Hmm…It seems to me like most of the intolerance evidenced on this thread of late has come from people not likely to label themselves ‘liberal.’
I’m very liberal.
but you largely probably see it this way because you ignore intolerance when you agree with it.
2 Likes
And… A third time. lol
Look. Someone said their friend ruled out anyone who didn’t agree with her politics as a partner, which is close minded as can be. Literally the very definition of intolerant.
You defended it, with a presentation of positions implying their superiority. (And even if you didn’t imply that, anyone familiar with American politics knows everyone thinks their position is superior.)
Then, you again defended the wall trying to catch Emily in a “gotcha” moment. With the intent of showing it is actually the right who are the “bad” ones, or at the very least “just as guilty as the left”
Then did the same to me, and third here we are again.
You’re a living example of the meme “intolerant left” in the last couple posts, desperately trying to push the “but republican” narrative. Relax man and accept the fact your group sucks just as much as every other group, and worrying about anything other than individualism is an exercise in futility.
2 Likes
I am as well, lol.
But liberal in actual reality, which is going to blow up a couple of the contemporary liberal positions outlined earlier.
1 Like
I “defended” it in the sense of pointing out that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a person holding a given set of strong beliefs would not want to make a life with someone who held the opposite views. As for ‘implications of superiority,’ that was all in your head.
Yes, I would argue that intolerance of opposing political viewpoints is equally shared among liberals and conservatives. And as above, the notion that I was actually trying to show that ‘the right are the bad ones’ is one entirely constructed by you, as I said no such thing.
Yes, I am suggesting that your comments regarding me have evidenced significant intolerance. Need evidence? Here ya go:
The only narrative I’ve ‘pushed’ in this section of the thread is that intolerance knows no political bounds.
Right, therefore they are completely, 100% and undeniably intolerant.
Saying that isn’t unreasonable is defending intolerance.
BTW: my marriage is mixed politically, and along some of those “third rail” issue lines. It isn’t a problem in any way shape or form. We joke about it constantly actually.
I would never, ever consider not dating someone, hanging out with someone or otherwise entertaining anyone based on their political beliefs. Never have, and likely never will.
But you’re kind of purposely ignoring the irony in the fact one massive section of people within those bounds claims they don’t have intolerance issues, which is producing the comments.
There’s a difference between incompatibility and intolerance. Is it ‘intolerant’ if a nonsmoker says ‘I would never date a smoker’? If a teetotaler says ‘I would never date someone who likes to drink every day’? I don’t think so; it’s simply recognition of incompatibility. Likewise, if someone says ‘I could never date a Republican, because I feel we would have little in common,’ that may well be a not-unreasonable recognition of incompatibility. (Now, if you wanted to argue that such a person is being unnecessarily presumptuous, ie, that s/he can’t really know if they could date a Republican unless they try, I wouldn’t disagree.)
BTW, there’s also a big difference between someone who says ‘I could never date a Republican, because I feel we would have little in common’ and another who says ‘I could never date a Republican, because they’re all racist homophobic gun nuts.’ The point being, presumptuousness can tip over into frank, hostile intolerance.
Really? Not even a Nazi? A white supremacist? An ISIS sympathizer? An anti-Semite? I wouldn’t hang out with any of the above (much less date them).
I guess I am more intolerant than you.
If you’re pointing out that there exists a subset of liberals who preach tolerance but who in practice are almost comically intolerant: I concur.
Counting Beans and DD:
You both said that you are “very liberal.” I’m curious how you define that?
I think everyone – everyone! – has inherent intolerances, regardless of political affiliation.
1 Like
I believe in liberty and the right of people to do what they want if they don’t use coercion. I believe in negative rights and civil liberties and economic freedom.
This certainly qualifies as ‘liberalism’ in the classic, Lockean sense. However, in current parlance, this set of beliefs is more commonly associated with the term libertarianism.
I’m liberal in the sense of the definition of the word liberal. I’m largely not liberal in the sense of the political philosophy that uses that word as it’s name and largely follows tenants opposite to that of the actual definition.
Some of the posters in the thread seem to believe that “liberals” would like there to be one shared reality, so uniformity of thought in addition to legal protections that amount, if I understand what they’re saying, to special privileges.
Yes, that is exactly what I believe.
Just as an anectote one of the most drop dead gorgeous women I ever met, both physically an personality wise had uneven legs.
So I do not know how that plays a role whatsoever, not that it takes away from your point.
BUT, and that does question your point somewhat, there are no ugly women, there are just women who do not try hard enough.
Now, I know that this is not entirely true, but we live in a society where the idea of trying to please men almost feels… wrong…
For a lot of women their self imposed unattractiveness is their destiny.
I am a libertarian.
I am hated by both sides, even in Europe where an interesting reversal takes place, so, really, hated by all possible sides…
I think I am doing it right.
As a sidenote, no more weird, random capitalizations.
T-Nation techcrew is the shiznit.
1 Like
This was my point. I would decry the hypocrisy if, say, a very vocal “staunch” conservative whined about wanting more government involvement in an arena that benefited them particularly. So I expect tolerance of other views from the party of acceptance and I expect independence from the party of limited givernment. Hopefully that makes more sense, ED. I’m posting from my phone with limited time - I’m at a training with said best friend.
Who, by the way, adores Hockey and laughed when I told her that we might be forced to take his “I’ll give up my guns when the Kennedys give up their cars” cooler. She’s shifted a lot, I assume not because of Hockey himself but because we’ve had so much cause to discuss it. But Hockey himself is pretty compelling, given that he’s a fine example of a socially liberal small government republican.
N[quote=“EyeDentist, post:2172, topic:210559”]
If you’re pointing out that there exists a subset of liberals who preach tolerance but who in practice are almost comically intolerant: I concur.
[/quote]
And this. My friend does NOT exemplify this subset. She wouldn’t be my friend if she did. She’s friendly and open and we can cheerfully debate the issues we don’t agree on. The dating thing was an off-hand remark she made when I started dating.
The people I’m thinking of, whom I encounter occasionally, are grim and angry. They loathe conservatives, freely mock Christians, revel in mishaps in places like Florida and Texas, and just generally behave nastily. It’s incredible snobbery, and its hypocrisy leaves me breathless. My best friend is nothing like that.
1 Like
I’m going to have to think about this. Self-esteem plays a part - some women don’t believe they can be attractive even if they want to, or feel so unattractive they dress down lest people think they’ve gotten above themselves, so to speak.
Regarding individualism, do those of you who so highly value this principle actually believe that we are somehow one day going to make billions of people on this earth take it up and put it into practice, especially considering there are many that wouldn’t even survive if they were to practice it?
Do you really think that we living and thinking and judging of others as individuals wouldn’t eventually fall prey to those who are working in groups? Do you really think there are not quite a hefty number of ambitious and competitive people out there who maybe, just maybe, get the itch for more of the world’s real estate (as if this has never been done before), and realize after getting this urge that working as a team will mean the end to a bunch of happiness- and pleasure-seeking, naive goofballs working each as individuals?
And yes, perhaps we could have a society in which everyone can do as they please if… we had the fantastic scenario in which there existed no perverts and other deviant people.
Do we really think at this time, with all the ambitious and cunning people, who are now not only using our technology but have expanded upon it, that we can have a small, lax government, rather than finally one day getting the powerful government we need at this time on an overcrowded, hostile earth, which will show others to never fuck with us again, which requires teamwork with allies too?
And how will we get others to view each and everyone of us as individuals? And how am I going to get myself, after in my whole life, reading about, observing, living and working closely with all kinds of people, to rid myself of all my collective notions about them because of how they behave as groups as well as their natural tendencies? So I am going to simply judge every unique individual I mean, make an individual assessment, and completely ignore where he comes from and to which group he belongs? Is this possible? And how am I going to make everyone else to think like this of me too?
In crunch times, people turn to who they are and there’s more than enough history in 2016 to show this! The fact is I DO judge individuals I meet as they are, but to think as an adult, especially one living in one of the most diverse urban areas on earth and a casual history buff, that there are no group dynamics at work ever since man stepped on the world scene is foolish, I believe. I’m being serious here.
Edit/addendum: @countingbeans I value your input on such matters and I recognize that I might not be understanding the principle of individualism as others are discussing it.
Yes, assuming you could never connect with someone without ever even talking to them because of your assumptions is intolerant.
I think you’re grasping at straws here to defend the wall. As demonstrated with:
whew lad, you got me there!
Jesus Christ with this. Give me break will ya?
Reductio ad absurdum at it’s worst.
Yeah. That’s all we are saying.