Liberals and Progressives: Does being intolerant of intolerance make one a bigot? (parade, lawyers)
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.
I understand the sentiments & also realize harsh words create resentment. It is tedious to repeat words on deaf ears. Parentally, it is like reasoning with a child who is scared of the dark.
It may sound condescending but I can not think of a better solution & that is free education from grade school to post-graduate college. What a service we would be giving Americans. Thankfully the Internet opens many doors if the person is open to the whole picture [not just some small town isolation].
Aren't you just hammering the point this post was trying to make?
If someone is going to make an argument like bchris (which I do not FULLY support but do not FULLY dispute- I am tolerant of his position) it should be complete. And bchris left out "ignorant".
The use of the terms bigot, intolerant and ignorant is generally thrown around in the gay issue threads whenever someone does not share the same opinion as someone who is very pro gay rights. The use of the two derogatory terms bigot and intolerant is applicable mainly to gay, women and immigration issues.
The term ignorant has more universal appeal to those throwing it around as it has a higher tone than calling someone stupid. It is very handy and can be used for hating Bush and can easily displace the need for knowledge of history, culture or reality for that matter.
If someone is going to make an argument like bchris (which I do not FULLY support but do not FULLY dispute- I am tolerant of his position) it should be complete. And bchris left out "ignorant".
The use of the terms bigot, intolerant and ignorant is generally thrown around in the gay issue threads whenever someone does not share the same opinion as someone who is very pro gay rights. The use of the two derogatory terms bigot and intolerant is applicable mainly to gay, women and immigration issues.
The term ignorant has more universal appeal to those throwing it around as it has a higher tone than calling someone stupid. It is very handy and can be used for hating Bush and can easily displace the need for knowledge of history, culture or reality for that matter.
I don't think comparing people who disagree with you to children, and yourself to a parent, is valid, and as mentioned above, it smacks of condescension. If it's "ignorant", "backward", or "bigoted" for me to refer to ALL liberals as show-tune-singing tree-hugging tax-raising tofu-eating Commie-sympathizing atheist gays, (and it is all of those things for me to call them that) then it is ALSO ignorant, backward and bigoted for liberals to demonize conservatives across the board. Being liberal does NOT make you immune to the effects of human nature; liberals are just as prone to hypocrisy, silliness and hyperbole as conservatives are. If someone purports to be a "parent" to us ignorant "children", then DEMONSTRATE THIS VAUNTED TOLERANCE OF WHICH YOU SPEAK, so we can learn it from you. And while you're doing that, let me go get a stepladder, so you can climb up and get over yourself.
And this is why social progressives get a lot of flack.
Obviously one is going to believe that their social mores and philosophies are best. And some can even use more then mere feelings to explain why. But when social progressives start immediatly calling people with opposing viewpoints 'ignorant' 'racist' 'bible thumper' and what appears to be the worst cuss word of all to a liberal -- a conservative , that person loses his/her validity very quickly. How can one be open minded and judgemental at the same time? How can someone purporting to have an analytical mind still say with a straight face "only bible thumping, racist Mcmansion living conservatives belive xyz". Again, crediblity is lost.
Now, for someone to say "I believe in xyz because abc" would show openmindedness to all possible positions while showing specific reasons as to why your position either makes sense or is the best one. Name calling may be easy, but it really only shows that your position is weak. Although, I have been guilty of it too, from time to time. Tempers can be lost --- but it is important to try to keep the level of discourse to a high standard.
Someone flaunting an archie bunker mentality should expect to be called archie bunker. Crying foul or discrimination is meritless.
I agree with much of what you've said, and my personal philosophy or rightness and wrongness-- there is a wrongful conclusion people make somewhere along the line (self included) that taints other conclusions beyond that point of reference. That's where I see the value of personal views being discussed openly and merits of evidence weighed best. When we refrain from personal attacks and focus more on the logic involved, its so much more productive. Everyone gains more than what they came to the table gifting in pot luck dinners. Win-win situations.
There's a saying I came across on the net- "In the feast of ego, everyone goes hungry." What could be better evidence than the success/failure of a thread in these forums? The way we communicate, and our willingness to be wrong as well as right, determines how much we get out of these interactions with one another. When people come to a forum with agendas of soliciting validation for their views, its a fluffernutter nutrition level of info relative to the broader awarness of an issue.
It's great when there's harmony and we agree, but that only means it's time to examine where we disagree elsewhere to gain the multi-perspective comprehensive knowledge needed for intelligent conclusions as individuals within group dynamics. My witnessing and participation in american discourse; we need to collectively evolve our communication to rise to the challenges of the issues at hand. I'm willing to learn is all I can promise.
I understand the sentiments & also realize harsh words create resentment. It is tedious to repeat words on deaf ears. Parentally, it is like reasoning with a child who is scared of the dark.
It may sound condescending but I can not think of a better solution & that is free education from grade school to post-graduate college. What a service we would be giving Americans. Thankfully the Internet opens many doors if the person is open to the whole picture [not just some small town isolation].
LOL happ- want a laugh?
I once yelled at my dad, at the age of 14, to QUIT demanding I think like a 30 yr old! That stupefied him for years, made him examine where I was coming from better, and improved his ability to get his point across to me. We were friends after that impass, but it was a hard habit for him to break.
There are many degrees of blindness happening online that's a mixed bag. We have no gender, race, religion, or anything that defines us traditionally in this medium until we announce who we are with words or betray ourselves via cultural stereotypes.
Being completely honest with ourselves- we don't know who we're speaking to in this wide arena, so it makes it harder to communicate in some ways. Other ways it forces people to focus on merits of argument alone. I have more faith in the latter, but beware of imposing expectations. They have more to do with your personal preferences and less to do with the larger reality we need to collectively understand. Pure academic education severely limits the range of thought required to solve problems nowadays. Know what I mean?
I am tolerant of people who are even intolerant of people (who claim to somehow claim to be tolerant) who are intolerant. But people who are intolerant of the intolerant are by definition not as tolerant as tolerant people like me.
?
(Regarding "self image" and how it's formed)....
"I am not what I THINK I am....nor am I, what YOU think I am..
I am, rather, what I THINK that you think I am".....
Does this incorporate the fact of 'tolerating that which is intolerable"? I don't know...but I think I DO have a pretty good idea of what YOU think.....and it's NOT what you believe that I think, either....it might surprise you...
Geez mac & bob how convoluted!! How about 'stupid is as stupid does' as a qualifier? Actions/conduct are more significant a definition IMO.
Whatever projection show people want to put on rarely accomplishes anything along the lines of education or furthering thoughts on an issue. More like confuses/obfuscates and shuts down a conversation wholesale.
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.
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.
, that person loses his/her validity very quickly. How can one be open minded and judgemental at the same time? How can someone purporting to have an analytical mind still say with a straight face "only bible thumping, racist Mcmansion living conservatives belive xyz". Again, crediblity is lost. 
