Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2017, 06:58 AM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,403,728 times
Reputation: 13233

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
What's the difference between not liking a policy and being called a racist for not liking said policy?
The difference is whether one is a racist or not, I imagine.

 
Old 08-08-2017, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,407 posts, read 7,030,619 times
Reputation: 11656
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945 View Post
No one on the Trump side of the ledger should ever bring up the word "hypocritical". We can post hundreds of examples of your boy doing just that. He is the king of hypocrites.
You'll have to excuse me, but I don't see where the OP was asking if two wrongs made a right.

Maybe you can point out that part for us?

Oh, and BTW, the lack of tolerance for dissent among Liberals that the OP is referring to started long before Trump was elected.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 06:59 AM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,403,728 times
Reputation: 13233
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
To the bold....yet, when the repubs/righties....express their opinions, they are called racist, phobic....and so on...
Can you give everyone some examples?
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:12 AM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,576,347 times
Reputation: 5687
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Expat View Post
Because liberalism is not based on logic and facts, it's based on emotions and shifting/changing the logic to the situation in order to support the PC narrative.
What is the PC agenda? Also, what makes PC so bad in the first place? As for emotions and shifting logic, I recall Pat Buchannan years ago appealing to a "Conservatism of the Heart". Sounds like at least one conservative is basing his emotions on shifting and changing logic - namely shifting to emotion-based reasons for holding on to time-honored conservative values when they either (a) lost their usefulness due to the reason for those values ceasing to exist, or (b) those conservative values were never true to begin with. Example: shifting the social climate from "don't have sex outside committed relationships" (of as late as 30 years ago for a lot of conservatives) to "have as much sex as you want". Don't even get me started on emotional-based reasons for insisting that people adhere to idealized gender roles ("men have to be 'manly'", "women have to be 'feminine'").

Quote:
Originally Posted by glamatomic View Post
I think the meaning of Liberalism as a political ideology has been misconstrued here.

Yes there are a lot of steretypes of Liberals as tree-hugging, 'make love not war', passive people, and some of that may stem from fact...

But there is nothing in Liberal ideology that says we cannot stand up for what we believe is right, nothing that says we cannot criticize the government.

Yes, Liberals are more accepting of various lifestyle choices and individual liberties. However, it does not undermine the fact that we are allowed to express opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
To the bold....yet, when the repubs/righties....express their opinions, they are called racist, phobic....and so on...
1. Why stigmatize people who meet those stereotypes - including stigmatizing those who are weak or passive (for whatever reason)? They don't do anything to hurt, harm, or degrade others.

2. True about liberal ideology not meaning "passive", although I don't think we should stigmatize that trait.

Again, as I said in my last post, every side has their d-bags. However, the "repubs/righties" are hardly doing any better when dems/lefties (let's call them) get called snowflakes, crybabies, weak, wimps, etc. (not that I think the latter set of traits deserve stigma, just that the right tends to put high stigma on those traits and so the intended effect is the same - to discredit people based on certain disfavored traits).
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:12 AM
 
46,189 posts, read 26,929,755 times
Reputation: 11079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
Can you give everyone some examples?

Have you been asleep the last 9 years?


If you opposed anything Obama did, you were a racist....


If you opposed anything the left did or disliked, you were a phobic or some nature.....
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:12 AM
 
817 posts, read 749,305 times
Reputation: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
That's a lot of caricatures you're putting out there.

First, lets get this one out on the table. I will be the first to admit that intolerance in terms of attitude, tone, ridicule, etc is equally likely regardless of one's political position. Politics in general tends to attract self-righeteous *******s like spilled sugar attracts ants. It's the same with any other hot potato issue (economics, finance, religion, national security, environmentalism, and so on).

Second, related to the first, I started this thread a few months ago about bashing people of different ideologies, and I assure you LOTS of conservatives were bashing this thread. So combining these two points, the "you're being intolerant and unaccepting" claims cancel each other out.

Baseline behavior? That's a pretty broad generalization right there. A lot of people are not blind to how petty, mean, and counterproductive scoffing, ridicule, and personal attacks are. Anyone can find them on this board with a little bit of effort - conservative and liberal.

"Being stern and mean to thicken their skin up": Again, a lot of implicit assumptions in this one.

Being stern and mean... right there, you're conflating the two.

sternness assertion of legitimate authority over someone, or to make people think twice before they consciously and deliberately set out to initiate hurt, harm, demeaning, or general disrespect against others well outside the scope of self-defense or defense of others (whether physical or not). The last part of the sentence supplies the definition for "meanness"

mean consciously and deliberately set out to initiate hurt, harm, demeaning, or general disrespect against others well outside the scope of self-defense or defense of others (whether physical or not).

I assume this is clear to you by now.

"thicken their skin up". Why should this be an issue at all? In all my almost 20 years in online discussions on a variety of boards and chat rooms (astronomy, anthropology, politics, etc) I have yet to see any instance where being thick-skinned or thin-skinned proves a statement true or false. The same thing goes for real life face to face discussions - sensibility of a post (or not) has nothing to do with how thick or thin skinned a person is. A post is true (or at least plausible) or not based on its own merits or demerits, not on the thickness of skin of the poster.

As for "resorting to baseline behavior" (which I take to mean cocky insults that contribute nothing to a discussion), especially assuming that that proves conservativism is the superior ideology, you assume that human nature is more or less all right the way it is and therefore there is no need to change it.

The problem is that lots of things in this world are "baseline behavior" yet we don't condone it. Theft, non-defense assault or verbal abuse, lying when truth is morally / ethically paramount, prejudice against "different" or low-status people. The same goes for the sensitive, thin-skinned, timid, or even people of low-intelligence We as a society have wised up and realized these behaviors and mentalities are outside the range of appropriate acts, expressions, or thinking. We all have to examine our basebrain distaste against the "different", "weak", "stupid", etc., then determine of our attitudes are appropriate or inappropriate.
In short, people need to man up. There is a shortage of real men in this country.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:17 AM
 
Location: St. Louis, MO
4,009 posts, read 6,840,533 times
Reputation: 4608
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
To the bold....yet, when the repubs/righties....express their opinions, they are called racist, phobic....and so on...
Perhaps because the comments are racist, phobic and so on? Being liberal does not automatically negate the right to call someone out on something ethically and morally wrong.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:18 AM
 
7,800 posts, read 4,377,369 times
Reputation: 9438
Hypocrisy is a human condition and is in amble supply regardless of whether one is liberal or conservative. The question is whether you are self-aware enough to address it and deal with it.

Having said that, if we had to name a deity for hypocrisy, his name would be Trump.
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:19 AM
 
46,189 posts, read 26,929,755 times
Reputation: 11079
Quote:
Originally Posted by glamatomic View Post
Perhaps because the comments are racist, phobic and so on? Being liberal does not automatically negate the right to call someone out on something ethically and morally wrong.

Saying anyone disagrees with "said" policy should not be racist or phobic.




Me, disagreeing with you does that make me racist or phobic? This is what I'm speaking of....
 
Old 08-08-2017, 07:27 AM
Status: "81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Dallas, TX
5,789 posts, read 3,576,347 times
Reputation: 5687
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69Charger View Post
In short, people need to man up. There is a shortage of real men in this country.
With all due respect, I lost faith in mainstream definitions of manliness, especially those that put high emphasis on what I call the social dominance traits (strength, unflappability, power, etc). It implies that physical (or at least personal) forcefulness is the main yardstick to size up a male's worth. By that standard, a violent, extreme criminal deserves less disrespect than a quiet, timid, physically weak male who is generous, kind-hearted, and supportive (however shyly) of people in desperate need of help. That is precisely the sentiment communicated by "man up" - contempt of weakness, not because weakness itself is a conscious and deliberate effort to hurt, harm, or degrade others, but simply because weakness is deemed contemptible no matter what other, positive, qualities a person has.

For that reason, I proudly disavow the label of being a "man" (in this sense), and in fact would be embarrassed for myself if anyone in all seriousness considered me "manly". Nor would I go anywhere near that term when describing any male I like, admire, and respect - even if that male's practically a card-carrying member of the Alpha Male Club.

So your attempt to implicitly shame me and others for lacking manliness (by popular standards) has the opposite effect - I take being unmanly as the biggest compliment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top