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.
Sometimes what is perceived by members of the left as intolerance is an unchangeable innate characteristic
Just because somebody is born with an innate prejudice (which I don't really buy), that doesn't make them any less prejudiced - because, you see, the beauty of having a brain is that we can change & alter our inherent perceptions once faced with reality.
Heck, even my 95 year-old grandmother is still evolving! She grew up with some very intolerant beliefs, mostly attributed to how & where she was raised, and she's managed to overcome many of those prejudices... going from a woman who used to clutch her purse at the sight of a black man, to a woman who openly embraces and loves our adopted black/gay brother. She also claimed she'd never accept us marrying outside of the faith, and now loves my non-Jewish brother-in-law and Filipina sister-in-law like they're blood. So people can evolve, and being born with prejudices is no excuse for perpetuating them throughout life.
Just because somebody is born with an innate prejudice (which I don't really buy), that doesn't make them any less prejudiced - because, you see, the beauty of having a brain is that we can change & alter our inherent perceptions once faced with reality.
Heck, even my 95 year-old grandmother is still evolving! She grew up with some very intolerant beliefs, mostly attributed to how & where she was raised, and she's managed to overcome many of those prejudices... going from a woman who used to clutch her purse at the sight of a black man, to a woman who openly embraces and loves our adopted black/gay brother. She also claimed she'd never accept us marrying outside of the faith, and now loves my non-Jewish brother-in-law and Filipina sister-in-law like they're blood. So people can evolve, and being born with prejudices is no excuse for perpetuating them throughout life.
We're not talking about learned behavior or even conscious thought.
The disgust reaction isn't contemplated beforehand.
If it were it would be ineffectual at producing involuntary avoidance behavior which is its sole purpose.
Thanks. That has been exactly my treatment by liberals also. Read any liberal blog and see what their responses are to any conservative posters in them. They are insulting and condescending just like you said. They won't even accept the truth when they see it but deal strictly in emotions instead.
That's pretty much the method from our fearless leader that I find hard to swallow.
Can we please get off this canard? Every week someone posts this. Use the search feature and you'll see multiple streams on this bogus theme.
Conservatives can stop pretending that rejection of intolerance is, in and of itself, intolerance. Rejection of racisim is not intolerance. In only a few minutes reading the forum today, I have seen African Americans stereotyped as welfare recipients and criminals, gays blamed for "creating" AIDS and worse-- None of these claims made by liberals. I'll say it again: Rejecting this intolerance and racisim is not intolerance.
It is not intolerance to reject a narrow racist, or bogus argument-- It is intelligence. Intelligent people can disagree on opinions and approaches-- but not on facts. Many on this board want to invent their own facts, and then scream intolerance, when their incoherent, tin-foil hat, against all factual evidence rantings are rejected as crazy.
Sorry--tolerance is living and getting along with others who's lifestyle is different than yours. Intolerance is understanding that backgrounds, customs, lifestyles differ and accepting that fact. You don't have to love it, or do it in your own home-- You just basically have to show basic decorum towards others who are different. It's that easy.
It doesn't mean accepting intellectually deleterious, or completely impossible "ideas" that are damaging to society, or even the good natured debate we attempt to have here
Indeed. That should have ended the thread, but blood in the water
draws sharks.
As I have stated before, liberals on this forum are more tolerant and you are one of the better ones on this forum. The really intolerant liberals, are not here, they do not want to hear opposing views. They only want power and others to hear their opinion. These kind of people may be blogwriters or politicans in unelected positions.
Thank you for the personal compliment, but I really don't think we (city-data members) are that much more "tolerant" than liberals in general... but to compare any group to its extremists is unfair, just as it would be unfair for me to pigeonhole conservatives based on Sarah Palin, Bachmann & Limbaugh. Are the extreme right-wingers any better? If not, than I think it's fair to say NORMAL liberals or conservatives cannot be judged as a whole.
Quote:
Who cares about what books are in the library anyway? Most people don't read books. Liberals tend to focus on censorship that has more effect.
Whoa... now you've done pissed off a librarian!!
For one thing, people with any shred of intelligence or thirst for knowledge still read books - and if you meant to specify paper books, censorship would affect their digital counterparts too. But the fact that we have over 30,000 library cardholders in a county of under 50,000, and the fact that we circulate thousands of actual books weekly at our tiny library, tells me people DO still read in non-digital form. FYI, we check out more children's books than anything, and those are precisely the titles people tend to attack. To which we usually say, although in nicer and more diplomatic words "Too bad."
Where did you get this idea? The media? Books do matter, and censorship of books is probably the most dangerous form of censorship... I can't believe you would think otherwise, or dismiss this as something that doesn't negatively affect society. Maybe that's the root of our problem here? Perhaps you don't care since you're not a reader or user of the public libraries, but millions upon millions of people do care about what's on (or not on) our shelves. Trust me, I face that issue from both ends on a regular basis!
Quote:
What often happens is media censorship, which is the most effective form for censorship. I told you what happens when some socialists took over the university newspaper in my town. I told you about Sweden where liberals have a monopoly and a good deal with the government to keep competitors out. If you take it a step longer, then you can ban opposing views and excuse it by saying it is racism, inhumane, etc. Also, most countries have a state channel, which are often used for propaganda. Just take a look at Venezuela or even BBC in the UK.
The left is famous for their censorship. And from my experience it does not seem like a thing from the past. I just think a lot of liberals get extremly annoyed by opposing views, and feel the need to silence them. While conservatives, at least the more liberterian type, are better at protecting freedom of speech.
Sorry, but I still don't see what you all claim here... and I've watched enough television (and read enough newspapers) to know that many different views are represented. Everyone is "annoyed by opposing views," and it's frustrating that some of you fail to see that, or somehow believe one side is more accepting of opposition than the other. One conservative poster here even told us how Rush Limbaugh used to screen his calls for women, and would only let them through if they sent a picture first. WTH?? However, as disgusting as he might be at times, I still would never suggest he represents all conservatives - nor would I ever call for his arrest or removal from the airwaves. I can dislike somebody without wanting them to be banned, ya know?
But all of that is irrelevant to the actual laws of censorship, and I don't know of anyone from either side who supports legal banning of speech. Do you think the liberals' pushing of PC speech is paramount to suppression? Because annoying as that might be (I personally hate that BS, but also understand when something crosses the line between "non-PC" and downright prejudiced), it still doesn't mean they're suggesting any speech be illegal. We can still say what we choose in this country, and somebody disagreeing with your words is NOT equivalent to suppressing it.
We're not talking about learned behavior or even conscious thought.
The disgust reaction isn't contemplated beforehand.
If it were it would be ineffectual at producing involuntary avoidance behavior which is its sole purpose.
Really p*sses in the liberal punch, doesn't it?
No, not really... as anyone with a mind is capable of overcoming illogical prejudices, whether inherited or learned. Do you think it's okay to hate somebody, simply because you were born thinking they're dirty? You may not have control over how your brain was originally wired, but free will allows a decent person to eventually think "Wow, maybe I'm wrong??" Even if they can't control their reactions on the spot, they can later reflect and contemplate why they feel this way - and whether it's fair for them to perpetuate these feelings or project them upon others.
Thank you for the personal compliment, but I really don't think we (city-data members) are that much more "tolerant" than liberals in general... but to compare any group to its extremists is unfair, just as it would be unfair for me to pigeonhole conservatives based on Sarah Palin, Bachmann & Limbaugh. Are the extreme right-wingers any better? If not, than I think it's fair to say NORMAL liberals or conservatives cannot be judged as a whole.
I am not comparing to extremists. I am comparing city data members to the average person active in politics. And my experience is that members on open forums are much less arrogant, and more tolerant, than other people who are active in politics.
The reason is because you have to read what other people are writing. That creates an understanding of other views.
Quote:
Whoa... now you've done pissed off a librarian!!
Then I think you are being too idealistic. Fact is, about 50% of the population do not read books for leisure. Among the ones who read, few read politics, and even less is influenced by the types of books in the library.
Trying to fight books is bad politics, and probably has made the Republican lose votes. Why? Because it has made them seem unintelectual.
Quote:
For one thing, people with any shred of intelligence or thirst for knowledge still read books -
I read books, also political books. However, I am not influenced by the selection in library, because I buy books. I am just talking about the average person.
I am not saying, that attacking books is not bad, or somewhat dangerous if they succeed. But it is certainly not the most effective way of propaganda. I think most of the conservative parents are worried about what their kids read, and not too concerned about preventing liberals from reading liberal books.
Quote:
Sorry, but I still don't see what you all claim here... and I've watched enough television (and read enough newspapers) to know that many different views are represented. Everyone is "annoyed by opposing views," and it's frustrating that some of you fail to see that, or somehow believe one side is more accepting of opposition than the other.
Dude, you live in America. America has plenty of alternative media, respresenting all kind of views. Not that liberals in America haven't tried. There are plenty who want to ban/limit conservative radio. The liberal bias in mainstream media created the conservative channel Fox News.
I am talking more internationally. Media censorship is very common around the world. For instance, in Norway. The media worked together to not cover a revolt in Sweden, because they were afraid it would help one Norwegian party.
Quote:
But all of that is irrelevant to the actual laws of censorship, and I don't know of anyone from either side who supports legal banning of speech. Do you think the liberals' pushing of PC speech is paramount to suppression? Because annoying as that might be (I personally hate that BS, but also understand when something crosses the line between "non-PC" and downright prejudiced), it still doesn't mean they're suggesting any speech be illegal. We can still say what we choose in this country, and somebody disagreeing with your words is NOT equivalent to suppressing it.
No one will admit they are in favour of censorship. That doesn't mean they are not. Think about the university newspaper in Auckland. They said they were in favour of free speech, but they are still rejecting all articles they don't like, and insulting anyone in the newspaper with a opposing view.
We are not talking about intolerance to an idea. We are talking about the intolerance to the people who are holding the beliefs.
Some people say, well I don't tolerate bigots or idiots. But while you may have a point in the US. Liberals in other countries do exactly the same even though they are the idiots. Take a look at Sweden. The Social Democrats (liberals) said they would take the debate with Sweden Democrats and expose their racism. So the leader of Social Democrats debated with the leader of Sweden Democrats. Instead she got humiliated because she had no arguments, and said later that it is impossible to debate with them, and will never debate with them again.
Do liberals in Sweden unfriend people who associate with Sweden Democrats. They certainly do. Liberals will always think they are right and the other side are idiots. To be intolerant is when you are unfriending people just because they disagree with you. Then you are pretty close minded.
Yet you just called liberals idiots.
You make our point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Thanks. That has been exactly my treatment by liberals also. Read any liberal blog and see what their responses are to any conservative posters in them. They are insulting and condescending just like you said. They won't even accept the truth when they see it but deal strictly in emotions instead.
Oh, posh.
Read any conservative blog, or don't they count for your faux outrage.
I read your posts, they're no different from what you're complaining about.
Thanks. That has been exactly my treatment by liberals also. Read any liberal blog and see what their responses are to any conservative posters in them. They are insulting and condescending just like you said. They won't even accept the truth when they see it but deal strictly in emotions instead.
That's true of any political forum, this one included. Name-calling and one-liners rule the day and only occasionally does any intelligent discourse get created (from all ends of the political spectrum).
How can it be possible for liberals to be more intolerant than conservatives?
PEOPLE LIBERALS ARE INTOLERANT OF:
Conservatives
PEOPLE CONSERVATIVES ARE INTOLERANT OF:
gays
blacks
liberals
atheists
Muslims
Mexicans
Jews
Europeans
intellectuals
scientists
Honestly I don't even see how there is a comparison, conservatives literally hate anyone who isn't one of them by skin color, religion, nationality and sexual preference, the same definitely cant be said about liberals.
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 should have ended the thread, but blood in the water
