To those who say liberals are intolerant...

[WillParkinson]

[hfojvt]

1. that last paragraph contradicts itself

#1 "I try to preach and practice tolerance, but I do NOT have to tolerate your intolerance."

#2 "There is never an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse."


Line #1 sounds like "an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse". Once I declare you as "intolerant" then I can heap hatred or abuse on you, because "I do NOT have to tolerate your intolerance".

So which is it, line #1 or line #2?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. you really don't understand English. If I have objective evidence that someone is behaving

intolerantly toward someone else because of race, sexual orientation, or other things....I don't have to accept that other person's intolerance. I can and should call them out.

[hfojvt]

4. so your lead line is abusive

well that's nice

that totally proves me wrong.

[NinetySix]

8. Tolerance and intolerance are antithetical.

Any other interpretation of tolerance is nonsensical.

[hfojvt]

12. now THAT I did NOT understand

Okay, so they are opposities. I accept that as true, but how does that relate to what I said?

[JDPriestly]

41. What would you consider objective evidence?

If someone says to me, "Oh, those . . . . (fill in the blank with a racial epithet), they are all, you know ..... alike." Or, she's a . . . ., and you know how they are.

Someone actually made statements like that a couple of months ago. I do not have to be polite when someone judges another person solely based on their race and lumps that person with others of the same race and then concludes with some derogatory insult to everyone of that race.

Statements like I have quoted, statements based on stereotypes that are used to label a person as inadequate simply because of race or gender or ethnicity are statements toward which I feel I need show no tolerance.

Is that, perhaps what you mean?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

49. You nailed it.

[jazzimov]

10. As a joke, I often say that

"The one thing I can't tolerate is intolerance!"

I am only human. Of course, if everyone agreed with me, there would be no intolerance.

But, if there was no intolerance, there would be nothing for me to be intolerant against.

So, I will continue to be intolerant towards intolerance, despite the apparent contradiction. Because I think we can do better.

[hfojvt]

15. I am generally intolerant of jazz

what do you mean by "be intolerant towards"?

I think we can do better too, btw.

I used to quote Asimov in my signature line "It is no one's right to have contempt for another. It is only a hard won privilege after long experience."

[jazzimov]

23. Ahhh, see?

we are both fans of Asimov. Although you are "intolerant" of jazz, which breaks my heart.

My point is that the term "intolerance" tends to be an absolutist term. I think there is a better, more descriptive term that we can use.

Surely, you aren't intolerant towards ALL jazz, since it has been so influential!

[jazzimov]

26. Oh, and to add,

I have seen several instances here of self-proclaimed Liberals that were just as absolutist and close-minded as many of those on the Right.

I, personally, don't consider those people to be helpful to our overall cause - in some cases I consider them anti-antithetical in their desire to be "more Liberal than thou."

Those people I find to be totally intolerant and just as bad as those on the Right.

[hfojvt]

30. by absolutist

are you talking about the people who absolutely don't like jazz, or some other people?

many here are certainly xenophobic towards n00bs or even those with low post counts. Anybody who has not passed through the 700 club is certainly suspect. After that, you are either one of the Jets, or grudgingly accepted as a well mannered troll who is, for some reason, allowed to live in the basement of this otherwise gnarly frathouse.

[jazzimov]

35. I tend to use terms objectively

so by "absolutist" I mean people who have "absolute" standards.

I understand people who "suspect" those with low post counts, but are willing to give them a chance.

Personally, I hate the Jets because I am a Titans fan. But I promise not to judge you just because you're a Jets fan.

If you consistently take a stand against everything I hold dear, then I will be against you.

However, even if you are consistently against my philosophy and ideas - if we find something that we agree on, I will count that as a blessing and an ally; at least on that point.

I consider an "absolutist" to be someone who stands by their opinions resolutely, despite any and all arguments against it.

This is much different from someone who listens to all arguments contrary to their opinion, and is willing to adjust that opinion but does not because they haven't heard any convincing arguments to do so.

Therefore, an "absolutist" is unwilling to change their opinion. The opposite would be someone with an open mind.

[hfojvt]

37. but why should I be willing to change my opinion

when I am clearly RIGHT about the awesomeness of the Jets?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/122

Go JETS!!!
Posted by hfojvt in The DU Lounge
Sat Jan 23rd 2010, 06:22 PM
Beat the Sharks!!

I am actually not a huge Jets fan in spite of my icon. I will be pulling for the Colts. The Colts offense plays fancy while the Jets defense plays ugly.

But I thought I would take this opportunity provided by the NY Jets play-off run in order to explain the metaphor I am trying to advance.

I perhaps get this metaphor from Somerby at the Daily Howler. I have been a Howler reader, sometimes off and on when I got too busy in DU, for perhaps seven years. Probably puts me in a minority in DU (again) where Somerby is not nearly as popular as KeithO who Somerby often criticizes.

I think the criticism is often valid, and it follows this metaphor. Somerby talks about "our tribe" and "their tribe".

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081109.shtml

"SURPRISED ALL OVER AGAIN! Before we call the other tribe names, let’s see how our own tribe has functioned."

One of the things KeithO and many DUers like to do is talk about the tribes, or as I call them, the gangs. Our gang is the Jets. And Jets, of course, are totally awesome. We are intelligent, well read, tolerant, open-minded, compassionate, logical, honest, hard-working, generous, and modest. If there is a virtue, we possess it, in spades. And also in hearts, diamonds, and clubs.

Especially as compared to the Sharks, those scum-bags on the other side. They are stupid, functioanlly illiterate, bigotted, close-minded, hard-hearted, superstitious, liars, lazy, stingy, and arrogant. If there is a fault, they posses it, in spades.

Of course, both of those are slight exxagerations and some might be thinking or will chime in - "but it's mostly true" and trot out some famous examples "get a brain, morans!" Somerby says we used to call that 'nut-picking' when the other side did it, but then we turn around and do it ourselves. "See, there's a war protestor who is violent and hates America, so they all do." "See, there's two or three clearly racist signs at a tea party protest, they all are a bunch of racists."

Well, it is always easy to be conviced of something that you already believe. As many believe in the perfidity of the other gang - the Sharks, it is easy for them to find 'proof' for that belief.

The other side, of course, does the same thing. They can find a few DUers who have some problems and use it to show that all of us 'primitives' (or Jets, really) are really defective. Just like they can find a few lies that Obama has told, just by reading DU on most days, to be convinced that he is a liar.

This is classic sociology though, that groups will maintain cohesion by contrasting themselves with other 'outside' groups.

Of course, I futilely try to fight against it. I try to convince the other side that there are good people on my side and try to convince my side that there are good people on the other side. Perhaps even great people (see below). That if we want to win in politics we need to reach out and inform rather than name-call and demonize.

Discuss (5 comments) | Recommend (0 votes) | Remove from Journal | Edit intro

[tama]

66. Just Jets on the field

wouldn't be very entertaining game.

But also, politics as win-lose game is a lose-lose game when compared to considering politics a win-win game.

[Flying Squirrel]

39. people with high post counts do get ppr'd, it just takes a lot more.

Enjoying yourself?

[cheapdate]

18. Maybe you're serious -- maybe you're just being casually argumentative...

But, in the first place, #1 says nothing at all about heaping hatred or abuse on anyone. The claim is that it's not necessary to tolerate intolerance. It makes no claim whatsoever that a tolerant person should or shouldn't heap anything on anyone.

So what is meant by not tolerating intolerance?

The imperative given in #2 gives some guidance on that question. "There is never an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse." So #2 precludes ever heaping hatred or abuse as a means to an end.

I don't know what's confusing about this.

(Unrelated note -- "tolerance" as a behavioral trait is not an all or nothing proposition and it would be a mistake to consider it as such.)

[hfojvt]

22. because it does not say what "not have to tolerate" means

the imperative in line two is not aimed at our perfectly tolerant selves. It is aimed at the supposed hatred and abuse of the other.

You probably did not think of YOUR first line as an attack. Did you? Me? Abusive? Shirley, you jest.

and rather logically when you do "not have to tolerate" something that means you can hate and/or attack it or them.

[cheapdate]

28. "...never an excuse" is unequivocal. n/t

[hfojvt]

31. no, because "logic" is "the principle governing the human intellect"

"its use can best be demonstrated by two phrases, which are subscribed to by many people. 'I can't so you mustn't" and "I can but you mustn't" John Brunner, Stand On Zanzibar (as best as I can remember it).

For a recent example, check out how this "hater" was "called out" for his "hate". http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2250225

[cheapdate]

33. Do we not agree on the meaning of the word "never"?

There is no "can". It's eclipsed by "never".

Never -
1 : not ever : at no time <I never met her>
2 : not in any degree : not under any condition <never the wiser for his experience>

[hfojvt]

40. Do we agree about reality?

the reality, is that this thread, bragging about
1. the tolerance of liberals
and yet at the same time
2. their intolerance of people who disagree with them (who they get to label as intolerant)

this thread has 75 recs.

The fact of the matter is, that many in this group, perhaps some of the same people who are reccing this thread,
are quite happy to throw hatred at other people http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=228358

Because people have blind spots, when they read "there is NEVER an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse". People read that to mean "there is never and excuse or justification for the hatred and abuse that rightwingers engage in". It is read as "there is never an excuse for THEM".

I mean, because it is not abusive to say "you really don't understand English". Because our hatred really isn't hatred or abuse, rather it is just "calling THEM out" for THEIR hatred, which is NEVER justified.

I still claim that "I do not have to tolerate your intolerance" is very easily going to translate into hatred of and abuse of those who are labelled as intolerant. Because OUR hatred is justified. It is righteous. Having been on this board for 8 years there have been many times I have sadly quote "One Tin Soldier" as I have been almost the lone objector to a hateful thread collecting scores of recs.

"go ahead and hate your neighbor ...
do it in the name of Heaven
justify it in the end"

[cheapdate]

71. Clearly, you have an axe to grind.

Whoever this person or persons may be who has earned your ire, I don't think it's WillParkinson. You seem to be looking for someone to answer for some perceived injustice.

As far as a valid reading of the final two statements of the OP, your original challenge, "So which is it, line #1 or line #2?" is false -- as long as words have meaning and language has sense. I've clearly explained why earlier and won't repeat it again.

Your argument regarding those statements seems to be that OBVIOUSLY the speaker (WillParkinson, in this case) has no intention of limiting his behavior by the imperative of #2. Others don't, you would say.

You're looking for signs of abuse everywhere -- even subtly implying that my harmless little missives somehow constitute evidence of rampant abusive speech.

Buck up.

[hfojvt]

72. it's not about the OP

it is about the group, the tribe

the tribe which wants to believe in its own virtue and at the same time to throw hate at some "others". Others who are "intolerant".

Your own little missives started out.

"maybe you're serious"

which would seem to mean "I don't believe you really are serious."

"maybe you are just being casually argumentive"

aha, so now I am casual, and argumentive

Do those words also have meaning? Are they meant to be complimentary, or insulting?

Yes, I do claim the latter.

Now, clearly I have an axe to grind and I need to buck up. Yeah, that's not meant to be insulting either. I only find it to be so because I am using

Yes, I have an axe to grind. My axe is against hatred, especially "group hatred." As Martin said "The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent, he also refuses to hate him." Is that a bad thing? Why should there be so much resistance to it?

And yes, I still do believe that saying "I do not have to tolerate some people" is a license to hate, irregardless of the word "never" in that last line, a word which is pretty clearly ignored by this same group which is applauding this OP.

Further, I would suggest that our own arrogance of our own superiority and also the hatred we so freely spew at people who disagree with us - those both help us to lose. Because Republicans are quite happy to spread the message "liberal elites think they are better than you". A message we love to help spread as we pat ourselves on the back and also look down our noses at others. We are just so awesomely tolerant and do not have to put up with those others, those intolerant ones.

[cheapdate]

74. Good grief, man.

You're looking for insult in the slightest words.

In the beginning, you post a nearly belligerent challenge -- which has as it basis not only a demonstrably false reading of one person's statement of principles, but also a presumption, apparently baseless, that the speaker is inherently untrue to his own stated principles.

You don't seem to be a person who can carry on a challenging discussion -- feeling insulted at the slightest note, as you seem to be.

There's little I can do to stop conservatives and Republicans from any feelings they may have of animus towards "liberal elites" -- and there's little I can do to stop you from being insulted by "Maybe you're serious..."

I've never claimed to be "awesomely tolerant" -- but the truth is I'm exceptionally tolerant of freaks, fanatics, liberals, conservatives...whatever. That doesn't make me the Second Coming of Christ, I can be a real bastard, too -- and an unrepentant one.

Buck up.

[hfojvt]

75. looking for insults in all the wrong places

"buck up" is not meant to be insulting?

and neither is "you don't seem to be a person who can carrry on a challenging discussion". I guess.

My belligerant challenge was that "Line #1 sounds like "an excuse or justification for hatred or abuse". Once I declare you as "intolerant" then I can heap hatred or abuse on you, because "I do NOT have to tolerate your intolerance". "

What else does it mean to "not tolerate"?

Instead of talking about THAT, you chose to begin by talking about ME. "Maybe you are serious" (although what you said was so stupid (err, I mean 'demonstrably false') that it is hard to believe you are)"

So you are going to continue to deny the demonstrable fact that "maybe you are serious" is NOT complimentary, that it is, in fact, at least a little bit derisive? Especially following the belligerent earlier reply "you really don't understand English".

As for the animus that conservatives have towards liberal elites, perhaps that comes from the disdainful way that those liberals talk TO them and talk ABOUT them.

You know, like when a bunch of liberals get together and talk about how they don't have to tolerate all those intolerant conservatives.

Which came first, the animus or the disdain? And just like an egg produces another chicken which produces more eggs which produce more chickens and so on and so forth. More disdain produces more animus which produces more disdain which produces more animus, and so on and so forth.

"Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate" MLK

[cheapdate]

76. "What else does it mean to "not tolerate"?

You seem to be laboring under the short-sighted belief that the only possible meaning of to "not tolerate" is to "heap hatred or abuse".

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

What do you suppose King meant? Do you think he meant that the only way to oppose bigotry and intolerance was with hatred and abuse?

Obviously, that's not the case. Obviously, there are many ways to "not tolerate" without being abusive or hateful. Your question above and dogged insistence on this point clearly demonstrates that you haven't really thought this through.

And another thing, this makes twice you've falsely attributed a direct quotation to me; "you really don't understand English."

It's a minor point, but incorrect use of direct quotations is something that irks me. Those aren't my words. I won't tolerate carelessness.

[cheapdate]

77. And one more thing...

Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

You continue to insist that the opening to my first post, "Maybe you're serious -- maybe you're just being casually argumentative..." was "an attack" and "insulting", etc.

Give me a break.

You started with an indefensible and fallacious twisting of the OP's statement of principle -- a statement which, by the way, is wholly commensurate with the principles often expressed by MLK. By deliberately ignoring the actual meaning of the statements, you would turn them from an expression of principled resistance to intolerance into a justification for "hatred and abuse".

"Maybe you're serious..." isn't "an attack". It's a justifiable wondering of what your rationale was for distorting the meaning of the OP.

[Puzzledtraveller]

34. hfojvt has it right

[bowens43]

53. youre kidding right?

[rhett o rick]

2. To me being opened minded means listening to both sides, not accepting both sides. nm

[Jamaal510]

20. +1

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. Back in the 70's I said the last bigotry would be against bigots....

We have arrived.

I love it.

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

7. I agree with what you're stating...

I agree, but it seems like there's a tricky bit in there. How should we proceed to try educate or convince those who display true intolerance? Neither side listens to the other, so much of the time, and some of our strongest voices for change seem to have hair-trigger tempers. The culture of snark and soundbites works against clarity and seems to help foster intolerance. I think we can see the problem even in the infighting on this board. Passionate progressives who basically agree with one another fight viciously over various points, and some topics may be dangerous to discuss at all. If we can't even convey our ideas and their value to a generally sympathetic audience without a fight, it doesn't seem surprising that those who disagree with us think we're a bunch of jerks.

So how do we move forward, increase understanding of and support for our positions, while not getting into fights up front, making the other party feel stupid or inhuman, or otherwise falling prey to the harshness of the entrenched political divide in our culture? (Umm. Kind of feeling like I need to re-read Lackoff now, to answer my own questions....)

I guess I'm thinking, won't a truly intolerant person to whom one presents the reasoning in the OP just end up feeling like we've descended into name-calling? "I'm not intolerant - you are!" That seems to be the trick that's been worked on the concept now. A double-flip around sort of a thing.

[cheapdate]

19. Sometimes you just move on.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Intolerant are those who shout: "You're Either With Us Or Against Us."

The DEMs are the bipartisans. The GOP NEVER is.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

11. Some guildlines to your questions.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[Rain Mcloud]

13. I am intolerant

of milk products,certain beans and bigots.
Oh and Fox News,bye.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

14. DU could practice a little tolerance

Of those who don't toe the Obama line. There actually is objective evidence that he isn't progressive or even liberal.

[pasto76]

21. thats because he's uh, a DEMOCRAT

remember you are posting in, wait for it, "democraticunderground.com"


not liberal underground. Not 'progressive'.com. You bought into the right wing tactic of labeling anyone left of center a 'lib'. Sorry, some of us havent. Im a democrat. so is the President. Sorry the attempt to rebrand 'liberal' into 'progressive' isnt working out. Maybe the association with a canned soup has something to do with it. If you want more 'tolerance' of liberal points of view, particularly when you try and apply YOUR ideology to a democrat, find a liberal web page. Sometimes it might get confusing because the liberal members of DU are particularly vocal, but this alleged 'intolerance of anybody who doesnt toe the Obama line' is pretty OBJECTIVE evidence that the majority of members here are democrats.

not a progressive? ask any one of the gay military members who can now serve without fear or persecution, and then prosecution. yeah he's sure is doing a horrible job.

[bama_blue_dot]

25. +1! n/t

[RC]

27. That is because "Democrat" used to mean Liberal and/or Progressive.

Those days are long gone. The Democratic party is now run by 3rd Way, DINO's and outright Republicans in all but name. Real Liberals do not have much chance of running, let alone of winning in our corporate funded political climate.

So now "Democrat" means the Left wing of the Republican party. That is why I say I am a Liberal/Progressive.
DU used to be much more Liberal than it is now. The hero worship around here is part of the proof.

[stupidicus]

38. in other words, the party has been hi-jacked by/morphed into

something other than what dems use to be.

Actually I'd say the composition here differs little from general dem population, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Ideology and that it's not a majority of posters here that have no tolerance of criticising BHO, but rather a rather vocal minority comprised of a high concentration of "high post count" posters that apparently think that must necessarily translate into higher intelligence/political acumen, or in the alternative, territorial rights that takes the form of "my way or the highway" BS.

Quite frankly I welcome their efforts to silence dissent/criticisms because they always wind up with the short straw, although I can't say I like the divisiveness they sow and then dishonestly project it back onto those doing their duty to prasie AND criticize when it's called for.

They remind me a lot of rightwingers that way.

Just because he's done some good doesn't mean fact he's done things worthy of criticism.

Sorry that the efforts to silence criticism isn't working out, and has really only started to generate more and more criticism like the one offered by the top poster here.

I've been having fun with this issue for months now, and fully intend to have more.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

44. True, there is little in common with liberalism

And progeessivism. On the other hand, the Democratic Party was the party of FDR. I guess I thought the "underground" part referred to those who were fighting for the return of the FDR Democratic Party. There's nothing "underground" about promoting the status quo.

[cheapdate]

24. Barack Obama gave one of the most forceful declaration of liberal principles...

by any president in my lifetime.

"For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity -- until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm." - Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama, Jan. 21, 2013

Principles backed by action -- from the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act, to repeal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, to the refusal of the administration to defend challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, to ordering federal agencies to treat same sex spouses as equal to opposite sex spouses with regard to insurance and benefits, to ordering an end to deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to this country as minor children, etc., etc., etc.

The term "liberal" has been presently so overused that it has almost become meaningless. But, at the very least, a liberal political perspective would hold that the government has no place in dictating morality, and fairness and equality are the first imperatives of government.

There has been significant progress in advancing a number of genuine liberal principles in our society and government. The credit for that progress owes to the hard work of a lot of people, including our president and many wonderful Democratic representatives in Washington.

Of course there are problems. For instance, we are extremely concerned over assaults on our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. But claiming that the "evidence" may show that the president "isn't...even liberal" is flat wrong.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

43. Well, I suppose words technically speak louder than actions

But I prefer those who walk the walk

[cheapdate]

62. I gave some specific examples

of non-trivial, concrete actions the president and congress have taken that advance genuine liberal principles of equality and fairness. There are quite a number of other examples that could be given.

Perhaps in your view these actions are inadequate or insufficient to demonstrate a commitment to liberal ideals.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

67. My apologies, I thought you were quoting his speech only.

You have some valid examples. The Lilly Ledbedder act being the most important. DOMA and DADT are peripheral changes that have little impact on the citizenry as a whole. No efforts were made on behalf of strengthening union, as he campaigned on. NAFTA wasn't renegotiated, but quadrupled down on with a myriad of other SHAFTA agreements. And his expansion of the police state and war on everything Islam guarantees blowback on my children's generation. Those failures far outweigh the small sacrifices he made in social policy. And really, all he needed to solve DADT was an executive order on day one. Truman integrated the military with an EO.

But these are issues that we can disagree about and discuss. I think on balance the President is a moderate Republican, certainly not a liberal Democrat.

[cheapdate]

69. Moderate Republican is arguably a fitting label for the president.

I agree with that.

But I think the president is unquestionably on the liberal side of many issues, in word and deed. I'm sure many folks here would prefer a more liberal president. I'd love to see a strong liberal like Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer, or Sherrod Brownin the White House. I voted for Rocky Anderson in 2012. Jill Stein got 0.4% of the vote in 2012 -- Rocky Anderson got much less than that. The American people need to be convinced -- that's the challenge, that's why I come to DU.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

70. I think we are more in agreement than disagreement.

I voted for Jill Stein because Rocky Anderson was not on my ballot.

[nomorenomore08]

32. But if you're entirely opposed to the guy, then there doesn't seem to be much room

for constructive debate. Just saying...

[CranialRectaLoopback]

45. I never said I was entirely opposed to the President.

On the contrary, it seems most DU posters find no room to discuss those areas of the President's policies that are in opposition to the ideals of the Democratic Party.

[nomorenomore08]

73. Fair enough. I certainly have plenty of points of disagreement myself, when it comes to Obama's

policies. Those who seem to think he can do no wrong, and likewise, those who seemingly think he can't do anything right, both frustrate me in their own way.

[orleans]

16. i was very tolerant -- of everyone -- until...

self described hippy-dippy bleeding heart liberal (not that dippy)

once accepted EVERYONE & their views (hey, because if that's what they think or believe "that's cool" and i accept everyone regardless)

THEN

came the slurs against blacks and it dawned on me that just because i don't laugh or smile or nod my head in agreement -- it wasn't enough. i was, in a weird way, still showing approval by my silence. and i didn't approve. (my first realization that i wasn't as tolerant and accepting of everyone's deal as i thought.)

so i spoke out.

THEN

came the slurs against gays--the homophobes giving voice to their phobe. and i realized i'm really not that "it's cool--everyone's cool" liberal i thought i was.

i spoke out.

but homophobia and racism are different than political viewpoint. so i thought. and i was still accepting of other political stripes.

until george fuckhead. OMFG!

and then i spoke out.

granted, i'm no where near as tolerant as i once envisioned myself to be. but it's simply morally wrong to accept and tolerate evil and cruelty. (the price we pay for an open mind)

[Shankapotomus]

17. Being tolerant doesn't mean tolerating

the intolerant.

[backscatter712]

29. Being tolerant towards bigots doesn't mean I have to like bigots or shut up about them.

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

When it comes to right-wing bigots, tolerance means I'm not going to violate their rights, attack them with lead pipes or send them to camps. If they want to speak out in their venues and public spaces (and DU is not a public space or an open venue for them), they can do so.

But I don't have to like them. They can speak out, but I can still ridicule them, call them the bigots they are, make them out to be the assholes they are and refuse to associate with them. I'm well within my rights and the realm of tolerance to openly scorn them and encourage everyone I know to scorn them and ostracize them. That's me expressing my rights within the limits of tolerance.

[Riftaxe]

36. Being Liberal is not enough for either side

as the conservatives must suffer their tea party chums, we must suffer the revival of the progressives.

Both Tea Party and Progressives have so much in common you would think they would adore each other.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

46. Teatards have nothing in common with Progressives

And, frankly, your false equivalency is so march part of the problem. I'm surprised you've swallowed such a Republicon meme hook, line, and sinker.

Tragic, really.

[Riftaxe]

48. So it would be safe to say you are not a liberal

I pretty much got that...

The one point you should have called me out on is I should have used the term neo-progressives.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

50. I'm not sure how you've concluded I'm not liberal.

I'm pretty far to the left, which is why our BlueDog, DLC President disappoints me so often. I prefer the politics of Bernie Sanders but I wish he would perform a few anonymous holds on some of the garbage that comes out of the Democratic "controlled" Senate.

Basically, I support Single Payer, a downsized empire, and all out push for renewable energies. I believed in a real stimulus, real consequences for the Banksters in exchange for my money. And I thought ALL Bush Tax Thefts should have been ended, since some 90% of Americans at one point supported our oil wars. Freedom isn't free and all.

Oh, and I support removing the cap on the one flat tax in our tax code, the Social Security tax, and I also support the stock market gambling tax otherwise known as the transaction tax. And I actually support gun confiscation, not just assault rifle bans and background checks.

Does this make me a neoliberal?

[HiPointDem]

42. liberals can be very hateful and abusive. they just don't recognize it as such.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

47. Who, for example is the Liberal Rush Limbaugh?

Who is the liberal Sarah Palin?
Who is the liberal Ann Coulter?
Who is the liberal Glen Beck?
Who is the liberal Sean Hannity?

Just wondering where all the liberal haters and liars are? Can you identify a couple?

[NoMoreWarNow]

54. well, Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt once

and that proves liberals are haters, dontcha know

[CranialRectaLoopback]

58. Oh yeah. Case closed, then.

[riqster]

57. Word.

Just look at all the bigoted, intolerant crap that is routinely flung at rural Americans for one example of liberal intolerance.

We all have such attitudes, and must be honest with ourselves about them.

[DonCoquixote]

51. Here is what gets overlooked

Yes, one can bring up the one or two moments when a Stephanie Miller MIGHT say something offensive, but for the most part, most conservative media is not even trying to make a case for others to accept their views, it is an outright war cry. Even the Cornell Wests of the world do not call for people to be KILLED, whereas Gabby Giffords was sentenced to a "second amendment remedy."

[dkf]

52. “In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.”

The Dalai Lama

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/89035-in-the-practice-of-tolerance-one-s-enemy-is-the-best

[bettyellen]

59. then you must be bucking for dean of students, LOL

[bettyellen]

60. dupe

[raouldukelives]

55. If memory serves me correctly, I recall reading many liberals were tolerant of the Nazi Party.

When what was required was a large dose of intolerance. If modern liberals have a fatal flaw, it can be too much tolerance. Tolerance of hate, of corporate mindsets, of military atrocities, of anti-science rhetoric. If common sense dictates it is wrong, your common liberal should feel no fear in voicing their distaste. In fact, in keeping ones tongue, one can slowly assist in creating what they most fear.

[WinkyDink]

63. You mean like Prescott Bush and Charles Lindbergh?

[Zoeisright]

56. Perfect.

Thank you for posting this; it's the absolute truth.

[WinkyDink]

64. No GOOD or DECENT person "tolerates" evil or bigotry or discrimination or bullying, etc.

[Duer 157099]

65. "Who they effect" ?????

Is it intolerant of me to notice and be bothered by this?

[tama]

68. I'm intolerant towards tolerance

I don't tolerate my friends, my homies, fellow humans of my in-group. They - you - are friends, people like me, not just others who are being tolerated. Friends don't tolerate, they have patience and they forgive and they fight and they love.

The whole tolerance meme is awkward. It starts from saying that those people are not friends, like you and me, but they are somehow different, not us but them, and therefor should be tolerated instead of... intolerated?