Liberal Intolerance (1 Viewer)

[sublimeone]

You read through all those posts, viewed all the pictures, watched all the videos - all fake? Tough to take you seriously if that's your response.

Hey Groovus, do you dislike all Muslims because a small percentage are terrorists? Or dislike the BLM movement because one of them murdered a handful of cops?

 

[Gr00vus]

Understood.  I'm not sure I've ever voted for someone who gave me 10/10 on the issues I hoped to see advanced.  If we follow the string of someone's decisions far enough, we will eventually find disagreement.  If we then ignore conduct and speech and define tolerance as a comparison of world views, nobody wins.,

Sure, it's tough to vote for a candidate and expect they match up completely with your desires. I was focusing on direct vote for laws - such as what happened here in California a few years ago, where such an initiative was on the ballot. Would you agree that those who would vote for an initiative that disallowed same sex marriage should be considered intolerant of same sex marriage, and therefore equal rights for homosexuals, and therefore intolerant of homosexuals?

 

[Gr00vus]

Hey Groovus, do you dislike all Muslims because a small percentage are terrorists? Or dislike the BLM movement because one of them murdered a handful of cops?

I dislike terrorists. I dislike murderers. Their religious and/or racial background has no bearing on my dislike.

 

[T J]

Voting for anti same sex marriage legislation is a manifestation of intolerance.

Your definition of intolerance. Someone voting for same sex marriage could just as easily be considered intolerant by the side believing it's wrong. I support same sex marriage, but just because one side views something as intolerant, doesn't make it so because the other side I'm sure views things exactly the opposite. It's arrogant to think one side is right and one side is wrong. There is no right or wrong. 

 

[sublimeone]

I dislike terrorists. I dislike murderers. Their religious and/or racial background has no bearing on my dislike.

Why don't you apply the same logic when discussing republicans/conservatives?

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Your definition of intolerance. Someone voting for same sex marriage could just as easily be considered intolerant by the side believing it's wrong. I support same sex marriage, but just because one side views something as intolerant, doesn't make it so because the other side I'm sure views things exactly the opposite. It's arrogant to think one side is right and one side is wrong. There is no right or wrong. 

Depriving people of equal rights is wrong.

 

[Gr00vus]

Your definition of intolerance. Someone voting for same sex marriage could just as easily be considered intolerant by the side believing it's wrong. I support same sex marriage, but just because one side views something as intolerant, doesn't make it so because the other side I'm sure views things exactly the opposite. It's arrogant to think one side is right and one side is wrong. There is no right or wrong. 

Here's the Merriam Webster definition of intolerance:

Full Definition of intolerant

1. 1:  unable or unwilling to endure
   
2. 2a  :  unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious mattersb  :  unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights :  bigoted
   
3. 3:  exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
   

By voting against same sex marriage, you deny one subset of humans rights that accrue to most other subsets of humans. The opposite is not true. By choosing to allow same sex marriage, you do not deny any rights to anyone else. These are not equivalent beliefs. The first is intolerant the other is not. This is not according to my own special interpretation of what intolerance means. We don't get to make up definitions of words in these circumstances to suit our purposes, else we eventually aren't able to communicate. In this case there is a right and a wrong when it comes to identifying, by definition,  which action is intolerant and which is not. Understanding that is not arrogance.

 

[Gr00vus]

Why don't you apply the same logic when discussing republicans/conservatives?

I do. See my first post in this thread.

 

[sublimeone]

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/education/index.ssf/2016/11/students_yelling_cotton_picker_heiling_hitler_at_this_local_school.html

That's nothing: http://www.infowars.com/shock-video-black-mob-viciously-beats-white-trump-voter/

 

[JohnnyU]

So groping women and walking into women's changing rooms while they are dressing is fine  because you OWN the pageant and anyone who says you can't is just being a bigot . - got it.

Enjoy your trump presidency.

Of course the left thinks it's OK to do that as long as they identify as being a woman  

 

[JohnnyU]

I bet more liberals got participation trophies growing up than conservatives. 

 

[saintfool]

In heavy-populated urban areas? Absolutely. The rest of the country? Not so much. Just look at the red/blue on votes in each state.

Define "heavy-populated" urban areas, please, because I'm not especially inclined to agree with you. Look at a county election map like this and tell me that Dems live in only large metro markets. We're all over. Big cities and populous states but also small towns and tiny states like Vermont. It's an overly simplistic view to just look at Blue and Red states on a national map. Dems are winning in places as diverse as NYC and Buffalo County, SD. We narrowly lost states like PA, WI, MI, FL, NC, and OH but we also improved on results in other states. You know a state that voted for Romney over Obama in 2012 by 16 points but Hillary on lost by 9 points? Texas.

I'm not arguing "changing demographics" or the long game for Dems at all here. I'm saying that Dems and the Left are found everywhere.

 

[wormburner]

Sure, it's tough to vote for a candidate and expect they match up completely with your desires. I was focusing on direct vote for laws - such as what happened here in California a few years ago, where such an initiative was on the ballot. Would you agree that those who would vote for an initiative that disallowed same sex marriage should be considered intolerant of same sex marriage, and therefore equal rights for homosexuals, and therefore intolerant of homosexuals?

I think conservatives and the church (no, they're not automatically the same! ) missed a great opportunity many decades ago to do the right thing.  Civil unions granting every legal right and protection to same sex couples should have been approved a long time ago.  Same sex marriage is a relatively recent demand from the gay community.  Inheritance and transfer of property, custody issues, etc., were decidedly unfair to same sex couples for a long time.  Wanting everything hetro couples had could have been accomplished while still maintaining marriage as a one man one woman thing.  History was not on the side of changing this.  Wanting to be "married" comes back to my premise of wanting an endorsement.  In this case, by the state.

 

[JIslander]

And that's where the debate takes place... but I don't think anyone really believes there's going to be an outright ban on abortion.

If true, so much for Trumps 2020 campaign.  That's a single issue vote he got from Evangelicals.

 

[sublimeone]

That's a single issue vote he got from Evangelicals.

Yep... just like the pro-choice vote went to HRC... This happens every single election. Have you not recognized the charade yet?

 

[JIslander]

Yep... just like the pro-choice vote went to HRC... This happens every single election. Have you not recognized the charade yet?

Um, no.  That was not a single issue vote for HRC. 

 

[Gr00vus]

I'll double down on the naiveté RnR accused me of earlier by issuing this challenge, to all of us.

Let's stop the name calling. Let's stop the assumption of all the worst attributes of the worst people in our society for those who may, for some reason, have some slight thing in common with them. We can disagree about ideas - political, economic, religious, whatever - without being jerks to each other. Sure not all ideas are equal, some aren't worth respecting, but that doesn't mean we should completely disrespect those that hold them. For one thing, it's not a great way to treat other people. For another, it just makes things worse, makes us all more fragmented, more divided and makes it tough to make progress.

We can argue, but let's be civil to each other even if we can't come to an agreement on what we're arguing about. I think that would go a long way towards, if nothing else, fostering better understanding of where people are coming from, what their experiences are, what their concerns are. If we can get to that, we can get to solutions that work for most.

I think we need that right now, a lot more pulling together, a lot less pulling apart and tearing down.

 

[Blick]

"There's a lot of love out there, you know, man?"

 

[Gr00vus]

"There's a lot of love out there, you know, man?"

Exactly.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Why do poor white people on welfare vote republican but poor blacks & Hispanics vote dem? 

Shouldnt everyone laying up collecting government checks vote dem? 

Actually, most people on the government dole lean left by over 2 to 1, so most of the ARE voting dem.  Your assumption about white people on welfare voting republican is false to begin with.

 

[RBM]

Your word choices unveil your bias and bigotry.  

When describing how blacks and Latinos voted you didn't add a negative adjective to diminish them as somehow lesser.

When describing how whites voted you felt completely comfortable adding racist, trash, and morons.

Have you always been this self-loathing?

Wait, he's white?  

 

[MaxThreshold]

They are gleeful about it.

These are the same stories your side would dismiss as "anecdotal" and not necessarily true.  But now you believe them to be true AND representative of the majority?

 

[wormburner]

Have you always been this self-loathing?

Wait, he's white?  

It's part of the privilege.

 

[Gachi]

 Yeah, can't think of a reasonable argument against the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Nope, I can't think of a valid reason to infringe upon an extremely personal reproductive right of a woman. 

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy she shouldn't have to view the ultrasound, wait 72 hours or whatever else republicans can think of. It's a violation of the constitution. 

 

[Gachi]

Actually, most people on the government dole lean left by over 2 to 1, so most of the ARE voting dem.  Your assumption about white people on welfare voting republican is false to begin with.

So if I go to the backwoods of Mississippi I'm gonna find a bunch of poor white liberals? 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I bet more liberals got participation trophies growing up than conservatives. 

This post sucks, not funny or illuminating in any way.

Go back to the Shark Pool, you're not needed here. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

So if I go to the backwoods of Mississippi I'm gonna find a bunch of poor white liberals? 

I don't know, are you?  I did say "most", not "all" so there's that...

 

[MaxThreshold]

Nope, I can't think of a valid reason to infringe upon an extremely personal reproductive right of a woman. 

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy she shouldn't have to view the ultrasound, wait 72 hours or whatever else republicans can think of. It's a violation of the constitution. 

I respectfully disagree.  Of course there are valid reasons to object to terminating a pregnancy.

 

[The Commish]

Um, no.  That was not a single issue vote for HRC. 

Of course it was....there are plenty of people in this country who vote based on a woman's right to choose as their issue.  Are you saying this is not true or are you saying Hillary wasn't really for a woman's right to choose?  

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm referring to Clinton and her basket of deplorables.  I'm referring to the constant barrage of opinion pieces on NYT, CNN, etc.  I'm referring to Rachel Maddow and others on MCNBC.

Maddow made herself look like an ### the other night when she trashed those of us who didn't vote for one of the two major parties.  Yes, democracy sucks.  How dare we vote for the candidate we want to win!! We must do want the media wants and go along with ####ty 2-party system, even though it sucks. 

 

[wormburner]

Maddow made herself look like an ### the other night when she trashed those of us who didn't vote for one of the two major parties.  Yes, democracy sucks.  How dare we vote for the candidate we want to win!! We must do want the media wants and go along with ####ty 2-party system, even though it sucks. 

What, 5 or 6 people saw this live and the rest of us read about it later?

 

[Bogeys]

Rachel Maddow calls people names? She points out statements that are racist or sexist but I don't really recall her labeling anyone as such and I am certain she has never called anyone an "inbred".

I don't know if it is really representative or her work as a whole since I don't generally watch the talking heads of any stripe.  That being said the last few nights (Election night and the 2 after) I have flipped back and forth between various channels and I have to say Maddow is crazy.  And I don't mean in a good way crazy.  She was actually advocating last night that the military and the intelligence agencies not give full briefings to Trump...that they pick and choose what to let the President elect (and I have to assume also when he is the actual President) know about what is going on in our government because he couldn't be trusted.  Think about that, she wants the military and CIA/NSA to control our government instead of elected officials.

She is nuts (if this isn't just some emotional fall out from the election and out of the norm for her) and anyone that takes her seriously needs to re-evaluate IMO.  

 

[Monkian]

Nope, I can't think of a valid reason to infringe upon an extremely personal reproductive right of a woman. 

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy she shouldn't have to view the ultrasound, wait 72 hours or whatever else republicans can think of. It's a violation of the constitution. 

At what point does ending a life switch from abortion to murder?

 

[JIslander]

Of course it was....there are plenty of people in this country who vote based on a woman's right to choose as their issue.  Are you saying this is not true or are you saying Hillary wasn't really for a woman's right to choose?  

I'm saying Trump was an anathema to all Christian values: liar, scam artist, gossiper, adulterer, misogynist, slanderer -- he promised to address abortion (Roe vs. Wade) so they held their nose and voted  -- SINGLE ISSUE.

 

[matttyl]

Not sure if this is the proper place to put this, but this kinda thing just has to stop....

"Your vote was a hate crime" spraypainted on statue in Richmond, VA.  First off, Virginia went to Hillary, but I guess that doesn't matter to whoever did this.  Makes me sad.  Wasn't the only statue in town that was vandalized, either.

 

[wormburner]

I'm saying Trump was an anathema to all Christian values: liar, scam artist, gossiper, adulterer, misogynist, slanderer -- he promised to address abortion (Roe vs. Wade) so they held their nose and voted  -- SINGLE ISSUE.

I think this is mostly true.  Trying to make a kingdom decision with non-kingdom options is becoming increasingly difficult.

 

[JohnnyU]

This post sucks, not funny or illuminating in any way.

Go back to the Shark Pool, you're not needed here. 

Liberals invented the participation trophy and forced it down our throats.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm saying Trump was an anathema to all Christian values: liar, scam artist, gossiper, adulterer, misogynist, slanderer -- he promised to address abortion (Roe vs. Wade) so they held their nose and voted  -- SINGLE ISSUE.

How do you know this?  That evangelicals only voted on this one issue?

 

[The Commish]

Of course it was....there are plenty of people in this country who vote based on a woman's right to choose as their issue.  Are you saying this is not true or are you saying Hillary wasn't really for a woman's right to choose?  

I'm saying Trump was an anathema to all Christian values: liar, scam artist, gossiper, adulterer, misogynist, slanderer -- he promised to address abortion (Roe vs. Wade) so they held their nose and voted  -- SINGLE ISSUE.

And you refused the assertion that people voted for Clinton on a single issue (or so it appeared in your post.  That's what I was trying to get clarification on).  You are wrong in that refusal.  There are plenty who can't stand Clinton that voted for her because of her position on a woman's right to choose alone.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Nope, I can't think of a valid reason to infringe upon an extremely personal reproductive right of a woman. 

If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy she shouldn't have to view the ultrasound, wait 72 hours or whatever else republicans can think of. It's a violation of the constitution. 

This is the one issue I never understand how so many people that have the same belief as me can't at least understand the other side. I would never, ever vote to get rid of abortion. From a personal financial and tax perspective, I would never want fewer abortions. I have zero emotional response when I hear about abortion. I don't cringe, I don't consider it murder. Some huge % of birth defect diagnosed babies are aborted, and my wife and I would have likely done the same. 

I do however 100% understand why other people do have those feelings and it is a perfectly logical leap to associate a fetus with being a baby and want to make terminating it more difficult than a solo walk into a clinic and it's over.

I acknowledge it is at least a little hypocritical for our society to be ok with arresting somebody that kills their pet parrot, while chowing down on steak, and then arguing that its just a parasite, not a real kid yet.

 

[moleculo]

Liberals invented the participation trophy and forced it down our throats.

they did what now?

 

[wormburner]

Liberals invented the participation trophy and forced it down our throats.

Which came first: Participation Trophies or Engvall's Here's Your Sign schtick?

 

[JohnnyU]

they did what now?

You're a smart guy and I know you understand the underlying message

 

[JIslander]

How do you know this?  That evangelicals only voted on this one issue?

I heard it numerous times during the election season. Makes sense to me and I can't blame them.

 

[JIslander]

And you refused the assertion that people voted for Clinton on a single issue (or so it appeared in your post.  That's what I was trying to get clarification on).  You are wrong in that refusal.  There are plenty who can't stand Clinton that voted for her because of her position on a woman's right to choose alone.

ok.   But she lost the women's vote.  I'd put money on % Trump votes specific to abortion vs. those that went to Hillary.  But that's just me.

 

[moleculo]

You're a smart guy and I know you understand the underlying message

I'm not that smart.  I'm trying to understand how anyone forced a trophy down your throat.  

Is it that big of a deal for kids to be encouraged?  Did you leave parenting to others - setting expectations, etc?  Seems to me that is more of something that parents should do on their own.

or, is this just more whining about the "####ification of America?"

 

[JIslander]

Its open season on liberals now because, you know Lena Dunham said this...

 

[The Commish]

ok.   But she lost the women's vote.  I'd put money on % Trump votes specific to abortion vs. those that went to Hillary.  But that's just me.

Ok?  I was just commenting on this:

Um, no.  That was not a single issue vote for HRC. 

Whatever other rabbit hole you're going down, enjoy.

 

[JIslander]

Ok?  I was just commenting on this:

Whatever other rabbit hole you're going down, enjoy.

Sorry if that answer doesn't help.  We can agree to disagree.

 

[Wrigley]

I need my safe place