I can’t fit my intended title into the space given, so I’ll rephrase it.
All too often, I hear conservatives make the argument that “If liberals were so tolerant, they should also tolerate and embrace the Republican Party, prayer in schools, groups that hate gays, the idea of nuking Iran …” You get the idea.
What kind of logical fallacy is this? (Posted in GD and not GQ, because it seems to have the potential to start some sort of GD-ish discussion.)
Well, there’s tolerant, and there’s insane. 
The Left is very tolerant of everybody who agrees with them. Others…not so much.
Hell, disagree all you want, just get out of the goddam way.
It doesn’t matter what technical name you scrounge up for it. What matters is a discussion of the flawed reasoning itself. And this can be pointed out very clearly: it’s perfectly plausible (indeed, completely intuitive) that the collection of activities which deserve tolerance is large but not everything. There may even be a principled line which can be drawn. So, there’s simply no automatic step from “If one tolerates X, Y, and Z, then one should tolerate everything”. The argument only has force against one who claims that all must be tolerated, and that, if one is desperate for a term, is usually something of a strawman.
Also, there’s a bit of equivocation between different senses of “tolerate”: there’s “Refrain from harassing”, there’s “Permit to engage in various actions”, there’s “Endorse the actions of”, and all sorts of other things. Often, the sort of tolerance under discussion is something short of “Agree with on all matters”, and is in fact one which the party promoting tolerance does in fact extend to those who disagree with him. (For example, if a liberal is saying we should tolerate Viewpoint X in the sense of permitting it to be spoken of freely, in the normal sense, then this likely is such a tolerance as that he extends to Republican Party ideals, advocacy of school prayer, the hatred of liberals, etc.)
Two out of four: Poisoning the well.
There’s a lot of arguments like these that fall under a big umbrella of simply being nonsensical, i.e., without sense. The damned thing is, whatever logical argument you come up with, you know it’ll no absolutely no good against the kind of viral power these fallacies have. I don’t know if you can fight them with logic, or if you have to come up with an equal and opposite virus of your own.
To paraphrase Austin Powers, “There are two types of people I can’t stand: People with no tolerance of other people’s cultures, and conservatives.” In this case, the two are the same.
To illustrate the stupidity of this argument, specify the tolerance ascribed to Democrats with an example. For example, “If liberals are so tolerant of homosexuals, they should tolerate homophobia.”
I wouldn’t think that any liberals would claim universal tolerance. I’m intolerant of a lot of things (stupidity, racism, running the economy into the toilet…).
The argument asks those who oppose intolerance to accept it instead. That’s strictly logical to that point, sure, but to further claim that they should accept intolerance under the principle of *opposing * it is merely absurd.
The *name * of thaat logical fallacy? Maybe the “Chewbacca Defense”?
Actually, you might call it a form of “ambiguous middle”
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ambimidd.html
The middle term is “tolerant,” and they’re playing on the intended meaning, making “tolerance” out to mean “moral ambivalence.”
But I doubt this will ever actually persuade somebody who’s disposed in the first place to believe it.
It is a stupid argument. However, it must be noted that “tolerance” for the political left is generally just a pose that falls apart at the barest challenge.
Cite?
Must it really be noted?
It’s almost unfair to pick an example in the Bay Area - it is a big fat target of opportunity. Still, please check out this resolution of the Berkeley City Council (PDF) and tell me whether it reflects tolerance of diverse viewpoints.
I remind you that Berkeley prides itself as home of the “free speech movement” and now is trying to close down a certain kind of speech.
I won’t ask you to defend this - it really can’t be defended, and indeed some in Berkeley are trying to reverse this lunacy after the predictable public hue and cry. Just don’t pretend that liberals aren’t tempted often to pull crap like this, often ironically in the name of “tolerance”.
Humans tend to demonize each other, point fingers, and run power plays, and liberals can do this as well as anyone, and better than some. I can name examples like this all damn day.
That’s not really even the point. Its more like knowing others may not believe, think and feel as you do, and that’s ok. It doesn’t make them hidious… In other words, it’s not the end of the world. There’s this elitist mentality that anyone who does not think as a so-called “progressive liberal” is looked down at and mocked. That’s just pure intolerance and arrogance of the highest order.
I think that’s what is meant in the conservative arguments you speak of…
Speaking of liberals, does anyone else see the irony in a progressive liberal state like massachusetts being unable to embrace Obama? Yeah, that was interesting… 
What was ironic about it?
It was a Democratic primary - they picked another Democrat.
because, as a reknown progressive liberal state, they’re voting is equivilant to a Tennessee or other southern white state who chose hilary over obama. It’s like what I said in here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9446328&postcount=81
Your examples would not serve as support for your claim that “tolerance” for the political left is generally just a pose that falls apart at the barest challenge." We could just offer counter examples. Shrug.
By the way, if conservatives want to hate liberals, okay. If conservatives want to speak about that hatred of liberals, okay. But why do they hate liberals? Do they want to silence liberals? Control them? Change them?
Do religious conservatives pray to God to help them to stop hating? Do they ask God for forgiveness for their intolerance of liberals?
Why does it bother the conservative if the liberal is arrogant? Arrogance is just feelings and thoughts – not actions. Would conservatives want to control these feelings and thoughts?
I’m not sure if conservatives really hate liberals. I’m a moderate conservative, and I don’t hate 'em. I just think it’s ironic that a group of people who consider themselves to be so progressive and enlightened are really not. it’s like ‘progressive liberal’ is an oxymoron.
So it’s more like a curious observation, not a hatred.