CNN: Fareed Zakaria: Liberals think they're tolerant, but they're not

[RedskinsMayne]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/28/us/fareed-zakaria-liberals-cnntv/index.html

Quote

(CNN)Fareed Zakaria said Saturday that though many liberals think they are tolerant, often they aren't.

Zakaria noted that "at the height of commencement season," many new graduates across the country had made their political views apparent, from the Notre Dame students who walked out as Vice President Mike Pence gave his commencement address to the crowd members who booed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos during a speech at Bethune-Cookman University.

"American universities seem committed to every kind of diversity except intellectual diversity. Conservative voices and views are being silenced entirely," Zakaria said. 

The CNN host said he found this attitude strange, especially given that these incidents occurred on college campuses that "promised to give their undergraduates a liberal education."

"The word liberal in this context has nothing to do with today's partisan language, but refers instead to the Latin root, pertaining to liberty. And at the heart of liberty in the Western world has been freedom of speech. From the beginning, people understood that this meant protecting and listening to speech with which you disagreed," Zakaria argued.

That means, he said, not drowning out "the ideas that we find offensive."

In addition, Zakaria noted what he called "an anti-intellectualism" on the left.

"It's an attitude of self-righteousness that says we are so pure, we're so morally superior, we cannot bear to hear an idea with which we disagree," he said.

"Liberals think they are tolerant but often they aren't," he added.

No one, he continued, "has a monopoly on right or virtue." 

In fact, it is only by being open to hearing opposing views that people on both sides of the political spectrum can learn something, Zakaria said.

"By talking seriously and respectfully about agreements and disagreements, we can come together in a common conversation," he said.

"Recognizing that while we seem so far apart, we do actually have a common destiny."

 

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. Somewhere along the lines of focusing on being correct, politically or otherwise, too many have forgotten to defend another's right to say It. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Tolerance is tough. You can't be tolerant of everything. You have different views or different behaviors from me? That's cool. But as soon as you start acting like a jerk or hurting people then my tolerance wanes.

[RedskinsMayne]

I think words are words. You should be able to say anything you want. Obviously, if you are yelling at someone that is not the same thing, that is assault. 

[Larry]

I agree that it's tough.  

 

Tolerance, for example, does mean that I have to allow the Nazis to march in my town.  

 

Does it mean that I can't boo, during their speech?  

[RedskinsMayne]

Certainly. I think you should be able to voice your racist thoughts, voice your support of isis, whatever. You should boo. If it's out in the open and you can discuss it it's still better than anything living in the shadows. If you understand the reasons why you can solve those reasons.... and solve the problem. Not talking solves nothing.

 

I see a lot of people say "yeah, but that gives credibility to x". I think whatever x is, it already has enough credibility to breed on its own. 

[Mooka]

Click-bait article.

 

Walking out on Mike Pence or booing Betsy Devos has nothing to do with liberal hypocrisy.

 

Who gives a **** if graduates leave their own graduation ceremony. Its their graduation, its not a Mike Pence event.

 

Booing Betsy Devos is a sign of intolerance? **** that crackpot, creepy ass lady and her creepy ass family.  She's a disgrace. 

[Captain Wiggles]

14 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 voice your support of isis,

 

 

You go right ahead with putting that theory into practice. I'm sure you'll find plenty of conservatives who will defend your support of ISIS.

 

 

Anyone who thinks the GOP is the party of tolerance should have their head examined. Are Democrats saints when it comes to tolerance? No, but their sure as **** better than the other party. That's not even debatable.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

43 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

I think words are words. You should be able to say anything you want. 

I agree... Unless it's mean to me in which case I report them to the mods.

 

But I digress. For the most part, you can say anything you want. That doesn't mean that people have to be ok with it though.

 

 

[Bacon]

Tolerance is important, but you cannot nor should not be tolerant of everything. And being able to discern between the two is not an inherently conservative quality.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You have the right to say whatever you wish. I have the right to call you a ****ing imbecile 

[Burgold]

I find this pretty laughable. The anti-PC folks are the most thin-skinned wimps I've ever seen. They immediately fall to pieces if you say anything about them. Look at Trump. He's so tough he can't even face a correspondents dinner and a little roasting. He's so tough he's chicken to throw out the first pitch at a baseball crowd. Any joke at his expense has him tweeting at 2:00 in the morning and running to Russia for a bear hug and a bottle of warm milk from Putin.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know... Liberals are intolerant meanies. They should toughen up and stop saying things about being respectful to others and following the golden rule. Things like that hurt the wittle Republicans feewings because their so tough and bad ass.

[tshile]

Fareed Zakaria is well respected, usually by the left, so the response is kind of funny and ironic given what the article is about.

 

We need liberals because they are, usually, more thoughtful about what could be improved. It's them, not the conservatives, that usually see the wrongs in the country.

 

Unfortunately that's where their use ends. Their ideas for addressing the problems are usually terrible and, as Zakaria points out, there's an anti-intellectualism about them that is irritating as hell (especially given that it's usually on display while complaining about the anti-intellectualism of the conservatives.)

 

They love to memorize and recite statistics, but often I find they have little understanding of the statistics and almost always have zero knowledge of the studies/reports from which said statistics came, therefore are completely unaware of statistics that aren't favorable to their argument (most often because they didn't read the study, much less other studies on the topic, and their favorite news source only fed them the numbers that help the argument.)

[Captain Wiggles]

Liberals are now Anti Intellectuals? I thought we were Ivory Tower eggheads? We can't be both so which is it? 

 

 

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, clietas said:

Liberals are now Anti Intellectuals? I thought we were Ivory Tower eggheads? We can't be both so which is it? 

 

 

Now? They've always been.

 

This may be shocking, but not all liberals are the same. Plenty are ivory tower, and that's my preferred kind; in my experience they're smart, thoughtful, and the best to have debates with. They don't have to raise their voice to feel they're supporting their argument. The ones I know are always interesting to listen to, even if I don't agree with them.

 

Then there's the anti-intellectualism ones. I know this may sound shocking, but the conservatives don't have exclusivity rights here. These are the ones that think they're smart, but they aren't. They think they're smart because they've read a bunch of articles that tell them the rate of this, and where something ranks in the world, or in history; but they don't have the slightest clue what those numbers mean, and they sure as **** aren't aware in the flaws of the studies that produced those numbers, or studies that conflict with the studies that produced those numbers. Because they don't actually know what they're talking about, they're just repeating talking points from someone they think is smart.

 

Of course, they're completely oblivious to this and super self-righteous about their intellect and opinions.

 

It's why these same people wind up the way Zakaria is describing. They don't have the tools to actually discuss/debate much less handle a viewpoint that does not align with their own.

[Burgold]

19 minutes ago, clietas said:

Liberals are now Anti Intellectuals? I thought we were Ivory Tower eggheads? We can't be both so which is it? 

 

 

Don't stop him. He's on a roll. Wait til he gets to the part about Germans bombing Pearl Harbor. That's always so inspiring.

 

In seriousness, it is not anti-intellectualism to listen to lies and debate them as if they are facts of substance. We are not talking about ideological differences or differences in approaches to problem solving. We are talking about bull ****. We are talking about a rejection of deceit. It's not anti-intellectual to reject that. It's not anti-intellectual to mock Trump's recent tweet about how Obamacare is dead and how the Republican plan will pump money into healthcare when their plan says the exact opposite. Conservatives are in power now. They control all three branches of federal government. It'd be nice if they upped their game. If they did, we could have discourse. We could have debate.

 

Conservatives reject facts. They reject science. They reject education. They reject their own numbers and their own math. The reaction of students to that is not about PCism or anti-intellectualism. It's a rejection of rot.

[Captain Wiggles]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Now? They've always been.

 

This may be shocking, but not all liberals are the same. Plenty are ivory tower, and that's my preferred kind; in my experience they're smart, thoughtful, and the best to have debates with. They don't have to raise their voice to feel they're supporting their argument. The ones I know are always interesting to listen to, even if I don't agree with them.

 

Then there's the anti-intellectualism ones. I know this may sound shocking, but the conservatives don't have exclusivity rights here. These are the ones that think they're smart, but they aren't. They think they're smart because they've read a bunch of articles that tell them the rate of this, and where something ranks in the world, or in history; but they don't have the slightest clue what those numbers mean, and they sure as **** aren't aware in the flaws of the studies that produced those numbers, or studies that conflict with the studies that produced those numbers. Because they don't actually know what they're talking about, they're just repeating talking points from someone they think is smart.

 

Of course, they're completely oblivious to this and super self-righteous about their intellect and opinions.

 

It's why these same people wind up the way Zakaria is describing. They don't have the tools to actually discuss/debate much less handle a viewpoint that does not align with their own.

 

You seem to be confusing Anti Intellectualism with just being a downright ignorant douche.

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

You seem to be confusing Anti Intellectualism with just being a downright ignorant douche.

 

I think of some liberals and ignorant douches so that's fine too.

 

@Burgold equates everyone on the right to trump, can't understand why someone like Zakaria would write an article like this.

 

Derp.

 

[Captain Wiggles]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

I think of everyone as ignorant douches so that's fine too.

 

 

FTFY 

 

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think of some liberals and ignorant douches so that's fine too.

 

@Burgold equates everyone on the right to trump, can't understand why someone like Zakaria would write an article like this.

 

Derp.

 

Trump is a symptom of what we have seen in the Right Wing blogosphere, Tea Party, Talk Radio, and FOX News culture. If you think he is not representative you are kidding yourself. There is a reason that from start to finish that Trump was ahead on pretty much every Republican national poll and did so well stat by state by state in the Republican primaries.

 

I've also heard the... is not a real republican line to often. George W. Bush was not a real Republican. Trump is not a real Republican. McCain is not a real Republican. If all these people are not real republicans... why do Republicans consistently vote for them and elect them?

 

(Oh, and this is me being un-PC. I thought conservatives would appreciate it  )

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

FTFY 

 

 

80/20 rule

 

Might not be right but it sure does explain a lot.

[Bang]

Actually had a spitting pissed off conservative woman tell me those kids at Notre Dame who walked out of their own college graduation were "uneducated".

 

I figure it's like this. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt until they show they no longer deserve it. And the reasoning for that is on them, not me.

 

All intolerance needs to really take hold is tolerance from those who see what is happening, and do nothing. I'm tolerant of a lot of things.. right up until the point that I've decided enough is enough.

 

~Bang

 

 

[RedskinsMayne]

7 hours ago, clietas said:

 

 

You go right ahead with putting that theory into practice. I'm sure you'll find plenty of conservatives who will defend your support of ISIS.

 

 

Anyone who thinks the GOP is the party of tolerance should have their head examined. Are Democrats saints when it comes to tolerance? No, but their sure as **** better than the other party. That's not even debatable.

 

Why even bring the GOP into it?

[Captain Wiggles]

4 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

Why even bring the GOP into it?

 

Why not?

[RedskinsMayne]

10 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Why not?

 

Well, it seems like bringing republicans into a conversation about liberals is a desperate attempt to prove one is better than another, merely because they are liberal. That was Fareed's point, not that liberals are more or less tolerant than republicans.

[DCranon21]

So if I don't agree with someone's policies and I decide to walk out on them, then I'm not tolerant and an anti-intellectual? Fareed is off.  Also those graduates who resided and received the under grad in South Bend, IN most likely seen Pence in action as the governor and is probably most likely hated with a lot of Indiana residence. I think Fareed maybe should have done more research on who Mike Pence was in Indiana.