All liberals have to do to fix this is say they are “more tolerant” than conservatives.
It’s the absoluteness of “tolerant” that draws fire.
As I understand it, you are using the fact that one community does not want to tolerate discrimination against homosexuals as evidence of intolerance. That is the very example of the stupidity of this particular line of reasoning that I happened to use above.
There is no particular request for liberals to do anything. The logic of the argument is that liberals should be pussies who’ll put up with our bullshit because they also happen to be more tolerant of people of different religions (or no religions), who speak different languages, who might have different kinds of sex (…) than are we.
It’s a stupid bit of non-logic that defies both labeling and serious consideration.
I’ve never heard any liberal of any stripe ever claim to be absolutely tolerant of everything and everybody, so there’s nothing liberals have to “fix.” It’s a lie other people should stop telling, but won’t.
There are ways of making your point without driving a Marine office out of town. The extremism of that action is what led me to say what I did.
And now it seems lots of people are simply agreeing that tolerance for liberals doesn’t go too far, which rather confirms what I said above, doesn’t it?
Look, I said above that people like to draw lines and fight over things - that’s just human nature. The notion that Berkeley would ever be happy with Marine recruiters downtown is just silly - and this action by the council shows just how unhappy they got.
Just don’t claim any special tolerance on the part of liberals - it won’t wash with me. They’ll tolerate all day minor superficial differences like skin color and your first language and where you put your dick - but have a different opinion about the war or health care or the homeless, and they’ll even eat their own.
Not sure about that last part - i’m pretty much the only pro-cannabilism liberal i’ve ever met. 
Actually, I’m basing it on about eight years on the SDMB of listening to liberals tell me what they think. And people like you and Hentor make it abundantly clear that what I posted is quite true.
That’s one of the fun things about debating liberals. No matter how extreme the statement you make, some clown will be along shortly to prove your point for you.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, I think we need some evidence that liberals are no more tolerant than conservatives. But two points need to be made.
First, for many conservatives, what people do with their dick is not a ‘superficial’ thing, but something that is so important that they want to pass laws controlling it and remove books from libraries that might expose people to the idea that some men put their dicks in other mens’ asses. So here is where conservatives are unwilling to be tolerant on what is *by your own admission * a trivial thing. I think that’s telling.
Second, as far as tolerance on the war, health care, etc., we can trade anecdotes all day. For every anti-liberal anecdote you give me, I can give you a citation of a conservative calling critics of the war un-American, or advocates of greater access to health care socialists.
Again, you may be correct that liberals are no more tolerant than conservatives, but so far you have presented only a single anecdote. That won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
More to the point, to restate exactly what you just said, liberals won’t reject people based solely on who they fuck or what they look like, but will stand firm on issues of importance like health care or the homeless, even if it means confronting other liberals.
I would see no other way of being, but you seem to be in defense of exactly the opposite. I wonder if you are even aware of that?
Yeah, right. You suggest liberals are “intolerent” because they disagree with you on some things, and here comes one to prove it by disagreeing with you! You have set the goal posts low and close to yourself. Anything short of Jesus-like universal love for all mankind and a complete refusal to express any moral judgment of any kind, and the liberal fails your little test.
Former liberal-turned-conservative here, and I don’t think that liberals or anyone else should be tolerant of bigotry. However, I think the definition of bigotry is being played fast & loose, here, and often is when liberals are defining it. It seems more often than not, liberals extrapolate bigoted attitudes and motivations from political opinions, without having the least clue or interest what else a conservative might be thinking.
There’s a very handy term for that. It’s called confirmation bias.
Do you see the definition of “tolerance” being played fast and loose?
I wonder, what would constitute “tolerance” on the part of liberals? Not having an opinion? Not expressing it? Not thinking people with different opinions are wrong?
Which liberals are you talking about? This is a thread about conservatives proposing that liberals say they are universally tolerant, and should thus tolerate some specific bit of conservative nonsense.
Tolerance is overrated. Truth is more important.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you your definition of “tolerance,” because this sentence doesn’t make any sense to me.
“Tolerance” as a liberal value means that the law and society should not use its power to disadvantage politically, economically, or socially those whose personal characteristics or private life choices differ from the majority.
That means:
- Don’t deny workplace advantages to individuals based on private or personal characteristics or choices, such as race, religion (or lack thereof), national origin, sexual preference, etc.
- Don’t deny equal protection of the law based on such private or personal characteristics or choices.
- Don’t discriminate in the private/social arena – such as membership or participation in cultural, charitable, social organizations and activities.
“Tolerance” as a liberal value does not mean allowing an organization who discriminates in the above manner the legal right to practice such discrimination
And it has absolutely nothing to do with political support of people whose policy stances one disagrees with.
It seems that you are suggesting that tolerant liberals who oppose the policy of war are required to support members of the Democratic party with whom they disagree on that issue. That has nothing to do with tolerance. Intolerance would to impose legal sanctions against someone who disagreed with you. Or labelling you a traitor or un-American because of your policy position.
Yes.
I refer you to your own statement upthread:
Your assumption that to tolerate conservative opinion means to tolerate bigotry is a bad one. Part of what it means to me to be tolerant is that you don’t assume the worst about someone (including your assumptions about their thoughts and motivations), unless you know it to be true. Assuming that conservatives are bigoted is not an example of tolerance.
Nobody has used more moral language than the the last 25+ years of U.S. politics than the Conservative Republican. So it’s not merely overstatement, it’s completely disengenuous and hypocritical.
Does that include, say, people who choose to abuse their pets? Or who believe in beating their spouses? Those are private life choices, after all. I think that definition of tolerance leaves something to be desired.
Therein lies the problem. It seems to me that people are saying, “Liberals don’t believe in universal tolerance. We simply believe in tolerating the things that should be tolerated!” This is why there’s a communication disconnect between the liberals and the conservatives. Conservatives believe that liberals tolerate certain things that should NOT be tolerated, and that they refuse to tolerate things (specifically, conservative values) that do deserve tolerance.
The example offered was banning businesses that discriminate openly against homosexual applicants. That’s really the rub right there. It always comes down to liberals being expected to tolerate some kind of institutionalized intolerance.
That “organization” is the federal government. Now, I do not myself agree with that particular policy - but I don’t think it is the proper place of the Berkeley City Council to make federal law.
[Ref. Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)]