Liberal: I advocate tolerance. And when I say “tolerance” I mean X.
Shodan: I don’t accept X because to me “tolerance” means Y. Therefore, when you say you are in favor of tolerance, you are being hypocritical.
Again, the liberal value of tolerance has to do with not using superficial personal characteristics and private life choices as a basis for disadvantaging an individual.
The liberal value of tolerance has nothing to do with imposing legal sanctions on public activities that society decides are harmful in some way, such as murder or transactions regarding banned substances or services.
Thus:
Prohibiting marines from recruiting for an organization that practices discrimination → possibly unconstitutional and an action beyond the power of municipal government but not intolerant
Prohibiting an individual from applying for a job because he agrees with the marine corps’s policy regarding homosexuals → intolerant
Prohibiting the establishment of an abortion clinic → unconstitutional and an infringement on the fundamental rights of those who might seek abortions, but not intolerant
Advocating the shunning of a person who might have had an abortion or who believes in reproductive rights → intolerant
Imposing sanctions for the killing of a human being → not intolerant
Barring from membership in a church of someone who believes that some instances of killing should not be subject to sanction (such as self defence) → intolerant
If you want to argue that liberals are hypocritical regarding tolerance, then you must argue on the terms accepted by liberals.
Once again, it is was NOT THE PROTESTING THAT PISSES ME OFF!
IT WAS THE PROTESTERS THAT PHYSICALLY PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM GOING IN!
It wasn’t free speech, it was physical assault. I have no issue with protesters. Bless them, and please work to bring our troops home. However, when you choose to link arms and shove people out of the door who are trying to enter - you are in the WRONG.
Why do some Dopers here keep on trying to repaint this as a free speech issue, and why all the snarks about the poor little Marines?
The liberal value of tolerance is so widely accepted, all they got left is to accuse them of hypocrisy, which puts conservatives in the peculiar position of awarding themselves kudos for superior compliance with a standard most associated with their opposition.
Its a lot like GW’s bit of values* jiu-jitsu*, calling affirmative action “soft racism”, an attempt to co-opt a value. Racism is no longer remotely acceptable, largely due to the ongoing efforts of the liberal-progressive wing of our civil society. So the conservatives try to eat the liberal’s lunch and claim that they were always anti-racist, historical facts be damned.
Now, it is entirely likely that the modern conservative has no lingering taint of racism, I’m sure such is the case with friend Moto, and this is all to the good. But it was not ever thus, it is the result of progress. Our progress is commendable, and speaks well for us all, conservative and liberal alike. But progressives and liberals led that charge, what the hells wrong with recognizing that? Heck, we’ve accepted that food stamps for gay whales isn’t that great an idea, why not credit where credit is due?
I can’t find an online source, but the late great WV newspaperman Jim Comstock wrote a great column during the debates regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act called “On the Nature of Intolerance”. Following are some quotes as best as I can remember them:
" Lately the Charleston Gazette has been railing on the fact that it just can’t tolerate intolerance."
" I can think of no race of people that I wouldn’t sit down to have a meal with; except for maybe cannibals"
“I think the only greater evil than a man who wouldn’t serve another man because of the color of his skin, is a government that is powerful enough to compel him.”
“Hate the evil they say. But isn’t hate an evil? And if you hate hate, don’t you hate yourself?”
“The Gazette hates people who show intolerance. I can tolerate any form of intolerance, because I am real tolerant. And when you get as tolerant as I am, you just hate people who go around hating people.”
I’m not sure how your reply applies to my remark. I don’t approve of the real-life behavior you describe, but I was spinning an absurd situation to try to draw a contrast.
The folks up in Berkeley are trying interfere with the operations of a branch office of the US government, but that’s quite a bit different from, say, a small community of blacks or Jews being subjected to a lot of uncharitable treatment on the street. That’s the kind of thing were usually referring to when we’re talking about intolerance.
Well, it’s partly true, but had more to do with widespread disgust of the Romney administration (she was LG, for those of ya), a disgust which deeply weakened what there was of the MA GOP to a point where they don’t have an elected executive official above the level of small-city mayor and their numbers in the Legislature are at historic lows. It also helped that there was a third-party candidate who was in it because of a deep personal grudge against Romney-Healey, and spent all his time beating her up so Patrick didn’t have to.
Patrick is not a bad analog to Obama, really - a black guy with a classy air and a civil rights background, capable of making ringing speeches that brought people out if mobs to vote for him, tears in their eyes about his message of hope and opportunity and ending partisan division and all that … But his administration so far has been pretty much ineffective, focused on getting casinos into the state to raise state revenues. That is not what anybody here voted for (or against, for that matter).
And, fairly or not, Patrick’s floundering and lack of execution make me suspect the same of an Obama presidency, I don’t see any marked difference between Obama 2008 and Patrick 2006, sorry.
Well, there was also the fact that Healy didn’t bother trying to give anyone a real reason to vote for her other than to repeatedly imply that Patrick was intent to let rapists prey on women throughout the Commonwealth with impunity. I mean, having Healy supporters in prison garb holding “Inmates for Deval” signs in front of his house while, IIRC, his young son was home alone was taking negative campaigning to a whole new level. And not exactly an effective one.
I also think that Patrick’s inability to accomplish much in office is largely because the governor probably has less power than whichever legislative leader (either Senate President or Speaker of the House) can command the most loyalty. From what I understand, this balance of power was designed to reign in the corruption of James Michael Curley during his time as governor, and has worked so well that we’ve only had two top legislative leaders (Bulger and Finneran) leave office only to find themselves indicted by a federal grand jury within the past several years. Really, being unable to change much in the face of Beacon Hill politics as an outsider is largely by design rather than a huge failing of Patrick’s.
He does seem to have held on to his own personal popularity (or at least a general sort of approval) despite all this, and will hopefully learn to use it as leverage against the legislature in the coming years. An Obama Presidency with (I expect) decent Democratic majorities in both houses is a completely different kettle of fish. When was the last time the Congressional Dems were accused of having simply standing up for themselves too strongly? Also, Obama is currently a Senator, not an outsider with no idea of how to get stuff done in Washington.
Oh, and, uh, I hope none of you would be so intolerant as to complain about this hijack.
All that is true about Patrick, too. Healy did, for the record, campaign on the ol’ reliable “more tax cuts for the rich” platform that typically carries Weston and Sudbury, and she did, for the record, get stuck unfairly having to defend the failure of a series of Republican administrations, including Romney’s, to manage the Big Dig competently. But fairness is irrelevant in electoral politics, only winning matters, so suck it up and get it done.
Patrick has not faced an organized, effective, oppositionist opposition in The Building, but Obama certainly would. Face it, there has been no reason to expect that the party that has devoted this entire Congress to filibustering literally almost everything the majority has put forth, did nothing but rubberstamp their President before that, and devoted all their time to a campaign of personal destruction of the previous Democratic President will suddently change their accustomed behavior because of the next one’s personal charisma.
Obama, for all his talk about transcending partisanship, would be likely to have to engage in quite a bit of it. It’s only a matter of how long it would take him to realize it and learn to do it. Patrick will never have to.
The comparison is illustrative and therefore not a hijack, don’t worry about it.