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

[RedskinsMayne]

1 minute ago, DCranon21 said:

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. 

 

 

Liberals also almost burned down ucla because a conservative alt-right person was going to give a speach there. A speech. Led to violence. And there are many more examples.

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

16 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

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.

 

Desperate? Really? I even said Democrats aint saints when it comes to tolerance. I have no problems calling liberals out. Tolerance, or a lack of it, prolly wouldn't be my number one gripe with liberals at the moment.

 

 

 

 

[DCranon21]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Liberals also almost burned down ucla because a conservative alt-right person was going to give a speach there. A speech. Led to violence. And there are many more examples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outside the mini riot that happened in Berkeley(not UCLA) and the school scheduled Milo(who should have not been scheduled to speak there in the 1st place) what did you think the reaction would have been in this climate right now, and Berkeley being one of the most liberal schools in America. That was a bad idea from the start. But why is the word "liberal" such a bad word with most? I want to hear your answer, as I've heard a lot of answers that are ridiculous. 

[LD0506]

There is some truth in this, but the overwhelming majority of people in general are anti-intellectual, hold onto beliefs that are downright loopy, make important decisions based on what their horoscope/astrologer/pastor/politician said and then, when it does turn out to be a fresh steaming turd, doubledown and tell themselves they didn't believe hard enough.

 

I know and have known some markedly intelligent, educated, intellectual people, and I think in the majority of cases their intellect served to cleave them from ideology itself, no matter the flavor. They are humble about their knowledge and open to more, great listeners and conversationalists and never need the punchlines explained, and they absolutely infuriate anyone that starts up with birtherism, chemtrails, ghosts, UFOs, the rapture, trickle down economics, flat earth theories, the Dallas Cowboys or any of the other insane things people believe. Not enabling or rubberstamping bull**** is in itself a tacit condemnation of the willful stupidity and credulity that many wrap themselves in, and the one thing all "true believers" share is their inability to have their vapors dispersed even a little.

 

Open minded pragmatism has no allies.

[TradeTheBeal!]

If the TrumpKlan folks think you're a godless lib, while the Bernie Bros are accusing you of being a corporatist pawn....you're plenty tolerant.

[RedskinsMayne]

11 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

 

Outside the mini riot that happened in Berkeley(not UCLA) and the school scheduled Milo(who should have not been scheduled to speak there in the 1st place) what did you think the reaction would have been in this climate right now, and Berkeley being one of the most liberal schools in America. That was a bad idea from the start. But why is the word "liberal" such a bad word with most? I want to hear your answer, as I've heard a lot of answers that are ridiculous. 

 

 

I feel like the conversation is being deflected. Again, it's not that liberals are bad. It's a question of tolerance. Dismissing all these examples of liberals squashing freedoms of speech in the name of being correct as "bad ideas from the start" is a little too convenient. 

[RedskinsMayne]

7 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

 

I know and have known some markedly intelligent, educated, intellectual people, and I think in the majority of cases their intellect served to cleave them from ideology itself, no matter the flavor. They are humble about their knowledge and open to more, great listeners and conversationalists and never need the punchlines explained, and they absolutely infuriate anyone that starts up with birtherism, chemtrails, ghosts, UFOs, the rapture, trickle down economics, flat earth theories, the Dallas Cowboys or any of the other insane things people believe. Not enabling or rubberstamping bull**** is in itself a tacit condemnation of the willful stupidity and credulity that many wrap themselves in, and the one thing all "true believers" share is their inability to have their vapors dispersed even a little.

 

Open minded pragmatism has no allies.

 

 

Yea. That's ok. But they should still be able to speak about their beliefs, no matter how loopy they are. If you don't want to listen to them, that's ok. And actually, I think it is reasonable to walk out on someone as they are giving their speech if you don't agree with what is being said. However, pence wasn't giving a political speech. But, if you are inciting violence at political rallies or rioting because someone is giving a speech that is where I draw the line.

[Corcaigh]

You have to look at the context. Take the town hall debates recently on CNN where the likes of Kasich had a discussion with Saunders. Highly informed and respectful conversation between two people on pretty much the opposite ends of the political spectrum. McCain and Graham appeared on the GW campus as part of the CNN townhall broadcasts and received complete respect.

 

The likes of Milo and Coulter are charlatans who don't deserve respect or a venue. They are there to provoke and offend. There is no reason to be 'tolerant' of their scam and enable their hatred and firestarting. 

 

And if people chose to walk out of Pence's commencement address in protest against his and Trump's policies on immigration, LGBT rights and much else, why is that intolerant? They didn't shout him down.

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

17 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

Yea. That's ok. But they should still be able to speak about their beliefs, no matter how loopy they are. If you don't want to listen to them, that's ok. And actually, I think it is reasonable to walk out on someone as they are giving their speech if you don't agree with what is being said. However, pence wasn't giving a political speech. But, if you are inciting violence at political rallies or rioting because someone is giving a speech that is where I draw the line.

Zakaria's examples are bad examples.  I think most of us would support individual's right say anything in a reasonable manner (although I personally would draw the line at Westboro, so I guess places matter for me too).  But I also think most of us would support the idea of individual's right to leave and not listen if they found the speech stupid, offensive, or a general waste of time.  There is nothing wrong with students walking out on Pence's speech.  That's not some sign of anti-intellectualism.  Booing, De Vos, I would say is more borderline in terms of manners, but again not anti-intellectualism.  Pence and De Vos are being judged by the content of their positions and no one is preventing them from speaking.  Sure there are closed minded liberals, but these examples don't support that.

[dfitzo53]

I also think sitting and listening to a speech and having an intellectual conversation are two very different things. 

 

A speech is almost always a one-way communication, so there's no real way for me to listen and then voice an opposing viewpoint.  If your speech is a well-reasoned argument that I happen to disagree with, I absolutely believe it's appropriate to stay. If I care about the issue as much as I claim to, hearing the best the other side has to offer both enriches my perspective and helps me figure out how to counter your points properly. 

 

If it's a load of bull that is based on misinformation, lies, or hackery, or appeals to emotion at the expense of reason, it's a waste of my time. I'm not going to fight your right to spew delusional nonsense, but I'm not going to hold said nonsense in the same regard as an actual argument. 

 

If I'm talking one on one with a person, questions become crucial.  There is the chance for actual exchange of ideas and a shift in perspective on both sides. Oh really? Why do you believe that? What if this were to happen?

 

That has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. 

[Burgold]

17 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

 

I feel like the conversation is being deflected. Again, it's not that liberals are bad. It's a question of tolerance. 

Are you making the pro-PC argument that all viewpoints ought to be tolerated? Idon't mind that argument as I believe that ideas should be considered and people given respect, but there are some exceptions. Nazism ought to be countered. Pure racism ought to be shouted down. Lies ought not to be given equal weight to the truth.

 

On the other hand, I don't believe in censorship. I think all ideas should be able to be expressed. Mind you, though I wouldn't forbid you to publish Mein Kampf I'm not about to listen to it or demand that others do. While I won't order Kinkos to refuse to print Klan brochures I sure won't be unhappy if people tear them up in defiance, burn them, or shout rage back in the face of those wanting to push hate. I will admit I feel queasier about science texts that deny evolution or attempt to put Creationism and Evolution on equal scientific footing, but at the same time... I don't have any problem with discussing Creationism in Social Studies classes.

[RedskinsMayne]

8 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Are you making the pro-PC argument that all viewpoints ought to be tolerated? Idon't mind that argument as I believe that ideas should be considered and people given respect, but there are some exceptions. Nazism ought to be countered. Pure racism ought to be shouted down. Lies ought not to be given equal weight to the truth.

 

Yes, all views should be tolerated. Its not politically correct though. Politically correct general plays it safe and avoids questionable content. The problem with saying "pure racism" or "lies" should be shouted down or ignored is that while thats true, people expand lies and racism into anything they don't agree with. Or that they think shines badly on a specific culture.

 

 

[Springfield]

When you feel like the other side's view on a subject is uninformed, then you're likely to be intolerant of it.  Goes both ways.

 

Try to look at the way the other side views a subject.  If your answer is that you can't because their opinion is dumb then your closemindedness is blinding you.

[bearrock]

To me there is a difference between tolerating a view and not silencing a view.  If someone espouses a stupid or a dangerous view, that person has the right to do that.  But, I'm not going to tolerate it.  That view should be exposed as stupid or dangerous so that no one with half a brain or modicum of sanity will ever give credence to that view.  One shouldn't confuse the right to express an idea with the privilege of having that idea be accepted by others.

[Riggo-toni]

It isn't just Fareed Z who has made this point about American universities - Bill Maher has done much the same, and even Hillary Clinton made the same appeal back in the nineties.

I loved Ann Coulter getting slammed at the Roast of Rob Lowe, and getting booed when she tried to promote her pro Trump book, and I'm not a liberal. I do think colleges need to allow different voices. Of course that gets harder to promote when we have a President who calls the free press an enemy of the people.

[Corcaigh]

17 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

It isn't just Fareed Z who has made this point about American universities

 

I agree, but Milo and Pence are bad examples. Condoleeza Rice being pressured to back out of her commencement address at Rutgers is a much more compelling example.

[TheGoodBits]

I'm tolerant of people's religions, cultures, lifestyles, etc. 

 

I'm not tolerant of people who hate or discriminate against others based on their religions, cultures, lifestyles, etc. 

 

I'm completely tolerant of other people's political beliefs if those "political beliefs" don't involve discriminating against other people based on religion, race, etc. It's not really that complicated of a distinction. 

[twa]

1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I'm tolerant of people's religions, cultures, lifestyles, etc. 

 

I'm not tolerant of people who hate or discriminate against others based on their religions, cultures, lifestyles, etc. 

 

I'm completely tolerant of other people's political beliefs if those "political beliefs" don't involve discriminating against other people based on religion, race, etc. It's not really that complicated of a distinction. 

 

if a persons religion is acceptable you tolerate it. 

Discrimination is inherent in the majority.

[TheGoodBits]

12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

if a persons religion is acceptable you tolerate it. 

 

 

If a person's religious beliefs don't involve discrimination then they are fine. Again, really not that complicated of a distinction.

[Llevron]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

 

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.)

 

Black on black crime statistics. Tell me these ignorant ass conservatives understand this one please. 

 

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

If a person's religious beliefs don't involve discrimination then they are fine. Again, really not that complicated of a distinction.

 

what major religions beliefs are not discriminatory?

 

[No Excuses]

Segments of the right essentially want freedom from the consequences of their bigotry. 

 

Sometimes fascists get punched in the face and   others get disinvited from college campuses. Whoops.

 

I remember Paul Ryan held a townhall at my alma mater a month or so ago that was aired on CNN and no one on campus said ****. So did John McCain and Lindsey Graham. 

 

As it turns out, conservatives aren't really shunned. Hate spewing bigots who are using "free speech" to camouflage their message are.

[TheGoodBits]

Just now, twa said:

 

what major religions beliefs are not discriminatory?

 

 

Depends on whether you choose to read and believe in the whole book, or just the parts that make sense for 21st century life. Applying the slightest bit of discretion works wonders. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

what major religions beliefs are not discriminatory?

Hinduism maybe

[twa]

1 hour ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Depends on whether you choose to read and believe in the whole book, or just the parts that make sense for 21st century life. Applying the slightest bit of discretion works wonders. 

 

As I said...when acceptable.

Enjoy the Holiday, I'll quit nagging.