism in it.
(Fake poll should be obvious.)

 

[columbus]

That's hard to swallow.....
(Waiting for @columbus to pounce on that.)

I can only fantasize about what you were thinking of when you posted that.
But I am good at it

....since he appears to be one, & has even identified as one at times, & oft been called one.
He's criticizing particular behavior, which is reasonably argued to be "intolerant".

Only in the USA would the label liberal apply to Zakaria. In most of the west, from Germany to Australia, he is pretty conservative. But I have read lots of his stuff and find him informed, thoughtful and balanced. Even when I disagree with him, I see where he is coming from and respect his integrity.
I suspect that the liberal label might have been applied due to his nonpartisanship of critique. He used to write some scathing stuff about policies of Bush and the Republicans during the Bush administration. He didn't just toe the party line like a good conservative.
But I don't know that. Perhaps just being a centrist with passion and brains is enough.
In this case, he is making a very good point. Shutting down speaking events is way past criticizing the ideas or snubbing the speaker. Walking out of an address is not adding to the conversation, its just being rude and close minded. "Liberals" like to portray themselves in ways that aren't born out by their actions, and he called them out on it. Kudos.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Only in the USA would the label liberal apply to Zakaria. In most of the west, from Germany to Australia, he is pretty conservative.

Of course, the word "liberal" means different things in other times & places.
But since he was addressing Americastanians, I used the local definition.

But I have read lots of his stuff and find him informed, thoughtful and balanced. Even when I disagree with him, I see where he is coming from and respect his integrity.
I suspect that the liberal label might have been applied due to his nonpartisanship of critique. He used to write some scathing stuff about policies of Bush and the Republicans during the Bush administration. He didn't just toe the party line like a good conservative.
But I don't know that. Perhaps just being a centrist with passion and brains is enough.
In this case, he is making a very good point. Shutting down speaking events is way past criticizing the ideas or snubbing the speaker. Walking out of an address is not adding to the conversation, its just being rude and close minded. "Liberals" like to portray themselves in ways that aren't born out by their actions, and he called them out on it. Kudos.
Tom

Aye.

 

[Akivah]

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

The problem is when it is defined that all disagreements with one's own position are automatically given a label of hate-speech, bigotry, or intolerance.

 

[metis]

Only if words never mean or amount to anything. But...

 

[Akivah]

Very well. I'd estimate that between two-thirds and four-fifths of today's conservatives are too irrational to engage in reasonable discussions of the issues. But by all means, blame me the messenger for that news.

It's not news, it's your personal opinion probably based on watching too much TV.

What do you define as reasonable discussion? Is it only discussion that agrees with your own opinions?

 

[Akivah]

Defending free speech doesn't mean you have to provide a platform for speech you disagree with.

That's the exact definition of free speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not news, it's your personal opinion probably based on watching too much TV.

What do you define as reasonable discussion? Is it only discussion that agrees with your own opinions?

To engage others in reasonable discussion requires both sides to be that way.
If one isn't reasonable, then the others will all look unreasonable.
There are a great many cons & libs who are civil & thoughtful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the exact definition of free speech.

No, it isn't.

The right to free speech is the right not to have speech criminalized by the government. That's it. It doesn't mean that a person is entitled to any particular platform or can say anything without consequences or criticism.

 

[Akivah]

There are radicals on both the left and right that are very intolerant of people that hold values and beliefs that differ from there own. radicals tend to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone that disagrees with their own values are "the bad guys" or "the dumb guys" and of course they view them selves as "the good guys" or "smart guys" (which gives them a sense of superiority). When they view people as the "bad guys" its easy for them to perceive people's intentions to be evil. For example when a man proclaims to be pro-life, he's perceived by the radical left as being a horrible women hating misogynist. If a woman proclaims to be pro-choice, she's seen by the radical right as a psychopath that likes to murder babies. All types of radicals (left or right) are bigots that will never be happy unless they could somehow force everyone in the world to think and act just like themselves.

I'd like to give you a 'Double-Winner"!!