Hell, that has been my question of “ideological” so-called conservatives of all stripes (religious, political, social) all along: what is it that you seek to conserve and why should it be conserved.
Simple- all bigots are conservative while liberals know that only a infinitesimal fraction of Muslims are terrorists.
The OP has it backwards: it’s ignorance that results in conservatism.
I’m afraid I must disagree - there are a lot of bigoted liberal (lefty) folks, but they’re bigoted against anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
There are plenty of ignorant people of all stripes. The problem is that - at this time, in Western culture - ignorance is being touted as a virtue in those conservative circles on the ascendant.
It is also the case that many conservatives are fond of claiming that liberals are the “real bigots” for refusing to tolerate right-wing intolerance. The credibility of such claims are, shall we say, debatable.
Beats the heck out of me - I am trying to get Barack Obama to explain what the dickens he is talking about. Apparently he thinks al-Ghazali was a conservative, or that the integration of Sufism into Islam ended a Golden Age of tolerance.
Or something.
Regards,
Shodan
Disagreement is not bigotry. Fact based conclusion are not bigotry.
Being pro SSM does not make liberals bigots against those who choose only traditional marriage.
Being pro abortion rights does not make liberals bigots about those who would never make that personal choice for themselves.
Being pro universal healthcare does not withhold care from those who think health insurance should be optional.
Liberal social policies are not typically exclusive. They may be critical of conservative views, but much more often than not they are inclusive.
This thread is yet another example of why I no longer support the use of the terms “liberal” or “conservative” for most applications and discussions. They are not functionally precise or accurate terms any more. Have not been for a long time now.
There are people who are called, and call themselves, liberal or conservative, who are functionally identical in one particular way: they want everyone to do exactly as they are told to do, by the Approved Leadership, whoever that might be.
That makes it all the more nonsensical to declare something like this tread does, that CONSERVATISM is to blame for problematic behaviors.
The thing is, it’s still possible to be “pro” something without being a dick about it, and personally I think a key element of bigotry is not just having an opinion but acting on it - which includes belittling, insulting, or showing anger towards individuals with different views.
Which is worse: politely implementing legislation that permits or actively encourages discrimination against a particular group, or angrily opposing it?
If you’re not a member of the group being discriminated against, then angrily opposing it, of course.
And it’s possible to reasonably and civilly disagree with things - it’s not “Love it 100%” or “Stage a riot and wreck stuff”.
As an aside the GMO/anti-vax issue does not adhere to political lines but rather education levels. As such it is not notably a “liberal/conservative” or “left/right” thing.
So in order for me to be against discrimination, I have to actually be a part of the group that is being discriminated against? The fuck?
You mean like Colin Kaepernick did? But that was apparently unacceptable too wasn’t it? I saw a lot of angry, hateful responses to his civil and reasonable protest. Calls for him to be kicked out of the country or even worse, and he didn’t stage a riot or wreck anything.
No, but you’re more likely to care about it if you are. Not caring because it doesn’t affect you doesn’t make you a bigot.
Who?
I’ve got to ask for a cite on this. Who is out there ‘touting ignorance as a virtue’?
Anyone shouting “fake news” at news stories simply because they don’t want to believe the truth, for a start. Know anyone like that?
And caring even if it doesn’t affect you doesn’t make you wrong.
Seriously, dude? Instead of looking him up, you chose the wide-eyed innocence route?
He chose as a method of protest the simple refusal to stand up for the National Anthem. He didn’t get violent or shout or desecrate anything; he just didn’t stand up. It’s hard to imagine a more benign public protest and yet a stupid number of people got very upset about this.
Cite? Dhimmi was long a concept.
False equivalence alert.
I don’t recall saying I didn’t.
I don’t live in America, so A) I’ve never heard of him before and B) someone not standing for the national anthem isn’t really a noteworthy thing for us.
Intertwined cause and effect. Ignorance causes the kind of conservatism being discussed, and furthers the ignorance to maintain it. Totally different from liberalism which furthers ignorance to maintain itself and then causes more ignorance.
You said that angrily opposing discrimination if you aren’t part of the group being discriminated against is worse than supporting the party that is actually doing the discriminating. We are exploring that statement to try to illuminate how wrong it is.
Ok well it’s been explained to you now, and its a perfect example to show you that even peaceful, quiet protest is not acceptable to some if it goes against their views and ideology. They’ll still conflate it with riots and destruction because its easier for them to dismiss the whole thing then rather than actually listening and trying to understand what is being said.