Poll: Liberals Can be Provoked to Violence

[idav]

Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

 

[Mister Silver]

Liberals can be provoked to violence just as anyone can.

When someone pushes and pushes and pushes his hateful ideology, it is perfectly natural to break one's calm in order to confront the perpetrator. Personally, before violence ensued, I would go the route of a verbal confrontation. If the one spewing the hateful ideology physically attacks me first, of course I am going to defend myself by physically attacking him.

 

[Quetzal]

Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Nah, they are people, too.

 

[Altfish]

I get angry at stupid polls

 

[idav]

I get angry at stupid polls

Yet it's so rare to get full consensus over something. The day is young.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yet it's so rare to get full consensus over something. The day is young.

I think because this isn't necessarily partisan. I expect you'd get a similar result from asking the same of conservatives.
If you asked which is more violent, however...that is an adversarial question which will most likely provoke a more adversarial response.

 

[Laika]

Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

Voted "Liberals killed my dog" (yes, basically)

There are limits to Liberal tolerance and if you exceed that tolerance, Liberals will become violent in order to defend the ideas of liberty and equality. its known as the Paradox of Tolerance because if you tolerate the intolerant, it means the overall amount of tolerance will decrease as society is populated by more intolerance people. At some point, Liberals have to assert Liberty and Equality are superior values to ones opposed to it such as those found in totalitarian ideologies. At a minimum Liberalism believes in equality before the law and the debate over equality is the extent to which social equality is achievable without mandating it by destroying or undermining individual rights.

Historically, sections of society have fallen outside of the definition of "individual rights" and be subject to abuse. The struggling for Universal suffrage and the struggle for civil rights based on race, gender and sexual orientation shows how liberalism evolved to cover more and more people over the course of the past two centuries. Whilst we have reached a degree of universalism in including more groups of people, the limits are still there. Non-violence is a central tenant of behaviour between people who accept the principles of Liberty and Equality as a basis for recognising each others rights, but begins to fall apart when you are dealing with someone who does not share those beliefs and demands the law and the state treat people differently as unequal. That's when liberals get violent.

 

[columbus]

When someone pushes and pushes and pushes his hateful ideology, it is perfectly natural to break one's calm in order to confront the perpetrator.

You mean like that gay, Communist, racemixing, welfare state that the liberals are trying to force on decent folk?

Tom

 

[Mister Silver]

You mean like that gay, Communist, racemixing, welfare state that the liberals are trying to force on decent folk?

Tom

Sometimes I have trouble discerning if someone online is being funny or serious.

I am going to err on the side of optimism, which I rarely do, and assume you are being satirical.

However, also to address what you stated, I imagine a liberal society that recognizes the equality of all is preferable to most people than the conservative society of segregation, gross inequality, and possibly something resembling a theocracy.

 

[sun rise]

You asked about human nature and got a human nature response. A better question is about the minority of left and right who want a fight and start one.

 

[David1967]

Voted "Liberals killed my dog" (yes, basically)

Me too. Seemed a sensible answer.

 

[Mister Silver]

Liberals can be "provoked" or enticed to use violence. By their record of imperialism, I don't see how one could say otherwise.

I view imperialism as a conservative trait. Wouldn't it be?

im·pe·ri·al·ism
imˈpirēəˌlizəm/
noun

1. a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
   "the struggle against imperialism"
   • historical
     rule by an emperor.

After all, liberals tend to be against military force and emperor-type ruling.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted for the 2nd one.
A whole bunch'o people agree with me.
What does that say about you!?

 

[shunyadragon]

Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

Silly question and dumb poll. No possible answer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Silly question and dumb poll. No possible answer.

But it got you to post here.
Hah!

 

[shunyadragon]

But it got you to post here.
Hah!

I did not answer the poll!

 

[Revoltingest]

I did not answer the poll!

That makes 2 posts now which you've contributed.
The thread's popularity grows & grows!

 

[idav]

Silly question and dumb poll. No possible answer.

You look at posts like #7, it can actually be pretty thought provoking. There is a reason the right wants to paint liberals hypocrites for not letting their heroes speak. There truly is a certain irony in trying to advocate tolerance while telling people they aren't allowed to be intolerant.

 

[Nakosis]

Does anyone believe that liberals can never be angered or provoked to act violently?

Here is a definition of liberal from the dictionary.

Liberal: Open to new behaviors or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

Here is the definition of political liberalism.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Do any of those definitions imply anything about non-violence being a central. What about allowing superiortiy, that one little part would go directly against the notion of equality.

Is there any set tenet on how liberalism is supposed to achieve equality?

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

Violence is about getting others to submit to your control. How does this promote equality?

 

[Quintessence]

Is it a silly question? Sometimes I wonder.

A curiosity - what makes you feel it might be a silly question? What about it strikes you as peculiar or strange?