Liberals: Tolerant or Suckers?

[Despanan]

An acquaintance of mine wrote this article. Check it out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...ZjD_story.html

Originally Posted by The Washington Post

Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?

By Sally Kohn, Friday, April 15, 1:05 PM

The list of liberal laments about President Obama keeps getting longer: He extended the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. Health-care reform didn’t include a public option. In the frantic final hours of the budget negotiations, instead of calling the GOP’s bluff, he agreed to historic cuts in progressive programs. And now, in response to conservatives’ focus on the deficit, Obama said Wednesday that we have to “put everything on the table.”

What is the problem here? Is it a lack of leadership from the White House, a failure to out-mobilize the tea party or not enough long-term investment from liberal donors?

The real problem isn’t a liberal weakness. It’s something liberals have proudly seen as a strength — our deep-seated dedication to tolerance. In any given fight, tolerance is benevolent, while intolerance gets in the good punches. Tolerance plays by the rules, while intolerance fights dirty. The result is round after round of knockouts against liberals who think they’re high and mighty for being open-minded but who, politically and ideologically, are simply suckers...

[Solumina]

I don't understand why people can't be open-minded but still firm. I'm not saying that I don't frequently see that being the case (as it really is a common occurrence) but I am very much not that way. If someone wants to convince me to change my views I am more than happy to listen to what they have to say but they have to do a damn good job or else my position will stay the same. I'm also perfectly fine with people holding different beliefs, values, and opinions, I can agree to disagree without holding it against a person, but when we are agreeing on rules then we have to compromise and find something that we can all live with, even if there are things that we wish could be different. You have to find out what is worth fighting for, what you are willing to concede, and what you can agree on.

I'm also sleep deprived and very caffeinated so I'm not sure how much sense I'm making.

[CuckooTuli]

Very good article. The idea itself is something I've had many a drunken argument about. I slant left, but I find myself getting less and less liberal as the years go by - partly for reasons outlined here.

[ape descendant]

... but you don't know how hard it is, to be a liberal....

[Alan]

Originally Posted by CuckooTuli

Very good article. The idea itself is something I've had many a drunken argument about. I slant left, but I find myself getting less and less liberal as the years go by - partly for reasons outlined here.

Wait. Liberal is not left. Tell me you mean you're slanting even more to the left then.

[CuckooTuli]

No, no – just bad phrasing. I guess I’d call myself socialist. I didn’t mean to suggest that the terms are interchangeable – just commenting that I find myself becoming less liberal as time goes by. Especially when I hear hand-wringing about intolerance of intolerance.

[Alan]

Yay. I know I'm being ideologically biased but I'm still happy.

[CuckooTuli]

This:

"This is not to say that the brand of liberal tolerance that grew from the struggles for civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights is to blame for this lack of progressive political bite. For all the mockery of hyper-tolerant political correctness, identity politics is anything but tolerant. It demands that society be more accepting and inclusive of those who are marginalized because of their race, gender or sexual orientation. But it does not go so far as to tolerate intolerance. Those who fight racism and sexism in society do so out of deep moral convictions. They would never say, “Oh, we can co-exist with Fred Phelps and the KKK and find a way to compromise.” Creating a society that fully embraces gay people and people of color means creating a society that is intolerant of homophobia and racism."

... is an excellent point. I'm comfortable with its implications, yet so many of my more liberally-inclined friends get all flustered over the oppressive potential of enforcing tolerance in ID politics, which is something I find really fucking annoying. Grow up and get a pair.

The hotel owners who were fined after denying a gay couple a double bedroom would be a case in point. I don't see how you can claim to disagree with what they did, yet argue for not only their personal, but their LEGAL right to do so. It's not even their private home, it's a business.yet I personally know left-wing people who attempt to condemn the penalty levelled at them on the grounds of discrimination. (That's the point in the conversation where I usually start wishing I had a dick I could grab and go, "Tolerate this").

[Saya]

I'm getting really frustrated with it in our current election. For years we had a Progressive Conservative party, they were socially progressive but fiscally conservative, but they merged and are now a part of the Conservative party which is hella socially conservative. But people continue to vote for them! They got legislation to require jail sentence for non violent crimes like pot possession, and a pot head friend of mine is voting for them anyway because he's a business student. Its driving me up the wall, it reminds me of "Not all Republicans are homophobic!" "No, but they have no problem voting for homophobes."

[CptSternn]

The problem is two fold -

First, there is no true 'left' in America. There is no 'liberal' groups in government there. Everyone likes to say the democrats are the 'left', but when compared to any other first world government around the world they come off as more centre-right while the republicans are far-right.

The dems are in many cases aa better choice than the repubs, but the problem is their views at the end of the day are not too far apart, contrary to what they are always trying to sell you on the 24 hour news channel.

The other issue is that true liberals are usually pretty intelligent people who are open to compromise, whereas far-right idealists have no room for compromise. Think of it like the oil in your car. You must empty out all of the old dirty oil before putting in new clean oil. If you don't and leave any of the dirty oil in the engine and then put in clean oil, you still end up with dirty oil. The few true liberals in American politics will always try and compromise, which at the end of the day means you will end up with more right-wing ideas mixed into the liberal ideas, and many times this will defeat the whole purpose.

What America needs is what we have in Ireland, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, and a few other places around the world - a militant leftist movement. Until the left in America stand together and adopt the same tactics the far-right have been engaging in for decades there, there will be no real solutions or change.

*Note, the term 'militant' does not always mean they use military tactics. I am using it to emphasise the discipline and degree of commitment that is needed and a structured system which needs to be in place for the movement to succeed.

@Saya -

What boggles my mind is gay people who vote for republicans, much like yer friend voting for a group that wants to stick him in prison. It makes no sense, especially when such groups focus more energy on policies which will hurt them rather than the very few policies they might agree with.

It's like a black man voting for a klansman candidate because he likes his fiscal policies. It doesn't matter if he plans to balance the budget if his main purpose is taking away your right to be a human in todays society.

It's sad, but in todays society people seem to get hung up on one or two issues and intentionally block out all the bad many candidates are selling and end up voting in people who do society more harm than good.

I mean, if I were living in America I would be very worried about the deficit. That being said I am not going to vote someone who wants to stop gay marriage, make abortion illegal, and lock up human beings without trial, indefinitely in order to further my views about the budget.

It's like some people can't see the forest because of all the trees in the way.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What America needs is what we have in Ireland, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela, and a few other places around the world - a militant leftist movement...

Because these countries are doing so well. (How's that revolution coming by the way? You guys assassinated any politicians or stormed any bastilles, or are you still throwing firecrackers and leaving flaming bags of poop on the opposition's doorstep?)

This aside, I DO agree that the radical left needs to be represented in the American political dialogue. We really don't have any anarcist, communist, or even socialist ideas being represented in the mainstream political landscape.

If nothing else, giving these guys a voice as loud as the radical right would at least put the Obama adminstration into perspective for those on the right, who are constantly screaming "SOCIALIST!" at the Obama administration.

[Catch]

Isn't liberal another word for sucker? I thought is was.

As for Obama's administration he is a moderate. Watching what he's been up to in government, he does not really say anything and most actions seem to be reducing government spending; ergo, reducing government programs.

That is economical. I wish more people would wake up and realize the government is going back to pre-FDR and figure-out how to not rely on government so heavily for everything.

[Despanan]

Catch
This message is hidden because Catch is on your ignore list.

Ahhhh...that's better.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Because these countries are doing so well. (How's that revolution coming by the way? You guys assassinated any politicians or stormed any bastilles, or are you still throwing firecrackers and leaving flaming bags of poop on the opposition's doorstep?)

True, these countries are not rich in material wealth like others in the first world are, however, in the past decade they have all gone through changes which have had historical effects on each of the countries respectively.

For example, Cuba is a high end resort, and unlike many places you can venture out of the resort area and be safe. They have free national healthcare, which is ranked higher than the healthcare in America. They are guaranteed by law a home to live in and food on the table. Americans might all have large flat screen TV's, but none can boast those rights.

Venezuela is another good example. Forget what you see on the western news, Chavez is loved by his people. His country had a HUGE problem with homeless people living in shanty towns with no food or clean water. He nationalised the oil industry and now uses the profits to give everyone food and shelter. They aren't living it up like they do in Orange County, but for the hundreds of thousands who now have a roof over their heads and food on the table they are well happy.

We are coming along here. The former ruling party took a nose dive and lost seats in various constituency they had held since the country was founded. Sinn Féin is now two seats away from leading the opposition parties in the Dáil they trebled the seats the had in what is like our Congress, another historical moment. At the same time an equal amount of true left wing socialists from the Social Party and a group called People Before Profit have made record gains as well.

We have real radicals now elected into the highest offices and they are actually trying to invoke change. They haven't done much yet, as the banking fiasco is still in full swing, but we are hopefully as these lads are true radicals.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

HA! Try being a tea party member posting on a forum full of establishment left/right drones.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

True, these countries are not rich in material wealth like others in the first world are, however, in the past decade they have all gone through changes which have had historical effects on each of the countries respectively.

For example, Cuba is a high end resort, and unlike many places you can venture out of the resort area and be safe. They have free national healthcare, which is ranked higher than the healthcare in America. They are guaranteed by law a home to live in and food on the table. Americans might all have large flat screen TV's, but none can boast those rights.

You don't need to sell me on the virtues of Cuban Healthcare. Venezuela...less so. I have a Venezuelan friend, his father was kidnapped and held for ransom last year. Columbia is similarly overrun with violence. Plus Chavez is a nutcase.

I'll take out of control health care providers and Tea-Party activists over outright kidnapping and murder.

We are coming along here. The former ruling party took a nose dive and lost seats in various constituency they had held since the country was founded. Sinn Féin is now two seats away from leading the opposition parties in the Dáil they trebled the seats the had in what is like our Congress, another historical moment. At the same time an equal amount of true left wing socialists from the Social Party and a group called People Before Profit have made record gains as well.

We have real radicals now elected into the highest offices and they are actually trying to invoke change. They haven't done much yet, as the banking fiasco is still in full swing, but we are hopefully as these lads are true radicals.

radical.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I'll take out of control health care providers and Tea-Party activists over outright kidnapping and murder.

Man, this really pisses me off at a personal level.
You're mentioning them as if they were even marginally related to one another.

[Despanan]

I suggest you chill. I just cited them because they were two negative things about America which sprung to mind.

[Alan]

And you don't even understand my indignation.

[Despanan]

Well you have so much of it.

Care to explain?

[Alan]

the fuck do I care about your Mexican examples? The idiotic thing is that you think having a populist government like in Venezuela means you risk being kidnapped by definition.

"Because these countries are doing so well."
Realize that if this is your retort to Sternn, you're literally fucking implying that the wrong things in Latin America are a consequence of the leftist governments' policies instead of, oh I don't know, the reasons these leftist movements were voted in in the first place.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

the fuck do I care about your Mexican examples? The idiotic thing is that you think having a populist government like in Venezuela means you risk being kidnapped by definition.[

I'm sorry if you took my comment that way, I just felt Stern was using bad examples/

"Because these countries are doing so well."
Realize that if this is your retort to Sternn, you're literally fucking implying that the wrong things in Latin America are a consequence of the leftist governments' policies instead of, oh I don't know, the reasons these leftist movements were voted in in the first place.

Actually, I would agree with you that the deplorable conditions were why leftists governments were voted in. Once again, I just felt third-world countries where violence is rampant are not the best examples to use when arguing for the benefits of socialism.

It's not like I was trying to imply that Chavez is running around kidnapping people. I just think he's an asshole.

If you're going to talk about the benefits of a socialist government, you should pick a socialist government that is presiding over a stable society, like Sweden. It's hard enough to get people to accept that socialism isn't "Stalin" we don't need folks thinking that socialism means being "more like Venezuela and Columbia" on top of it.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What boggles my mind is gay people who vote for republicans, much like yer friend voting for a group that wants to stick him in prison. It makes no sense, especially when such groups focus more energy on policies which will hurt them rather than the very few policies they might agree with.

Because, #1: We're not a hive. Contrary to popular belief - conscious, subconscious or otherwise - our sexual preference does not define who all of us are ; #2: Because I'd rather vote for someone who may not like the fact that I'm gay but will still defend my right to keep what I've spent my life trying to earn in some form or another, verses someone who wants to take everything I've earned and give it to those who don't deserve it, who've never worked for anything they have, and just want to milk the system for every hand-out they can get, all because they think they’re entitled to it simply because they’re here, or because of who they sleep with, or what diseases they have, or what color their skin is. Yeah, discrimination is wrong, but it’s not the government’s job to dictate morals. The only purpose the government is meant to serve is protection from outside forces trying to overrun us, and to protect us from within from charlatans that want to screw us out of what we have.

I’ve yet to see a policy from any conservatives which are currently in office, or any that have been in office in the past 10+ years, that does any harm to the gay “community”, yet I’ve seen plenty from liberals that have done considerable damage to gay people, all in the name of “just trying to help you”.

So, what policies have the liberals gotten through, that help us? Gay marriage? This DOES NOT help us, it hurts us. Why? There are a lot of reasons why, but primarily, because it’s forcing people who don’t agree with our “lifestyle” to accept our relationships as being equal to theirs, (when clearly they are not equal), thus breeding more hatred and contempt for our way of life. When you force someone to accept something, or to do something, you get a lot more resistance than you would if you show them by way of example. That is basic human nature. I could really care less if gay marriage is ever legalized. Let the majority of each state decide that. There are plenty of other options. I'm not religious and I don't need a piece of paper to claim whether I care enough about someone to spend my life with him. I can leave everything I have financially and materially to that person in my will. I can name him as sole beneficiary on any life insurance policies I might have. I can include him on my health insurance policies if he doesn't have his own. I can sign legal documents that distinguish him as the person who makes the decisions regarding my health or any medical procedures that may or may not arise should I find myself in a situation where I'm unable to make those decisions for myself. I don’t need marriage for any of this.

How about repealing DODT? This hurts us too. Why? For pretty much the same reasons as forcing marriage. You’re forcing people to accept us, instead of allowing them to see for themselves our similarities and differences, on their own time. Supposedly, in polls conducted within the military, most straight service members don’t seem to care, but as someone who grew up in a military family, whose father served 24 years and was a drill instructor for nearly 4 of those years (most don’t make it past 2), I can assure you, homos aren’t looked at kindly among the majority of guys in their troop. So now we have laws that protect us from discrimination in the military. Great. What is that going to do for gay service members in a combat situation, when the guys who you depend on for helping to keep you alive may not like the fact that you’re a rope smoker?

How about free health care for persons with HIV? This is horrible. Not only does it hurt the gay community, it’s a detriment to society and removes personal responsibility. Why? Because it helps to promote the idea that being HIV+ is no big deal. “In todays world you can live a healthy, active life with HIV!”. This is not true for everyone. Their TV commercials want to promote the idea that being poz is okay, that with just two little pills a day – FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, you can stay alive and active. What it does not tell you is how many fucked up side effects those drugs produce, and that not everyone – in fact a good percentage of them – do not respond well to treatment. The gay community used to be at the forefront of the fight against the spread of HIV. Now we’ve returned to being the group with the highest reported infections nationwide. Why? Because instead of showing what HIV can and does do to a person, the government wants us to believe that living with HIV is better than living with diabetes. THAT IS FUCKED UP!

There is ZERO reason or excuse for anyone in the modern world to contract HIV today. Anyone that is sexually mature knows how to catch it, and knows how to prevent it. And if they don’t, if they’re really too stupid to connect the dots, then all they have to do is look on the internet, or ask someone they know. But they don’t want to prevent it, not the gay community. Many of them see it as another meal ticket today. Ever heard of bug chasers? In the gay community it’s referred to as being “enhanced”. The idea of catching a fatal disease has been replaced with the notion that “If I’m poz, I'll just move to a city like Fort Lauderdale, where I’ll get free rent, free medical, and in a lot of cases, free groceries! So what if I have to take a pill twice a day for the rest of my life. It’s like taking vitamins!”. Or, you have those that are poz, who want to convince you “you might as well infect yourself, you’re gay, you’re going to get it eventually”.

I don’t agree with discriminating against those with HIV. I agree with discriminating against those who lack personal responsibility and integrity. I would be fine with helping out the guy who got infected due to situations or circumstances completely beyond his control. Those are the people I feel sympathy for and would gladly help pay for his medical treatment, if he honestly couldn’t afford it himself. But those cases are few and far between.

Further, it helps promote promiscuity, and lack of personal accountability. "I'm this much less responsible for my actions. The state will take care of me."

The majority of HIV infections come from people that completely disregard the concept of personal responsibility, and those are the ones I have zero sympathy for. If we weren’t giving them free medical, if they knew they had to pay for their own treatment should they get infected, AKA: BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS, maybe they’d use a bit more caution in terms of who they jump in the sack with. Oh, they didn’t. Tough fucking shit. Reap what you sew.

There are some things liberals do that help gay people, at least on the surface, but very few. Eliminating discrimination in the work place is one. Allowing a transgendered person to change their gender on their birth certificate is one, (although, even though my best friend is ftm trans, I’m not sure how much I agree with changing gender ID, but instead, maybe adding a 3rd to the list). Regardless, the list of policies that liberals push through, in the name of “good”, that actually detriment the gay "community", far outweigh any policies any conservatives have tried to push through, in recent years, in terms of being beneficial or detrimental to our way of life. What I see in the gay "community" is a large number of them handing over their freedoms in order to be considered “equal”. The gay "community" is not a community at all. If it were they would be breeding a stronger sense of self worth and personal values. They aren't. The majority of them are self-centered, pop-culture addicted sensationalists that put having fun and getting off on the next high above any kind of self preservation or making themselves appear to be productive members of society. They thrive on being in your face and getting special treatment for being different. If there were any real sense of community among them, they'd work on establishing more stable relationships, and actually look out for one another. They don't. They flock to whatever politician is willing to give them what they think they want, instead of those who offer to reward them for what they've actually earned. All their bitching and whining for equal rights does nothing but breed more hatred and contempt from those who disagree with them, and paints targets on their heads for those who want to use them to promote their own agendas. Maybe when the pink triangles start being produced again, when the boots are on their necks, they’ll finally realize they’re just pawns in a game of control and that the system really has no further use for them.

This country is not moving towards communism. The ideal of communism in its sweetest, most equal form, will never happen – at least not in our lifetime - humans aren’t designed to handle that. What we’ve become are socialists on the fast track to a rebirth of fascism. People are just too fucking stupid, brainwashed, gullible, privileged, or whatever synonym you want to put in there, to see it.

[Mr.Doobie]

Wow that giant wall of TL;DR is so wrong and full of fail I'm not sure if I should respond.

But before I respond, I must ask members who have been here longer if this guy is a well known troll.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

I don’t agree with discriminating against those with HIV. I agree with discriminating against those who lack personal responsibility and integrity.

Which to you is everyone who has HIV, hmm?
After all, why else would you condemn EVERYONE with HIV to a life without healthcare lest they be fortunate enough to afford all the care they need on their own.