NationStates Jolt Archive

I have had a number of concerns about political orientation and level of tolerance - I'm not saying all liberals are like this, but many of the ones I've encountered are actually very intolerant people . . . now conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and authoritarian socialists (if there are any) - take a good step back and try to *as objectively as possible* assess: which political orientation is the least tolerant of others and their beliefs?

Socialists. They simply won't even hear your views, at least conservatives and liberals will listen to your reasoning and then dismiss it.

Hang The Extremists!

:d

This thread is itching to become a generalization fest...

Communists

and authoritarian socialists (if there are any)

i'm authoritarian communist, that count?

in my experience, the conservatives are the least tolerant. surely their ideology also supports intolerance, what with upholding a moral code and all. by imposing a moral code on people - ie 'gays are wrong' - this is being intrinsically intolerant. a libertarian would surely be tolerant - at least in practice - by attesting that the state has no business in such moral matters?

i'm authoritarian communist, that count?
Yes

then i'll vote authoritarian socialist, cause i'm probably the least tolerant person of other people views most people know.

in my experience, the conservatives are the least tolerant. surely their ideology also supports intolerance, what with upholding a moral code and all. by imposing a moral code on people - ie 'gays are wrong'
The religious right =/= conservative. While I am libertarian myself, I tend to get along better with many conservatives than liberals

Pretty much any partisan group.

The religious right =/= conservative. While I am libertarian myself, I tend to get along better with many conservatives than liberals
in the UK at least (not sure where you're from... could be the UK of course ;) ) there is not a seperation like that. there is no strong 'religious right' over here, but conservatives have always held similar (but perhaps not as strong) moral and social beliefs. hence, in my eyes, conservative = intolerant.

I have had a number of concerns about political orientation and level of tolerance - I'm not saying all liberals are like this, but many of the ones I've encountered are actually very intolerant people . . . now conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and authoritarian socialists (if there are any) - take a good step back and try to *as objectively as possible* assess: which political orientation is the least tolerant of others and their beliefs?

I'm not sure you can really phrase the question in the way you did. Each group has a different semantic understanding of things to be tolerated (and therefore intolerance.)

IMHO:

Conservatives are intolerant of Activities :fluffle: (other than their own).
Liberals are intolerant of Ideas :sniper: (other than their own).
Authoritarian Socialists = Conservative Liberals :upyours: (see above)

but

Libertarians are Intolerant of (violent) Intolerance. "Ain't nobody's business if you do... just don't hurt anybody else - or else." :D

If when you say "conservatives" you mean authoritarian conservatives, then they would be the least tolerant. Just in my personal experience, though that may be because there seems to be more of them than authoritarian socialists. Honestly, all authoritarians are equally intolerant...it's hard to be intolerant about economics.

The only group that's really tolerant are libertarians.

The answer is...Everyone.

Every political affiliation has its own intolerances and fanatics.

Shoot the radicals!

I'm not sure you can really phrase the question in the way you did. Each group has a different semantic understanding of things to be tolerated (and therefore intolerance.)

IMHO:

Conservatives are intolerant of Activities :fluffle: (other than their own).
Liberals are intolerant of Ideas :sniper: (other than their own).
Authoritarian Socialists = Conservative Liberals :upyours: (see above)

but

Libertarians are Intolerant of (violent) Intolerance. "Ain't nobody's business if you do... just don't hurt anybody else - or else." :D

An utter pile of reductionist garb. Liberals are more tolerant of others' views than anyone else I come across, people who accuse them of being intolerant are often conservatives who don't like to be told they're wrong, especially when (as is often the case) the liberal argument has a stronger foundation in FACTS. There are plenty of conservatives who are intolerant of others views. Chief among them Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, they are bigots of the most vulgar and hateful kind. Libertarians have an indiscriminate kind of tolerance which to me seems pointless and almost amoral. Authoritarian socialists is a very loose term that could apply to anything from Britain's old Labour government, to France's Jacques Chirac to Chairman Mao to any Marxist who believes in a system where everybody is equal and holds the same perception of reality. Intolerant of other's views and actions? Maybe, but they are highly tolerant (arguablyn more so than liberals) of other races, women willing to stand up for themselves, working class people who want the rewards they deserve and (in the case of modern day socialists anyway) gays and lesbians.

Ideologically, i think democratic liberalism is the most tolerant political system because of one simple fact - it doesn't exclude the other systems. In fact, it encourages them. Political liberalism means you have certain inalienable rights - in the words of john locke, life liberty and property - the right to vote, among other things. Whilst also having freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of press and the other things that the American constitution is basically founded upon.

As long as people don't impose harm on other individuals or society (i.e break the law) they can pretty much think, say and do whatever they like. Therefore, liberalism allows for the other political ideologies to exist within the system.

Authoritarian socialism does not, because if i interpret what you mean by authoritarian socialism correctly it means a one-party state in which political dissidence is punished by the government.

Conservatism does allow the existance of other political ideologies within its own system, but can tend to have strict religious views which i personally oppose.

The problem is that some liberals don't practice what they preach. In my country, the social democratic party and left-wing party (socialist/communist) are impossible to debate with, they won't even listen to my arguments even though i'm not a member of any party. The enviromentalists won't listen to anyone. The liberal and conservative party both listen to arguments and have a kind of open debate about things.

I can't judge the situation in other countries, but from my perspective i vote liberals as the most tolerant people in general.

I don't have much against the conservatives in my country. It seems the definition of the words "conservative" "liberal" "right-wing" and "left-wing" are very different in different parts of the world. I think that's something that needs to be clarified before we can start discussing.

Shoot the radicals!
Just try and catch me!
*runs away*

Just try and catch me!
*runs away*

*mumbles something about paradoxes and sarcasm*

Why were Libertarians even on that list???

The paradox of liberalism, is that they would never label one of their own as intolerant, no matter what they say.

Liberals are extremely intolerant. If you are so tolerant, why are you whining about conservative politics. Why don;t you tolerate us. Conservatives all don;t think gays are evil.. I don;t agree with their lifestyl, but i am not against civil marraiges, i think that they should be kept out of religeous marraige ceremponies, except by on a case by case basis.

Newspaper at university had a column yesterday by the most intolerant liberal in the world. She said "we all know the only way to tak to a conservative is with a baseball bat," and yet she speaks of intolerance of conservatives.

She says she wants to be on the side that takes bunker busters to all conservatives. She says only reason Cheney is alivve is becasue hell is full. ANd she bashed conservatives for disliking the gay lifestyle.

An utter pile of reductionist garb. Liberals are more tolerant of others' views than anyone else I come across, people who accuse them of being intolerant are often conservatives who don't like to be told they're wrong, especially when (as is often the case) the liberal argument has a stronger foundation in FACTS. There are plenty of conservatives who are intolerant of others views. Chief among them Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, they are bigots of the most vulgar and hateful kind. Libertarians have an indiscriminate kind of tolerance which to me seems pointless and almost amoral. Authoritarian socialists is a very loose term that could apply to anything from Britain's old Labour government, to France's Jacques Chirac to Chairman Mao to any Marxist who believes in a system where everybody is equal and holds the same perception of reality. Intolerant of other's views and actions? Maybe, but they are highly tolerant (arguablyn more so than liberals) of other races, women willing to stand up for themselves, working class people who want the rewards they deserve and (in the case of modern day socialists anyway) gays and lesbians.
About 85% of the time, when i attempt to have an educated discussion about political views with a liberal, it ussually ends in 5 minutes with him screaming that i am completely wrong. Where is th etolerance in that. He doen't even let me get out of the gate before he/she starts attacking me. That isn;t tolerant. That is blind ignorance.

I have had a number of concerns about political orientation and level of tolerance - I'm not saying all liberals are like this, but many of the ones I've encountered are actually very intolerant people . . . now conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and authoritarian socialists (if there are any) - take a good step back and try to *as objectively as possible* assess: which political orientation is the least tolerant of others and their beliefs?
I believe I will vote for you due to the topic statement

Liberals are extremely intolerant. If you are so tolerant, why are you whining about conservative politics. Why don;t you tolerate us.

Liberals whine about conservative politics because they don't agree with them. Duh. Theres a very big difference between tolerating something and agreeing with it, that's why we're discussing all of this in the first place.

And once again i ask, this question mainly directed at american conservatives, PLEASE give me a CLEAR definition of what you consider a LIBERAL.

When i was in the U.S. and said i was a liberal, because in my country i am considered one, i was labeled as having the views of the social democratic party in my country, which i do not agree with one bit, they're on the other end of the political spectrum!

An utter pile of reductionist garb. Liberals are more tolerant of others' views than anyone else I come across, people who accuse them of being intolerant are often conservatives who don't like to be told they're wrong, especially when (as is often the case) the liberal argument has a stronger foundation in FACTS. There are plenty of conservatives who are intolerant of others views. Chief among them Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, they are bigots of the most vulgar and hateful kind. Libertarians have an indiscriminate kind of tolerance which to me seems pointless and almost amoral. Authoritarian socialists is a very loose term that could apply to anything from Britain's old Labour government, to France's Jacques Chirac to Chairman Mao to any Marxist who believes in a system where everybody is equal and holds the same perception of reality. Intolerant of other's views and actions? Maybe, but they are highly tolerant (arguablyn more so than liberals) of other races, women willing to stand up for themselves, working class people who want the rewards they deserve and (in the case of modern day socialists anyway) gays and lesbians.

Nicely Tolerant of you. :rolleyes:

Pundits, of whatever stripe, are intolerant of opposing ideas by nature and definition.

I was not talking about Pundits. I was talking about the average individual holding to a political ideology. But then again, in my experience, most Liberals cannot/will not differentiate Punditry from Ideology. Comes from the knee-jerk tendancy to pigeon-hole people into "groups" with the noisiest member as "spokesperson". (As opposed to seeing the individual as an individual regardless of Liberal Label.)

Thank you for making my point though. ;)

Authoritarian socialists is a very loose term that could apply to anything from Britain's old Labour government, to France's Jacques Chirac to Chairman Mao to any Marxist who believes in a system where everybody is equal and holds the same perception of reality. Intolerant of other's views and actions? Maybe, but they are highly tolerant (arguablyn more so than liberals) of other races, women willing to stand up for themselves, working class people who want the rewards they deserve and (in the case of modern day socialists anyway) gays and lesbians.

I heard some wise man once say that authoritarian socialism / communism is the ideology that discriminates the least out of all of them, because to an authoritarian socialist, it doesn't matter what skin color, religion, sex, sexual preference or class you are/have, if you disagree with the party you'll get summarily executed regardless. Hence no discrimination.

Meh. guess the thread more or less died.

Of course the issue of tolerance is one that extends far beyond the traditional lines. We must also be willing to accept that people will hold intolerant opinions to be truly tolerant, and we must allow them to hold those opinions, no matter how disgusting we find them.

Of course the issue of tolerance is one that extends far beyond the traditional lines. We must also be willing to accept that people will hold intolerant opinions to be truly tolerant, and we must allow them to hold those opinions, no matter how disgusting we find them.

Good point, and i agree, but i recognize that it's hard to uphold tolerance when it's one-sided. It's like respecting someone who doesn't respect you at all.

Good point, and i agree, but i recognize that it's hard to uphold tolerance when it's one-sided. It's like respecting someone who doesn't respect you at all.
If you do keep your tolerance up, then you can claim moral superiority :D

Hmm isn't "authoritarian socialism" basically nazism? Without the Aryanism. At least that's what it seems like to me.

The religious right =/= conservative. While I am libertarian myself, I tend to get along better with many conservatives than liberals
Well, libertairian is like socially liberal, fiscally conservative, right? So you do have something in common there...

Hmm isn't "authoritarian socialism" basically nazism? Without the Aryanism. At least that's what it seems like to me.

There is absolutely no relation between "national socialism" which is a far right ideology and socialism and the nazis only used this name to try to win support from as many people as possible. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis#Nazism_and_socialism. An authoritarian socialist government is probably one which aims to achieve a society where wealth is distributed equally but which also has tight control over the political system. An example could be Cuba, the USSR or Socialist Yugoslavia.

And once again i ask, this question mainly directed at american conservatives, PLEASE give me a CLEAR definition of what you consider a LIBERAL.

When i was in the U.S. and said i was a liberal, because in my country i am considered one, i was labeled as having the views of the social democratic party in my country, which i do not agree with one bit, they're on the other end of the political spectrum!

When i was in the U.S. and said i was a liberal, because in my country i am considered one, i was labeled as having the views of the social democratic party in my country, which i do not agree with one bit, they're on the other end of the political spectrum!

IMO "Liberals" in the US sphere of politics appear to be an amalgam of Statist ideologies, each intent on categorizing and grouping individuals into neat little mutually antagonistic groups designed with the intent of maintaining a level of "crisis" (ecological, social/sociological, racial, "gender", or whatever) and thereby maintain an acceptable level of State Funding/control. Almost by definition, US "Liberals" support, to a greater or lesser extent, an Authoritarian-Socialist "Nanny-State" ideology that represses Capitalist concepts at the expense of ideological "feel-goodisim", and economic standards. (Better that all should be poor than any rich.) Legislatively and otherwise, the greatest Ideologues in the Liberal Pantheon tend to be quite Rich, having inherited or "earned" their fortunes in the "entertainment" industry. This direct spiritual link to the "working poor" gives them the right to agitate for policies that will not affect them personally.

Social Policy is Summarized best by the ideal of "Forced/Legislated Equality of Outcomes".

Then too, more and more, "Conservatives" in the US also appear to be moving toward Statist positions, though those tend to revolve around social/"spiritual" issues and how THEY can recieve State funding. However, rather than a Nanny State, Conservative Authoritarian leanings tend toward Law & Order and the nebulous area of "morals". This "God Given Duty" gives them the right to agitate for policies that will not affect them personally.

Social Policy is Summarized best by the ideal of "Unlegislated Equality of Opportunity". (Hey, if inheriting/marrying $$$ is good enough for Kennedy et.al, it's good enough for Conservatives.) Personal achievement is not to be suppressed in the interests of "equality".

BTW, "NeoConservative" (as yet unmentioned) is a term meaning, essentially, "Politically Conservative Jew supporting US/Israeli Policy in the Middle East". Its initial use was as a discriptor for Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and others. It has since mutated into an epithet against the "pro-war" faction/Pundits in Washington.


I hold politically liberal (Jeffersonian) views. That is why I am a Libertarian.

So much for the "short" answer, incomplete as it is and written in haste. :cool:

There is absolutely no relation between "national socialism" which is a far right ideology and socialism and the nazis only used this name to try to win support from as many people as possible. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis#Nazism_and_socialism. An authoritarian socialist government is probably one which aims to achieve a society where wealth is distributed equally but which also has tight control over the political system. An example could be Cuba, the USSR or Socialist Yugoslavia.

That article also says that Stalin's system was not "truly socialist" either. So, OK, the USSR wasn't truly socialist, nazis aren't truly socialist, and the US isn't truly a democracy... etc. No TRUE Scotsman....

Just because a system fails at achieving it's proclaimed goals does not mean it did not proclaim those goals. A lying, hypocritical or failed socialist is still a socialist.

Cynical Snarkiness aside...

(Some US-Centric Definitions ahead!)

Liberals tended to believe in more government to help the people, while Conservatives believed in less government, under the idea of less government to intrude on their lives and less to pay for.

(more opinion here...)

Then somewhere, Liberals moved to help the minorities to the exclusion of everything else, and Conservatives "found religion" (according to the media, if you believe them :rolleyes: ) and decided Big Government meant Big Business meant Big Economy. The two camps parted, and began sniping at each other. The people, meanwhile, got confused and started losing interest when none of the big two began to believe like they did. Despair sets in, and you end up with todays problems. Liberals are working to come back to the center, and Conservatives are moving farther off to the right, without realizing they aren't being followed by large numbers of voters.

So... what am I? Well, apathetic wasn't on the list. I vote conservate nationally, liberal locally, and pray to God and Jesus that neither of the two big political camps screws it up too much.

That article also says that Stalin's system was not "truly socialist" either. So, OK, the USSR wasn't truly socialist, nazis aren't truly socialist, and the US isn't truly a democracy... etc. No TRUE Scotsman....

Just because a system fails at achieving it's proclaimed goals does not mean it did not proclaim those goals. A lying, hypocritical or failed socialist is still a socialist.

That may be correct but the fact is that while the USSR at least attempted to achieve a Socialist society this has never been the goal of the nazis. Nazism has always been a right wing ideology and that is why they received their support from German conservatives while it was the Social Democrats and the Communists who opposed them. As I said before they only used the name "socialist" to try to appeal to as many people as possible but the article proves that nazism is completely incompatible with Socialism or Marxism.

That may be correct but the fact is that while the USSR at least attempted to achieve a Socialist society this has never been the goal of the nazis. Nazism has always been a right wing ideology and that is why they received their support from German conservatives while it was the Social Democrats and the Communists who opposed them. As I said before they only used the name "socialist" to try to appeal to as many people as possible but the article proves that nazism is completely incompatible with Socialism or Marxism.


IIRC, While Naziisim name is derived from "National Socialist(s)" their economics/politics was dictatorial Fascisim - i.e. all means of industry, while privately "owned", is under the de-facto control of the Government... sort of like how US Liberals would like to control US industry. (oops)

Liberals whine about conservative politics because they don't agree with them. Duh. Theres a very big difference between tolerating something and agreeing with it, that's why we're discussing all of this in the first place.

I disagree with gays, would you call me intolerant. I think you would....

That may be correct but the fact is that while the USSR at least attempted to achieve a Socialist society this has never been the goal of the nazis. Nazism has always been a right wing ideology and that is why they received their support from German conservatives while it was the Social Democrats and the Communists who opposed them. As I said before they only used the name "socialist" to try to appeal to as many people as possible but the article proves that nazism is completely incompatible with Socialism or Marxism.

That article doesn't prove anything. We can always find articles that argue for one thing or another. Like this one (http://willysutton.blogspot.com/2004/03/ssalistinn-adolf-hitler.html) pointing out similarities between socialism and nazism, linked from that very article of yourn!

It may be incompatible with Marxism, but socialism and nazism can and were married nicely. You basically admit as much when you say they used the word socialism, to attract support. That means they attracted socialist supporters. If an idealogy professes socialism, calls itself socialist, and is supported by socialists, I'm inclined to call them at least somewhat socialist. In the same way that even though the US is not a "true" Democracy, we still espouse "democracy" and people use it as an example of same. Yeh?

I really do think that this forum should develop a set of uniform definitions for political ideologies. For example, I view socialism as the centralized ownership of the means of production by the government. I really don't care what ends it is trying to do so, just that they are doing so.

Others believe that it can only be socialism if it is done for the benefit of society.

We really do need to develop an NS dictionary...

I disagree with gays, would you call me intolerant. I think you would....

Do you disagree with the (existential) condition of being gay, or do you disagree with the political agenda of gay advocacy groups and agitators?

Big difference.

One is Bigoted, the other is political discourse - as much as the activists would like to disagree.

I usually identify myself as a liberal. I'm intolerant of the religious right because they wish to make everyone conform to their idea of morality. I'm intolerant of any group that preaches hate in the form of denying someone else equal rights because of a membership to a particuliar group. I'm not tolerant of child molesters or rapists. Why should I be tolerant of racists and homophbes?

I usually identify myself as a liberal. I'm intolerant of the religious right because they wish to make everyone conform to their idea of morality. I'm intolerant of any group that preaches hate in the form of denying someone else equal rights because of a membership to a particuliar group. I'm not tolerant of child molesters or rapists. Why should I be tolerant of racists and homophbes?

Are you intolerant of:

(A) Them?
(B) Their position (Ideas)? or
(C) Actions based upon those positions?

There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of ACTIONS (harmful extra-personal ones anyway) but there is quite a lot wrong with being intolerant of the Idea or the Holder.

Actions do not have to occur.
An Action may be prevented by intolerance.
An Idea gains Force through intolerance, where they could have otherwise been changed through persuasion.

People Die from intolerance.

Consider: Tolerance is NOT the same as acceptance. Tolerance is simply the action of not attacking the holder of an Idea. Tolerance CANNOT by in any sense of the term apply to existence. It is semantically impossible to be intolerant of something that simply exists.

I do not "tolerate" gays (whatever, pick your favorite visually identifiable/activist classification). I accept them for who they are. I do NOT tolerate flamboyancy/anarcho-activisim (whatever). They detract from the discussion of the issues. See the difference?

-----
MrMisanthrope, Cheif Synic, Libertarian Police State HQ.

i'm all for them legalizing murder, and i'm not very tolerant. i'd probably be first to die.

EDIT: A murder is a flock of crows, hahahahahahaha!

but that's not what i mean

Of course the issue of tolerance is one that extends far beyond the traditional lines. We must also be willing to accept that people will hold intolerant opinions to be truly tolerant, and we must allow them to hold those opinions, no matter how disgusting we find them.

No. That would be a betrayal of tolerance.

For some reason, in my experience this point makes perfect sense to people when I describe it in the classroom environment.

As an instructor, what do I do if a student uses racist or sexist language in the classroom?

The liberal response is to stop her/him, to maintain rules of tolerance in the classroom. Yes, the liberal "does not tolerate" intolerance. But that is because the liberal understands tolerance to be a political term, with political ends: its end is a tolerant society. A tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance. By definition.

The libertarian response is to allow racist or sexist language in the classroom "so long as it does not hurt anyone." Since libertarians seem to think this means anything should be tolerated short of physical violence, the result is a highly intolerant environment.

Thus, liberals are the most tolerant. Socialists vary a great deal. Libertarians are, by any definition that makes political sense (try Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance), less tolerant, since they are willing to tolerate the status quo no matter how intolerant it may be. Conservatives are, by and large, least tolerant... because on both sides of the Atlantic they tend to revert back to some sort of defense of the "community," which has a right, in their eyes, to be intolerant toward anything or anyone that is not approved by the community.

No. That would be a betrayal of tolerance.

For some reason, in my experience this point makes perfect sense to people when I describe it in the classroom environment.

As an instructor, what do I do if a student uses racist or sexist language in the classroom?

The liberal response is to stop her/him, to maintain rules of tolerance in the classroom. Yes, the liberal "does not tolerate" intolerance. But that is because the liberal understands tolerance to be a political term, with political ends: its end is a tolerant society. A tolerant society does not tolerate intolerance. By definition.

The libertarian response is to allow racist or sexist language in the classroom "so long as it does not hurt anyone." Since libertarians seem to think this means anything should be tolerated short of physical violence, the result is a highly intolerant environment.

Thus, liberals are the most tolerant. Socialists vary a great deal. Libertarians are, by any definition that makes political sense (try Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance), less tolerant, since they are willing to tolerate the status quo no matter how intolerant it may be. Conservatives are, by and large, least tolerant... because on both sides of the Atlantic they tend to revert back to some sort of defense of the "community," which has a right, in their eyes, to be intolerant toward anything or anyone that is not approved by the community.

Wow. Orwell would have been proud.

Let me get this straight... Through an example based upon a controlled enviornment (a classroom) you are attempting extrapolate all of society (an uncontrolled enviornment) ?!?

Beautiful example of Ivy Tower Liberal Hubris. "We Teach, therefore who better to control society?" Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Your example demonstrates exactly the type of Authoritarianisim that Libertarians (and true Free-Thinkers) rationally fear. Liberals seem to have a gut-level need to control the thoughts of others. Your post only reinforces this opinion.

BTW: How do you get the idea that Libertarians would "tolerate the status quo no matter how intolerant it may be"? That would be an abrogation of Rational Thought - the cornerstone of the Libertarian Ideal.

If you want to do more extrapolation, I suggest you extrapolate Just War Theory (Rawls would be a good start) to society as a whole and learn why the only Just use of Force (from Authoritarian Coercion to Violence) can only be ethical in relation to physical (not ideological) defense.

MrMisanthrope - Cheif Synik, Libertarian Police State HQ

How is any society with a government, laws, and law enforcement anything other than a "controlled environment"?

I say Conservatives. More conservatives are intolerant than others. Especially Ann Coulter and others. In fact, I've seen more words ofg heatred toward "liberals" than I have toward Conservatives. But that is just me.

Libertarians are right behind them because they agree on almost very issue. I base this on their votes for President mostly. They are okay with Bush going into Private life with his amendment to ban marriage for gays or they just don't care. Because mostly they voted for him rather than their own party.

Authoritarian Socialist are next but they are about equal with Liberatarians mostly.

Liberals are fairly tolerant. Sure, they are intolerant of banning gay marriage but that is because Conservatives are stealing things seen as Civil Rights. I think pursuit of happiness is infringed. In recent study in Psycology Today magazine, married people report to be happier than unmarried ones. Could just be coincideince but it does say something.

I find the poll results pretty entertaining considering the obvious implications.
;)

Libertarians are right behind them because they agree on almost very issue.
If by agree you mean that the conservatives are now for legal prostitution, hard drugs, gambling, gay marriage and pornography...
Than I'm so with you, man.

Also, please name you source for the statement "Libertarians mostly voted for George Bush", as it reeks of bullshit.

How is any society with a government, laws, and law enforcement anything other than a "controlled environment"?

Wow. A categorical admission of wanting/seeing Society as an Authoritarian Nanny State. Most Liberals aren't so open about it.

You have a serious problem if you think that the world outside your classroom is a "controlled enviornment". Who has the "control"? Obviously you want it, but fortunately there is no one ideology in control - ipso facto, no real control except Self Control. (Anathema to Liberals)

You advocate for the principle of Thought Crime. I'm appaled at the thought. However, as long as you do not attempt to force me into compliance with your terms - terms I, unlike your student(s), am under no contractual obligation to accept - you have every right to believe that an idea, in and of itself, can be legislated.

How do you propose to control Ideas? Suppression of all non-liberal ideological works? Works of Theology? Does that include the Koran? Do you propose to make public discussion of contentious topics illegal? You mentioned "racial/homophobic comments". To whom are they so classified? An individual hearer? According to what standard? Whose standard?

Should I be killed for typing "Allah Ackpthth"? How about "There is no Trinity"? My gay friends variously like or dislike the term "Queer". Is that term "homophobic"? How about "Queer Eye..."? There are "African Americans" who still prefer "Black" or even "Negro". When is it "racist" for me to use those terms? It's up to you I suppose.

How about the term "Slave"? I'm Slavic and proud of it. "Slav" comes from an old root meaning "glorious," but during the first millennium, Western Europeans enslaved so many of us that the word "slav" came to mean "slave" in their languages, which is about as derogatory as you can get. A people without a strong sense of self-worth, like the American Blacks, would have repeatedly changed their own name trying to erase the smudge, but of course we didn't. Try to get a Jew to call himself something different. Same thing. (Disclosure: Stolen from Leo Frankowski, but I am Slavic, and those are my sentiments as well.)

In other words, How much Dictatorial Control do you want to attempt to justify, and why am I even trying debate this with you since you are obviously intolerant of tolerance?

MrMisanthrope - Cheif Synik, Libertarian Police State HQ

My issues over tolerance with liberalism (or the so-called "liberal" ideas) stem from that of Affirmative Action and Political Correctness.

Affirmative Action requires that X number of minority be present in various jobs/colleges/etc. Effectively, this is descrimination against caucasians. While I'm NOT a white supremacist, it's still a passive form of racism against whites. Thus, a liberal idea isn't so very tolerant.

And political correctness - it is used as to prevent people from being "offended" by whatever term is "offensive" to them. This is, effectively, censorship. And I thought liberals were against censorship (and censorship is often regarded as being intolerant of unpopular ideas)

You have a serious problem if you think that the world outside your classroom is a "controlled enviornment". Who has the "control"?

The government, quite obviously. If you believe that society is not "controlled," then you are clearly delusional about the meaning of the term.

How do you propose to control Ideas? Suppression of all non-liberal ideological works?

Nope. I'm fine with plenty of ideological positions. In fact, I'm not really a "liberal" as you understand the term. The question here is not the suppression of "non-liberal" ideology, but intolerant behavior.

The reason behind this is that we want to live in a tolerant society. A tolerant society, by definition, tolerates people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, ideology... and so on. That means that a tolerant society lets people say what they want and do what they want... short of being intolerant. Because if society is going to let people be intolerant, then it is not a tolerant society.

This means that we do not tolerate racism, sexism, heterosexism, or discrimination against religious beliefs. Everything else we tolerate. But these things contradict the very basis of a tolerant society.

Do you propose to make public discussion of contentious topics illegal?

Certainly not. But there are plenty of contentious topics that do not involve racial/etc. discrimination. These, of course, we will also discuss... but we will not tolerate the opinion that, for instance, blacks should not be allowed in white bathrooms.

Should this be "illegal" in the sense that there is a fine? Probably not. To extend the analogy that you so detest, yet which remains applicable, I do not penalize a racist student. I do not subtract points from his grade. (Although if I found racism in a paper, I would demand a rewrite.) But that does not mean I allow his speech the same space in the public forum as I do tolerant and respectful speech. Why? Because it has no more place in a tolerant classroom than racism does in a tolerant society.

According to what standard? Whose standard?

That is the tough question. The general answer is that if it is intolerant, we should not tolerate it. Indeed, most of us have a pretty good ear for what is racist or sexist. Moreover, I think most of us do not tolerate it most of the time. If we do make legal definitions, who interprets them? Ultimately, in the United States, it would be the Supreme Court. Overall, they tend to do a decent job about it.

Should I be killed for typing "Allah Ackpthth"? How about "There is no Trinity"?

Is either of those statements intolerant? I certainly don't see how "There is no Trinity" is intolerant. "No one should be allowed to believe there is a Trinity" would be.

My gay friends variously like or dislike the term "Queer". Is that term "homophobic"?

I would say it probably depends on how it is used, wouldn't you?

How about the term "Slave"? I'm Slavic and proud of it. "Slav" comes from an old root meaning "glorious," but during the first millennium, Western Europeans enslaved so many of us that the word "slav" came to mean "slave" in their languages, which is about as derogatory as you can get. A people without a strong sense of self-worth, like the American Blacks, would have repeatedly changed their own name trying to erase the smudge, but of course we didn't. Try to get a Jew to call himself something different. Same thing.

Okay. So how would someone who is trying to reduce intolerance possibly tell you to change your own name?

In other words, How much Dictatorial Control do you want to attempt to justify, and why am I even trying debate this with you since you are obviously intolerant of tolerance?

I am willing to debate anything. I am even willing to talk with a racist to try to figure out how to help her/him overcome her/his racism. But I see no reason to give her/him the same public hearing due to other points of view, and I certainly will not tolerate her/his demands to enact racist legislation, or her/his attempts to spread racist prejudice in a public setting.

I will not tolerate intolerance. To do so would betray my belief in a tolerant society.

The real inconsistency here is this:

People spouting intolerant (e.g. racist) ideology get angry when we liberals refuse to tolerate it.

They say, "Hey, I thought this was a tolerant society!! Why will you not tolerate my intolerance? That's not fair!!"

If you are being intentionally intolerant, you have no leg to stand on when claiming "tolerance" as the justification for your space in the public sphere.

Quickly, because I need to leave work...

{snip} A tolerant society, by definition, tolerates people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, ideology... and so on. That means that a tolerant society lets people say what they want and do what they want... short of being intolerant. Because if society is going to let people be intolerant, then it is not a tolerant society.

This means that we do not tolerate racism, sexism, heterosexism, or discrimination against religious beliefs. Everything else we tolerate. But these things contradict the very basis of a tolerant society.


You then are of the opinion that it is valid to dislike the existence of a person because of "race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, ideology... and so on"? :eek:

If not, then you really need to rethink your use of the verb "to tolerate" (tolere).

tolerance (ABILITY TO BEAR) noun [U]
1 the ability to bear something unpleasant or annoying, or to continue existing despite disadvantageous conditions:

2 SPECIALIZED an animal's or plant's ability not to be harmed by a drug or poison over a long period of time: a greater tolerance of/to the drug

tolerant adjective
I think men are less tolerant of stress than women.
SPECIALIZED Compared to other plants, rye is more tolerant of drought.

tolerate verb [T]
to bear something unpleasant or annoying, or to continue existing despite disadvantageous conditions:

I find it offensive to even consider the notion that someone merely "tolerates" another human at the existential level (as you cite). By semantic definition, "to tolerate" (socially) applies only to actions, including the expression of ideas, but cannot rationally apply to matters of existence. (I Exist. Ideas Exist. Intolerance of existence = genocide.)

Any Society that merely Tolerates one group or another has the semantic capacity to become Intolerant of them. I agree that Society (as a whole) should be intolerant of Intolerance - inasmuch as said Intolerance manifestes itself in actions such as Threats of Violence, Violence, and Social Disruption. Otherwise, ideological intolerance leads to book burnings.

You then are of the opinion that it is valid to dislike the existence of a person because of "race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, religion, ideology... and so on"?

Certainly not "valid." But to pretend such intolerance does not exist is blind denial.

A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. It is as simple as that.

The real inconsistency here is this:

People spouting intolerant (e.g. racist) ideology get angry when we liberals refuse to tolerate it..

You don't have to tolerate the Action - i.e. spouting, unless you are in a Classroom. You can always leave, change the channel, and otherwise refuse to support it... unless, again, the spouting is coming from the classroom... then your tax dollars are supporting it against your will.

If you are being intentionally intolerant, you have no leg to stand on when claiming "tolerance" as the justification for your space in the public sphere.

See: Ward Churchill and other Radical Professors of late.

IMO, they have the right to be abusive anti-US radical hate-mongers, but they have no "right" to recieve my money to do it. If their Ideas have a sustainable market, then they will be compensated enough to spew. If not, they can shut up and find real work.

That's how to be Intolerantly Tolerant. I don't like what they say, so I'm not going to support it. Same thing with current commercial Religions.

There is no Idea so repugnant that it should not be allowed to written down... but that doesn't mean anybody will want to read it either.

(BTW, before you go there, "Inciting to riot", Calls to Violence &/or other "yelling fire in a burning building" examples are examples of ACTIONS, not Ideas.)

You don't have to tolerate the Action - i.e. spouting, unless you are in a Classroom. You can always leave, change the channel, and otherwise refuse to support it...

Yes, but I am talking about removing public support, in the sense of providing a public forum in the first place. I do not support, in other words, the Nazi "right" to march through town.

There is no Idea so repugnant that it should not be allowed to written down... but that doesn't mean anybody will want to read it either.

I agree with that. Write down whatever you want. Publish it even. Writing is the most selective public forum. But do not expect me to allow intolerant speech at a town meeting, or in a political party. Intolerant political parties should not be allowed.

(BTW, before you go there, "Inciting to riot", Calls to Violence &/or other "yelling fire in a burning building" examples are examples of ACTIONS, not Ideas.)

I certainly would not have claimed otherwise.

I have had a number of concerns about political orientation and level of tolerance - I'm not saying all liberals are like this, but many of the ones I've encountered are actually very intolerant people . . .
From Encarta:



liberal: 1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

Hmmmm.

I'd say conservatives as conservativism is basically built at least in part on intolerance. Sorry, but it's true.

Libertarians have an indiscriminate kind of tolerance which to me seems pointless and almost amoral.

Oh yeah, you just gotta hate that indiscriminate "live and let live" thing. (Where's the "roll eyes" icon when you need it?)

The only group that's really tolerant are libertarians.

Who voted libertarian...? Why....?

I disagree with gays, would you call me intolerant. I think you would....

As long as you don't break the law you have the right to have whatever opinions you like, but if you "disagree" with others they have the same right to "disagree" with you.