Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think

originally posted by: Mordekaiser

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: DBCowboy

You are persuading me. I am not seeing the value of tolerance, right now.

Tolerance isn't the word liberals seek, it's acceptance.

No. "Tolerance" in Liberalese means "submission". They don't want you to be tolerant, they want you to submit, they just can't use that word because it becomes too obvious. When you realise that, an awful lot of what is happening in the news starts to make perfect sense.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: dfnj2015

No. It's not progress. It's all regress with you, in my experience.

You aren't the first to discover it. No one has denied that racism exists.

Regress of what? Oh my God your arguments have absolutely no substance.

What did I do wrong? Please enlighten me.

You exploit feelings of social injustice to win political debates on the internet. Nothing more. That's it. You have demonstrated no real compassion or action to back up your claims of tolerance and concern. You couldn't even say you have black friends...just coworkers and other people in your hometown.

And yet you claim to know that some conservatives wish they could use the n-word and ....oooo...you just dare them to.

Why? So you can give them a polite escort to their cars when they leave?

Bah.

I think you are lacking substance...and backbone.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. Flipping the argument around so it's about me is tiresome and kind of juvenile. You ad hominem attack says more about you than anything else.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser

originally posted by: dfnj2015
So what have we learned from this thread.

1. Racism doesn't exist in this country.

2. Anyone who complains about racism is a racist.

3. Anyone who gives an example of racism is being exploitative, and hence, is a racist

4. Liberals are completely intolerant of.....I don't know but they are.

1. no 2. is correct, 3 makes it look sarcastic, but is also true.

Liberals have never been tolerant. The joke is around it's relationship to acceptance. Liberal ideology in the first place is mandating other parties principles for them. They're an authorization cheerleader. They fight against discrimination, and the last thing they are is tolerant about it. They are very willing to change 'what is discrimination' though as criticism applies itself.

We can alk about meaningless platitudes and never come to agreement. I was trying to concentrate on a specific example. But the tactic of argument is to ignore what anyone is saying and make attacks on the person speaking. Conservatives and right wingers will always feel like they've won the argument with these tactics. Which is fine.

From my point of view people are behaving like a holes. I tried to stick to one example of one behavior. The idea that police would stop someone with no cause just because they are black may or may not be true. People are not the behavior they exhibit. People have behaviors other people find offensive or rude. How can a civil society ever improve itself if the side that is being rude or offensive refuses to even accept the idea their behavior has consequences. If I were black, I would be really pissed off if the government were constantly pulling my car over to harass me with no cause. I think that is a valid grievance against government. I would like to concentrate not on the speaker of argument but what is being said about a specific behavior. It would have been nice just to talk about people's behaviors.

But instead all we talk about is "liberals" being intolerant with no real examples. I'm not even sure what we are even talking about at this point without any solid example to keep in mind. It seems to be nothing more than just a pissing contest of my opinion is just as good as yours. There are two parts to any conversation. I tried to listen to the rights side of the argument but as far as I can tell there isn't one other than I'm right your wrong. One thing you can say about the right is they are always right. Smug on wingers!

a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't know when "Liberal" became a 'nice person' word, but maybe speaking the word Liberate will help understand the traditional reasoning behind it. It's not just about being nice. It's about kicking peoples ass that aren't nice. "Tolerant" is a misnomer.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think it's been any big secret that Liberals and the Left are intolerant of people that are racist, sexist, nationalist, supremacist, homo and trans-phobic. We're not in denial of it either.

This is what the 4th ish thread today and hundredth ish this week bashing Liberal/Leftists?

*Disclaimer for snowflakes: None of my words are meant to convey support for violence.

And yet liberals are racist and sexist also but then again it's not frowned down upon by the commies when You are openly racist or sexist towards the evil white man.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Nobody, even in the article posted, is saying that the right can't be intolerant. They're just saying that Liberals are guilty of it as well.

Nice try at a deflection though.

originally posted by: XTexan
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

I'm sorry, but that's horrible. Ill assume (dangerous I know) that they came through your door because they were invited in, otherwise its a crime and you responding with a wedgie is questionable, I'd recommend deadly force in a forced entry scenario. But I digress, if you would invite someone in and then assault them simply because they dress differently is reprehensible.

Couldn't give 2 shakes about WHAT your idea of reprehensible is quite frankly. My sister brought one of her nephews from her hub's family to my house with his pants like that and he got the wedgie of his life! Next time he came with her those pants were pulled up!

a reply to: ketsuko

First of all, let me just start off by saying, you're absolutely right. Both sides seem to think they're the epitome of what tolerance is supposed to look like, but underneath, it's really nothing more than wordplay.

However, I think there is somewhat of a difference between tolerance and approval of a lifestyle or ideology. I am tolerant to the extent that I think anyone can live or believe however or whatever they want and will fight for your right to do so. However, that doesn't mean I don't retain the right to tell "you" that I think you're full of #, if it so happens that's​ what I think. It doesn't make me "intolerant" to do so either.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: ketsuko

First of all, let me just start off by saying, you're absolutely right. Both sides seem to think they're the epitome of what tolerance is supposed to look like, but underneath, it's really nothing more than wordplay.

However, I think there is somewhat of a difference between tolerance and approval of a lifestyle or ideology. I am tolerant to the extent that I think anyone can live or believe however or whatever they want and will fight for your right to do so. However, that doesn't mean I don't retain the right to tell "you" that I think you're full of #, if it so happens that's​ what I think. It doesn't make me "intolerant" to do so either.

I generally won't issue an opinion unless solicited or pushed into it.

This place is a very different story. This place is all about opinions. So as I've mentioned before, most people here know more about what I really think than most people who see me face to face on any given day.

a reply to: ketsuko

I suspect that can be said for most of us here. There's only certain people I even talk to in person. I mean, most of my family members couldn't even tell you, if you were to ask, where I stand on issues. It's just not something that's generally discussed. I generally don't give my opinion about anything unless asked. As you said, ATS, being a discussion board is a bit different.

For many, I would imagine ATS serves as a place to vent.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Hypothetical situation coming up, I truly don't care about what a person identifies as.

Let's say I think trans people have a mental illness and need to be cured. I cannot agree with their way of life and think they need to be changed and fixed.

Hypothetically, do you believe my freedom of thought, speech, and otherwise frame of mind to be less valid than others? Do you think I'm the one that needs to be quited, that needs to be changed, that needs to conform to your specific point of view on the issue to be accepted as being on the "good side"?

If you reject me, think I need to change whether on my own or be forced to change, if you believe I am in the wrong because i don't hold your specific point of view..

You're just as biased as anyone else. You're not a cure, you're a problem just as much as any transphobic person ( hypothetically - none of this is specifically true )

Accepting something and "tolerating" something is two different things. Libs want us to accept what is a (and always has been a lie), and should be, intolerable... That's is plain "truth". And because it is truth, they fight so hard. They've already got the meaning of a word in question... What does "is" mean? (Pres. Bill Clinton)... For thousands of years marriage meant a woman and a man... Don't get drawn into their mental illness. Don't try to "understand" them, it'll only bring you to the gutter. Try and make them rise above useles selves. Won't work...But you'll have the moral high ground. Meh! You tried.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

But what if the different opinion is that pedophiles aren't really bad people and shouldn't be demonized just because they're pedophiles? Is one being closed-minded if they are not tolerant of that opinion?

What if a radical terrorist has the opinion that Islam should rule the world? Is one being close-minded if they are not tolerant of that opinion?

Do you see where I'm going? If someone's opinion could actually hurt someone else, are we being close-minded by not being tolerant of it?

If someone has the view that all Muslims are evil, couldn't that view lead to actions that eventually hurt innocent Muslims? Am I being close-minded by not being tolerant of that opinion?

There is where the Far Left has gone astray with relative Humanist morality... the Left doesn't understand true morality in its quest for "tolerance" and "inclusion" . There is no need for inclusion of a pedophile or to normalize it. You
May think society should normalize pedophilia in order to prove our "tolerance" of such people but you react violently to people who disagree and think children should be protected from the selfish violence of a pedophile.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

There's a difference between tolerance of the person and tolerance of the act. Just because someone is attracted to children isn't a reason to go after them. If they act on those impulses we can prosecute them though.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

There's a difference between tolerance of the person and tolerance of the act. Just because someone is attracted to children isn't a reason to go after them. If they act on those impulses we can prosecute them though.

I'm
Not particularly fond of the pre crime unit

What is with the obsession with 'liberals' on this website lately?

Evil liberals this, intolerant liberals that, rapist-enabling liberals the other.

This word seems to get thrown around by the far-right American world without much understanding of what liberalism actually is.

Is the far right so desperate to feel like they're the 'good guys' that they've started this whole narrative of trying to redefine liberalism as a bad thing?



Liberalism is a political worldview founded on the doctrine of tolerance, equality and freedom.

If you're against the ideas of tolerance, equality, and freedom, then you are by definition a Totalitarian.


Now that's fine, large chunks of the Republican party are very Totalitarian minded, and that's their right of course. But what isn't really their right is to go around rubbishing the ideas of tolerance equality and freedom and then to look shocked and upset when people look at them like they're fascist totalitarians.

originally posted by: Painterz
What is with the obsession with 'liberals' on this website lately?

Evil liberals this, intolerant liberals that, rapist-enabling liberals the other.

This word seems to get thrown around by the far-right American world without much understanding of what liberalism actually is.

Is the far right so desperate to feel like they're the 'good guys' that they've started this whole narrative of trying to redefine liberalism as a bad thing?



Liberalism is a political worldview founded on the doctrine of tolerance, equality and freedom.

If you're against the ideas of tolerance, equality, and freedom, then you are by definition a Totalitarian.


Now that's fine, large chunks of the Republican party are very Totalitarian minded, and that's their right of course. But what isn't really their right is to go around rubbishing the ideas of tolerance equality and freedom and then to look shocked and upset when people look at them like they're fascist totalitarians.

The point here is that liberals are really not tolerant at all to ideas they don't endorse, They generally appear to believe they have the moral high ground while promoting immorality and deoravity and normalize it in schools which amounts to indoctrination which is Totalitarian. They indoctrinate innocent children into believing they are gender confused. The impending karma is going to be horrific.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Liberals promoting murder of the pre born, calling it women's rights and health care. Obamacare forced people into buying an insurance package that forces them to pay for services they don't need or want and expect society to pay for abortions World wide. This is literal insanity but it's part of their insane idea of eugenics and population control and has nothing to do with compassion for women and their needs. Liberals promote euthanasia which they consider mercy killing. But killing it is. They promote the death consciousness while pretending they care about people. They promote rationing( Obamacare and Agenda 21) and calling it care for the environment. It's very Totalitarian. But there are many establishment GOP who promote Agenda 21, so let's just call it what it is. Conservatives are not against equality and tolerance. They are against forcing a particular brand of "tolerance" defined by liberals and against forcing "equality" which is really just Marxism masquerading as equality. This is where the SJW parade comes in.....

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Painterz
What is with the obsession with 'liberals' on this website lately?

Evil liberals this, intolerant liberals that, rapist-enabling liberals the other.

This word seems to get thrown around by the far-right American world without much understanding of what liberalism actually is.

Is the far right so desperate to feel like they're the 'good guys' that they've started this whole narrative of trying to redefine liberalism as a bad thing?



Liberalism is a political worldview founded on the doctrine of tolerance, equality and freedom.

If you're against the ideas of tolerance, equality, and freedom, then you are by definition a Totalitarian.


Now that's fine, large chunks of the Republican party are very Totalitarian minded, and that's their right of course. But what isn't really their right is to go around rubbishing the ideas of tolerance equality and freedom and then to look shocked and upset when people look at them like they're fascist totalitarians.

The point here is that liberals are really not tolerant at all to ideas they don't endorse, They generally appear to believe they have the moral high ground while promoting immorality and deoravity and normalize it in schools which amounts to indoctrination which is Totalitarian. They indoctrinate innocent children into believing they are gender confused. The impending karma is going to be horrific.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Liberals promoting murder of the pre born, calling it women's rights and health care. Obamacare forced people into buying an insurance package that forces them to pay for services they don't need or want and expect society to pay for abortions World wide. This is literal insanity but it's part of their insane idea of eugenics and population control and has nothing to do with compassion for women and their needs. Liberals promote euthanasia which they consider mercy killing. But killing it is. They promote the death consciousness while pretending they care about people. They promote rationing( Obamacare and Agenda 21) and calling it care for the environment. It's very Totalitarian. But there are many establishment GOP who promote Agenda 21, so let's just call it what it is. Conservatives are not against equality and tolerance. They are against forcing a particular brand of "tolerance" defined by liberals and against forcing "equality" which is really just Marxism masquerading as equality. This is where the SJW parade comes in.....

One of the best posts I've read on this thread.. had to quote it so it could get another post as it makes sooo much common sense.

Thank you for that post !! A star just didn't seem to be enough so here is an applause 👏🏻

a reply to: Sheye

Except that it's a bunch of crap lies...

a reply to: kaylaluv

What? Liberals didn't push the euthanize g of Teri Schaivo and starving her to death in a tortuous fashion for the sake of their disgusting agenda of mercy killing? Liberals don't demand state funding of abortion??? Think again dear one....