Is it true when right wingers say 'lefties are just as intolerant as right-wingers'?
I suppose the super 'woke' types who take umbrage at anything are just as bad but that goes without saying I think.
They are like extremists of the left camp as per far right.
I would be more interested in discussing moderate leftists.
Right wingers say they/we are just as intolerant because we don't accept their intolerance, lol. So because we are intolerant of intolerance we too are intolerant.
I have had this volleyed at me when I complained at the closed mindedness of Conservatives and I got a reply that I am also closed minded for not liking them.
Thoughts?
It is like saying 'you are intolerant because you do not tolerate racism'. I suppose the question is what you are intolerant of, not whether you are intolerant. Intolerant of values that perpetuate hate and closed mindedness sure. That would apply to those extreme Leftists who want to cancel everyone too though. Extreme Leftist is wrong though, because noble political philosophies like communism could be called extreme Left. More like pathological Left.
They are like extremists of the left camp as per far right.
I would be more interested in discussing moderate leftists.
Right wingers say they/we are just as intolerant because we don't accept their intolerance, lol. So because we are intolerant of intolerance we too are intolerant.
I have had this volleyed at me when I complained at the closed mindedness of Conservatives and I got a reply that I am also closed minded for not liking them.
Thoughts?
It is like saying 'you are intolerant because you do not tolerate racism'. I suppose the question is what you are intolerant of, not whether you are intolerant. Intolerant of values that perpetuate hate and closed mindedness sure. That would apply to those extreme Leftists who want to cancel everyone too though. Extreme Leftist is wrong though, because noble political philosophies like communism could be called extreme Left. More like pathological Left.
Comments (116)
Quoting unimportant
I would say anyone with eyes would agree that there is a 'too far left'. It's not serious to suggest otherwise, so that's fine.
Quoting unimportant
No, they don't. They only say the first part. The second part is contingent on several things; most of all, whether what's being discussed is some form of intolerance. It usually isn't, in the 'moral' sense. We are all most intolerant of the world around us. Most things aren't what we want to be doing, or choose to be doing and we make great efforts to ensure our intolerance is maintained by not coming into contact with things we wont tolerate. I think that is uncontroversial, if a little under-observed. Now, something interesting is to figure out when "intolerance" becomes 'problematic'. Generally speaking, that's when human rights are being violated - but then, many human rights are also contingent - some (including hte UN i believe) consider internet access a human right. But taking the internet from your misbehaving child is not a form of human rights abuse, in the vast majority of minds.
My experience with the majority of right-wingers i've ever had an actual conversation with is that the things they don't tolerate are generally the aggressive, uncharitable behaviours of others. This is absolutely laden with access for bigots, granted. But absolutely so is the opposite line of trying you best to accept the aggressive, uncharitable behaviours of others as leftists like to do (there's a huge amount of social currency to getting a 'dunk' on the left although I acknowledge we have to be talking about the 'leftist' contingent and not just 'those on the left'. I'm in that camp and I find leftist thinking abhorrent). I think the issue is that in conversation right wingers don't frame their "intolerance" as reactionary - leftists do, which gives it an air of legitimacy on its face that might not be warranted - equally, the disparaging of general right-wing thinking is probably also unwarranted as it usually doens't speak to bigotries, but policy considerations.
Poisoning the well, refusal to engage and immediate labelling of views with words that justify aggresion or violence is rife on the left. These, to me, speak to a pretty intense intolerance - sometimes, of their own. There is some loose empirical data on this.
The upsurge of leftist political violence in the last two years or so seems to suggest that the left is more likely to resort to violence, albeit this is a very recent development as compared to right-wing violence. THe problem is this reflects the same disaparity as IPV does: Women (left) are more likely to engage in violence - but right (men) are more likely to kill more people per event. But stand-alone assassination attempts or successes appear to be a left-wing phenomenon.
If people could just stop for a moment, lay out their goals before speaking to their opponents, things would go much better. My experience is that the right will do this - and be respectful - where the left will not. And are usually objectively wrong about how they've characterised the point they're objecting to.
Once one sets out what they mean by "intolerance" and what counts as "more intolerant," the question becomes answerable. For example, if we take "intolerant of X" to mean "does not allow X," and we measure relative intolerance quantitatively, then we merely need to count up the different things that each group is intolerant of. Of course a quantitative analysis will probably be insufficient, but you get the idea.
A core problem on the left is actually an equivocation where they want "tolerance" to mean "acceptance." Once one recognizes that tolerance does not mean acceptance, and that tolerance implies dislike or aversion, much of the muddle coming from the left dries up. The critique from the right is basically a request that the person on the left actually survey the things they are intolerant of, instead of pretending that they are "tolerant" of everything and that it is merely a matter of the tolerant vs. the intolerant.
Tolerance is a term used in many different contexts ranging from what is permitted in intimate situations to legislation that has the power to limit one's freedom. Debate about what is permissible in the latter sense concerns constitutions and the limits to state power. The right to privacy and the establishment of religion is in tension with the demand for equality under the law in the U.S.
The idea of a right wing versus a left wing is different if the aim is to deconstruct the institutions that permit that dialogue to continue. There is that great scene in Vasily Grossman's book, Life and Fate where the Nazi interrogator tells the Old Bolshevik they are spiritual brothers in wanting to rewrite the language of the world.
Amongst the charges made as to who is the real nihilist, this distinction between the worldviews is important. To ignore it is to sleepwalk into history, to borrow a phrase.
I wonder what qualifies as a moderate leftist. Here in Australia someone like Biden would be seen as a centrist or possibly a conservative.
I have conservative (not right wing) friends who are certainly more forgiving of people's foibles and differences than some of my left friends, who seem to reach for morality every time they disagree with someone.
Tolerance is a terrible word. To be 'tolerated' sounds judgemental.
Quentin Crisp said something I have often agreed with. Tolerance does not create acceptance. Boredom does. When people experience and are exposed to certain lifestyles or people again and again, the fear or resentment often lifts and what was formerly perceived as divergent just becomes another shade of grey in our lives. I suspect this will happen with trans issues over time.
There's something very deep in that.
Quoting unimportant
Yep.
Tolerance is often insufficient. It will not do to simply tolerate divergence while still despising it. The further step is to accept divergence. We accept multiculturalism, LGBQTI+, disability and so on as aspects of human variation. Racism, we don't accept, but tolerate; that is, we refrain from denying them civil rights or using coercion against them so long as they abide by the law. This is quite different from accepting racism itself. Acceptance applies to people’s identities, capacities, and ways of life; tolerance applies, in limited fashion, to people whose doctrines we reject.
The grammar of tolerance and acceptance is context-dependent. Acceptance cannot apply to doctrines that deny the very conditions for ethical coexistence. Coherent belief revision requires distinguishing between beliefs about human variation (to accept) and beliefs about harmful ideologies (to interpret but not accept).
The left doesn’t conflate tolerance and acceptance; it simply applies each concept to its appropriate domain. Flattening them into a single “more vs. less tolerant” scale misses the ethical point.
It is judgmental. A society accepts slavery and then stops doing that.
That is a different cultural war from curtailing expressions of personal identity.
When some people get into politics too far, they start to think 'their side' is more intelligent, empathic, and generally superior than the other. This leads to intolerance. You start getting more narrow minded and thoughts like, "The right are full of bigots" or "The left are full of morons". In reality, it is YOU becoming a moron. Ego is one of the greatest destroyers of an intelligent and open mind.
I talk to everyone. I've spoken to racists, homophobes, sexists, genderists, and people who think the other side should all just die. I've spoken with sexual reprobates, socially inept people, arrogant demeaning people, wealthy, middle class, and poor people.
Does that mean I accept or agree with everything they say? No. Do I put up with rude behavior while I'm talking to them? Not at all. But I do seek to understand them, I don't dismiss anything they say at face value, and I try figure out why and how they've come to have the world view that they do. That is tolerance. The ability to live, work with, talk with, and get by with in daily life without an intent to cause the other unnecessary harm.
My advice is to realize those who claim, "The left/right are X" are usually emotionally compromised people who have fallen for an ideology they can no longer be flexible on. This doesn't just apply to politics, but to all ideological groups. Intolerant behavior that would be chastised if one was alone, can find equally narrow minded people who seek to convince you of how superior, wonderful, and good you are if you join their side. Beware not to become one of them, as it is a trap every single person can fall into.
Speaking of which, it is an aside but, why is Sky News super right-wing and even conspiracy pandering, yet in the UK it is pretty even. Well I can answer that myself as I looked it up the other day - because the Australian arm is still owned by infamous tabloid giant Rupert Murdoch yet the UK one was bought out, by someone else, who I forgot now but certainly more even handed in their writing.
Ok I see the term tolerance is problematic but kind of part of the question, but the following replies have cleared up the conflation.
The original accusation was clearly a low effort 'gotcha' by the right anyway, not one to be taken to be serious.
I have no idea what AmadeusD means by me strawmanning myself.
The quote I made is the stawman that I want to unpick.
Although it isn't serious it can lead to a serious debate on what the Left accepts (shall we use that instead of tolerance now?) and what the Right accepts? There seems to be a bit more jockeying over Right wing vs Conservative - I would see them as one and the same for the purposes of the discussion?
It would be those who you would commonly expect online to be complaining about 'woke Leftists' ruining the country. I happen to agree with most of what they are saying about wokism and cancel culture which creates a terrible landscape where people are afraid to have open debate.
That is why I touched on that in the OP and said I would also stand against that.
I am more thinking about your average Left leaning person who might enjoy David Pakman for instance. He too is against what I mention above. Sam Harris being another good example of public faces in the kind of sphere I am discussing.
I would say ideally a 'good Leftist' is one that is accepting of others while now becoming domineering about rooting out 'evil' where there may be none just for their own need to feel important.
The Right who criticise the Left for this and the Left that do it I would say are 2 sides of the same coin. The Right will call anything not Trumpist/MAGAist as woke nonsense and the wokey Left will likewise try and shutdown any discussion about legitimate issues such for example if any men want to gather to discuss issues they can often be out picketing as it is 'patriarchy'.
I would add that a moderate Conservative or Leftist could have thoughtful and intelligent discussion.
I suppose it is like average religious people vs. fundamentalists. All religions get along side by side in cities from day to day but the tiny minorities of extremists are the ones that are most visible and cause the most trouble. Though in this case it is far more than a tiny minority on the Left and Right who are the troublemakers.
The left and right are mutually intolerant because they are motivated by incompatible ideas of freedom. For the right, individual freedom takes precedence over social freedoms (i.e. opposition to free-market regulations). For the left, social freedoms surpass individual (hence anti-discrimination laws, which essentially sanctify or at least codify tolerance).
An orientation that prioritizes social freedom still includes a real residuum of individual freedom (for example, what is not explicitly prohibited is allowed). But an orientation that prioritizes individual freedom inherently destroys social freedom, because the residuum in that case consists only of what remains after private discretion has run its course ("trickle-down economics" of freedom).
So the left implicitly allows for the existence of the right, they simply require them to constrain their acquisitive behaviours within the limits of social functionality. The right makes no such concession. In Kantian terms, the philosophy of the left is universalizable, the right, not.
And things change over time; sure there have been times, and places, where possibly the left was more extreme including intolerance.
But right now, in the western world, there's a clear "winner". What used to be the far right here in the UK has become the mainstream, so Reform, and (to an only slightly less extent), the Tories have a platform almost entirely on hating brown people (or "non-indigenous" as has become the common term), muslims, trans etc.
Let alone the US. I mean, in the last 24 hours we had Trump ranting about Somali people being "garbage" that are all unwelcome in the US. What on earth is the left saying that is supposedly equivalent?
But this is a box-shaped conception of politics, relevant only to choosing where to sit in the National Assembly. There are no wings and no one who thinks and speaks politically is guilty by such threadbare associations.
Pardon me if my last response was rude.
Rather than proclaim what is happening in my country, I will put forward a question. What Crisp is saying does reflect what is is happening here but is actively being opposed by efforts that want to have power over the next generation. Thus, all the very real dismantling of institutions that preserve the present status quo.
Is there a similar struggle going on in the Down Under?
No worries. I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying, so I didn't come to any conclusions.
Quoting Paine
Indeed. In Crisp's time, the conservative mainstream rigorously controlled the narrative already, so there weren’t safeguards to dismantle. I think boredom will probably win. But who knows?
Quoting Paine
Not really. But I don't follow my culture very closely. Our main problem is a tendency towards neoliberalism and the notion that the market should be the arbiter of culture and society. Our culture war is in slow motion compared to yours, which seems to be a cold civil war when viewed by outsiders. In our country voting is compulsory, and younger people with more progressive views seem to make up much of the voting block, so reactionary views really only find support among the older, the 'crazies' and country folk.
To say I "tolerate" homosexualty, for example, means I'd rather it not be, but I'll endure it.
With that understanding, does the right put up with more behavior it finds objectionable than the left? Maybe, but that might just speak to changes from conservative values to more liberal ones and the right having to accept the existence of what they disagree with.
So then the next question: Is the left more embracing of (not just tolerant of) change than the right? I'd think so, which is why the word "conserve" attaches to the right and "progress" attaches to the left.
One embraces change, the other less so. Who is more tolerant of each other? It seems there's sufficient polarization to say neither are terribly tolerant of one another to the extent they're each willing to peacefully endure one another.
There is also a question unasked, and that is whether tolerance is a virtue? Ought we let our neighbors who don't adhere to our moral interpretations endure our silence, or must we speak. up?
That seems a good roundup of Right and Left.
I think I want to get more to the nub of my question.
Could it be said of an outsider Alien race looking in that the Left's policies were more tolerant than the Right's?
I am thinking of something like the Starfleet Federation from Star Trek right now. They are enlightened Left aren't they? Isn't this vision of interaction rationally more appealing than the selfish every man for himself, let the strongest survive, of the Right?
That read doesn't seem to align with right/left categories. Dismantling generally occurs on the far left and the far right, and not in the center. Generally speaking, cries of "intolerance!" come from those who are trying to shift the Overton Window in one direction or another.
And I think an underlying problem is that everyone, from left to right, is laboring under centuries-old rejections of coherent moral realism. So we get a vacillation between moralizing and assertions that morality doesn't really exist. Moral claims need .
I agree. Crisp is pointing to a process of accommodation where the source of annoyance for whoever tends to recede into the background of other annoying things.
Quoting Leontiskos
I was trying to draw a broad sharp line between those who support institutions even if they often suck and those who want to shake the Etch a Sketch upside down. I am not aware of any of the former kind who subscribe to the purely emotional view you propose to be a significant factor in political discourse.
I take your point about Kant putting forth a vision of universal humanism but that also came with a view of the law that was in conformity with authority that you might not like. He praised Hobbes speaking on the need for lawful authority. There is a hazard when projecting present political divisions into the past.
Okay, good.
Quoting Paine
It's this clause of your post: "[Acceptance] is actively being opposed by efforts that want to have power over the next generation."
Which side of the broad sharp line wants to have power over the next generation, and which side doesn't?
I am willing to address that but how does that relate to your view of the presence of
Quoting Leontiskos
I think it implicates the very moral realism that I claimed has long been eclipsed in our culture. The person decrying intolerance is implicitly affirming moral realism, while usually at the same time denying moral realism. That's why I think these debacles of "intolerance" always reduce to superficial mush.
So I would want to know which side wants to have power over the next generation. Secondly, the point originally being made about Crisp is a moral claim (hence the words "fear and resentment"), and yet the people who tend to make such claims also tend to deny moral realism, which logically takes all the sting out of their reproach. ...It's remarkable to me that on TPF moral realism is so thoroughly repelled that members regularly fail to provide any rational justification for prohibiting even the most grievous offenses, such as the slave trade, but on the other hand this has been par for the philosophical course for centuries.
I have had a different experience.
My family fought on both sides of our Civil War in the U.S. The choices between what is acceptable or not is worked out each day wherever we are. Education of children is critical to what happens next.
I don't see how your disagreements with people bear upon the matter.
Don't lose sleep over it.
Quoting Paine
Yep. It's not only the result of obeying a series of rules, although rules may have their place; it's not algorithmic. It's enacted. It's human.
That's were 's conclusion fits.
Well, Kant was pretty confident he was up to speed about the correct rules. I can take your point without agreeing there is no tension here.
Quoting Paine
Always with the Kant. Oh, well.
Being consistent is all very well, but it doesn't tell us what to do in every case. The central problem with rules is that they are incomplete; there is always something they do not cover.
I was not claiming Kant as my north star, only pointing to a breaking point in a reference to him.
Quoting Paine
...is much better.
I figure we were on the same page about that for some time regardless of whatever else we disagreed upon.
I’m don't know if there are moral facts or if morality is grounded in anything beyond emotional responses, perhaps emotivism is correct, of which, presumably, there are more and less defensible versions.
Interesting you see Crisp as making a moral claim. I didn’t think of it like this. I think the idea that people fear and resent 'the strange' is human nature. I know I do. I don’t consider this to be located in a specific moral framework, more a vague aesthetic/emotional one or one wherein we find ourselves unable to make sense of something. I also don't know if Crisp is right in his view. It seemed like an interesting position to raise in the context of the discussion, since it tackled tolerance differently.
So we have the supposed paradox of tolerance; that the left, in advocating "tolerance", is hypocritical in not tolerating the right - in not tolerating intolerance.
One way to view this is as confusing tolerance with acceptance. In this usage, to tolerate is roughly to refrain from using coercion, while to accept is to place the account in the domain of public discussion.
The left can coherently tolerate the more extreme views of those on the right without accepting them.
Why not accept them? Popper's response is well-known, even if the attribution might be lost. To accept intolerance is to undermine the broader ethic of tolerance. It's not hypocrisy but consistency. On this account intolerance might be tolerated, but certainly not accepted.
Somewhere in between we have Popper's ad hoc social engineering, piecemeal improvement. Small, testable reforms, improving society step by step while avoiding catastrophic overreach.
But is that enough?
I figure education is captured by an ongoing cultural war. From that point of view, any program put forward is not only a policy proposal but an attempt to vanquish some other view.
Noticing that development is not the same as understanding it.
It is not enough to note that some people seek their advantage.
These are what lead to tolerance, and to acceptance, as much as vice versa.
So we might accept that others live lives quite divergent from our own, on the condition that they do not obligate us to do as they do. Acceptance of divergent lives does not imply agreement or obligation. This maintains moral consistency: one can uphold their own values while ethically recognising the legitimacy of other ways of living.
Will ponder. I do not have a snappy response.
I don't know how any of that pertains to the topic, or what it even means, but can you answer my question now?
Quoting Paine
Are you asking me to explain what I said without reference to what I just said?
If the context I put forward is not germane to the discussion, it is difficult for me to imagine what is.
You told me that you would answer my question after I answered a new question you had. I was just hoping you would follow through on that.
When someone brings up tolerance there is usually an accusation at play. There is usually the premise, "One should not be intolerant." Now it surely does not make sense to say, "One should not be intolerant," while at the same time being undecided on whether there are moral "facts," no? And emotivism of whatever variety will be of no help unless one believes that emotions are sufficient grounds for binding moral norms.
But what I find more interesting is the cultural incoherence of strong moral claims in the midst of strong moral anti-realism. The cultural standard will reproach me just as forcefully if I say that binding moral norms exist, as if I fail to recognize the binding moral norm of intolerance. I find that such a deep level of incoherence is a dead end. There must be at least a minimum level of coherence and consistency before fruitful dialogue can occur.
Thanks, I see what you’re saying, but it never occurred to me that moral positions require objective facts. This deserves its own thread. As a non-philosopher, my view has generally been that humans are social and cooperative: we seem to try to reduce suffering and promote well-being, and our moral views tend to reflect what supports those goals. Moral discussions are simply humans attempting to find the best ways to achieve this.
I think 'fact' is a word that hinders rather than helps in these discussions. All that is required for what I've said is that someone thinks it is true that everyone should not be intolerant. Whether this is a 'fact' is not very important.
Quoting Tom Storm
But is it valid to say, "Humans generally try to reduce suffering, therefore it is true that everyone should try to reduce suffering"?
My point about "fruitful dialogue" has to do with reason-giving in moral contexts. So if someone thinks their moral utterances are true, require reasons, and can be rationally engaged, then the problem I've pointed out dissipates. But at the prevailing meta-ethical level this simply isn't true on a cultural level.
That's helpful.
Quoting Leontiskos
I’m not sure. I’d say humans generally find suffering unpleasant and therefore try to avoid it. And because we’re social animals, we also often try to reduce suffering for members of our own tribe, community, or culture. I’m not convinced many of us care much about the welfare of strangers or the suffering of people we don’t like. Personally, I have a strong dislike of suffering and wouldn’t want even my enemies (not that I really have any) to suffer, but that’s just my own emotional preference. I suppose I’d like others to try to reduce suffering as well, but I have a mental block when it comes to calling it “true” that we should all reduce suffering. I’m not sure in what sense I can say it is true.
Quoting Leontiskos
:up:
Exactly what I was getting at in my OP.
The Right try and claim the Left are just as/more intolerant which I don't think is true from an unbiased point of view. Of course they would say I am biased, being on the Left, so I could never give a fair appraisal and they will say 'we are just as tolerant or even more because of xyz', Usually the xyz is that they are anti-woke and bastions for free-speech.
Lol any time I have read that phrase it has been in some Right wing conspiracy article. Similar to 'cultural marxism' and 'Great Replacement' and talk of 'European stock'.
I am not sure this has to be about tolerating extreme views?
Also the term tolerance seems to be a sticking point which lends itself to the interpretation it must tolerate extremism.
I would say that the positive ideals of the Left are that they welcome diversity and difference as diversity is healthy just like sexual diversity in dna and such.
So on this interpretation it is not inconsistent to welcome diversity but be intolerant of those who don't welcome it. Then the Right might say 'but why don't you welcome our views equally?' then I would say because they don't encourage inclusiveness.
As I wrote that it reminded me of where I got that from recently. David Pakman made a good point that the Left welcome diversity but the Right in general see difference as a threat and want to protect against it. Tighter immigration laws, more guns to protect your stuff and so on.
He put it much better but that is the gist I recall.
Although the names of political parties can be meaningless, in this case it seems to ring true that Conservative is in line with their values to want to conserve existing values and resist change.
Where you talk of welcoming, I used acceptance.
So we both differentiate mere toleration, in which something is thought unacceptable but we put up with it, from welcoming and accepting different ways of living that do not infringe on our own, and a willingness to negotiate when they do.
And both are contrary to the view that one's own way of living is obligatory for others. Such a view cannot be accepted, and ought not be tolerated.
Okay, I will give it a go.
From my experience, the views of 'moral realism' you brought up do not reflect how education works in families and institutions. How sharply one differentiates those from each other is a source of conflict in communities and political structures. Sometimes that adds up to one policy being advanced over another. Other times, that is an underlying feature of life in a particular place that does not get formulated in that way. From that perspective, I don't view any theory of connecting or disconnecting those aspects as important as people looking for what benefits or harms the chances of their hopes and fears.
Consider the habit of adversarial discourse in families. I was raised in one of those as was my son. I have known and worked with people who did not. That difference is a genuine cultural divide that is not simply a product of different opinions. On the other hand, it is obvious that it does influence opinion. What we all choose to do in such divergences is a personal matter of choice that theory cannot relieve us from. Tolerance is easy until it is in your face.
In my late teens I was not yet a Christian but I was reading C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. His arguments made me realize that I had to choose between relativism and moral realism. I realized that if I thought there were no moral facts, then I could not in good conscience rely on moral claims, or say things that entailed moral claims. For example, I could not accuse people of being intolerant. If moral realism is false then at the end of the day there is no good reason for people not to be intolerant, and I would be highly irrational for deeming intolerance blameworthy or wrong.
You can take any moral proposition you like: “Slavery is wrong,” “Rape is wrong,” “Discrimination against gays is wrong,” etc. If you don’t hold that there are any true moral propositions, then obviously you can’t maintain that such things are true.
You make your points well and I thank you for your patience. I apologise that I seem unable to see this. I have read Lewis' book (many years ago) but I not yet convinced. I'm going to start a thread on relativism versus anti-foundationalism. I think there is a more nuanced position to take than simple relativism.
Is slavery wrong? I can definitely see how it would be wrong from a human values perspective. If you essentially accept the Western tradition, that life should be about values like flourishing and freedom and well-being and the minimisation of suffering, then slavery is not an ideal way to go about it.
Morality to me seems to be a code of conduct, and we can argue about what conduct best achieves goals like flourishing, cooperation, and the minimisation of suffering. I can't see how we can have a moral fact that floats free of human values, but that does not stop us from reasoning within the values we share.
If someone wants to claim that all morality is just an opinion and all opinions are equally valid, then they undermine their own ability to debate moral positions. But if we instead treat morality like a system with aims and constraints (something like a game with rules and goals) then we can meaningfully explore what strategies best achieve those aims.
If the main criticism is that my view has no ultimate, metaphysical foundation for right and wrong beyond human context, then yes, I agree. But I do not see why that means we should abandon having views on how to organise society. Human beings still have needs, vulnerabilities, and preferences, and these give us more than enough ground to reason about better or worse ways to live together.
I see that you have posted your thread and will follow with interest.
In the context of political divisions brought up in this thread, the lack of moral realism is being depicted by Leontiskos as the source for one side of a divide. To put it that way makes the topic political in its own right.
In the formulations of what is "natural" for humans, the debate over kinds of authority has been the central problem. For instance, is Hobbes right that only a central authority can stop the natural war between men or is Rousseau correct that we have come from a different way of life that did not require that much power?
The difference between them is not whether morality is real or not.
One aspect about the difference between Hobbes and Rousseau is how their language appears in different political messaging. There is a "this arbitrary power is better than its absence" set against "there is a better way to proceed that does not require so much power."
Imagining what would happen without X does not seem to be the singular province of anyone.
Paine, here is the question I asked and you deferred, claiming that you would answer it in time:
Quoting Leontiskos
Is that the question you were attempting to answer? You yourself claimed that in you were trying to draw a "broad sharp line." I am asking how what you said in that post relates to this "broad sharp line" you spoke of, specifically by asking about your claim about wanting power over the next generation.
In terms of the next generation, it is a large difference between encouraging a revolt versus some kind of accommodation. That involves the different agendas underway at the time but also how one is to live in the future. What we accept or reject personally involves who we care for, however we choose to understand that.
But it seems that you do see it, at least in part, with claims like these:
Quoting Tom Storm
But I will merge any reply I have here into your new thread on the topic.
Yep.
What if they instead claim morality is just an opinion and proceed to rely on their own opinion? When we evaluate whether an opinion is “valid,” we can only do so through our own judgment; hence in that sense, yes, morality always comes back to one's own opinion.
There's no one else to blame.
[s]the rest, deleted - I'll re-work it into your new thread.[/s]
Re-thinking my rethink, I don't think I will. I'll leave this here, as I think it sufficiently different to the issue in your other thread.
I am glad to see your rethink because I think it is important to not turn all of this into one goo.
Yes. As you say that's a differnce sense of subjectivity that the first account.
What interests me most in these discussions is how people believe they can ground their morality.
I really, really like this. It doesn't fit with most takes on the topic we see about these parts, but I like it.
So do you accept the concomitant differentiation between acceptance and tolerance?
Right:
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting AmadeusD
I would say that the right is more tolerant and the left is more empathetic. The left is also more disagreeable (e.g. murdering people for speech with which they disagree), and therefore lacks both tolerance and acceptance. The reason the left sees themselves as more tolerant or accepting is because they are very careful about what things are under consideration when those words are used. Something as simple as litigiousness would bear out the fact that the left is less tolerant.
I assume you are referring to the American "left" and right"?
Quoting Leontiskos
Can you provide examples of this? It seems an unfounded statement.
Quoting Leontiskos
This does beg a discussion of the parameters of tolerance. Are all things equally worthy of tolerance? Is tolerance always a virtue? Is intolerance always a vice?
Should we be tolerant of hate?
Every ideology that gains power and dominance in a culture will be intolerant of any position that jeopardizes its survival. This is why the less popular a dominant ideology is the more tyrannical it has to be in order to maintain power.
In terms of liberalism vs. traditionalism, it depends on the flavor you are comparing which is more or less tolerant of opposing doctrines. The unique aspect of liberalism is that it also ruthlessly persecutes its perceived enemy ideologies but under the guise of tolerance itself; so they tend to be blinded to their intolerance, irregardless of whether or not it is permissible or right to be intolerant in such manner.
I find that the most interesting aspect of liberalism is this susceptibility to hiding behind a mask---saying one thing and doing another. They fight racism by becoming racist (e.g., affirmative action, "you can't be racist to a white person because they are the majority", etc.); they fight sexism by being sexist (e.g., "your a man so you can have no opinion on abortion", "force women to be more represented in engineering, etc.); they resolve theft with theft (e.g., retributions to black people for slavery); etc.
Liberalism is the first ideology that triumphs by purporting the exact opposite of what it is---most notably by imposing a liberal ethic under the guise of secularism.
Is liberalism more tolerant of views it does not accept than traditionalism? I don't think so: they are just as ruthless in persecuting their perceived opposition as traditionalism is. This is natural and by no means immoral; but it doesn't get acknowledged by liberals because they think they are incredibly tolerant because they accept as many views as possible.
CC: @unimportant
Lol. Right-wing politics isn’t usually a form of white supremacy, if that is what you are insinuating. The liberal media likes to label everyone who is conservative that is white a white supremacist, while ignoring the non-white conservatives, as a weak rhetorical tool to make people avoid, out of fear, looking into the topic.
For example, look as Nick Fuentes in the United States right now: he’s booming in popularity right now and all they keep doing is labeling him a white supremacist when he clearly isn’t. It’s all rhetorical games to avoid losing a liberal America; and this also happens a lot in Europe.
Who’s “we”? Certainly not liberals. Liberals in America will go out of their way to cancel someone culturally so badly that they get fired from their job if they do something so, dare I say, “horrible” as say the n-word; and european liberals are so intolerant of racism that they throw people in jail or prison for comments that are taken as racist.
:fire:
This is why you are a rarity among the human race, Philosophim; and I respect that. Freedom of speech and rational dialogue is essential to a flourishing nation; and we seem to be forgetting that in modern times.
Then, why should anyone care about what you think is moral or immoral if it is just your emotions speaking? Why would society, that is supposed to be predicated on rationality, inform its legal codes based on your emotions?
Intolerating intolerance is intolerance; and this is a convenient way to try justify ruthlessly persecuting any views you deem threaten the viability of liberalism while simultaneously rejecting that you are persecuting anyone (since it is just 'intolerance of intolerance'). It's a classic liberal cop-out to me.
Why can't both sides just admit that any ideology that they deem too immoral is not tolerated? Let's just be honest about it.
One of my favorite quotes by Lewis: "Tolerance is a virtue to the man that lacks convictions".
That’s right. Perhaps they shouldn’t. But the interesting thing is society likes to set codes of conduct to organise behaviour if it wishes to avoid anarchy and terror. Most people care enough about this and share emotional reactions to the same things. Do we need any more than this?
Seems to me this is how society already functions. We don’t agree on moral foundations but we also don’t want to be robbed and killed.
And if your aim is to decide what you ought do, then who's opinion will you trust?
That's a good question. Yes.
Quoting Questioner
I was referring to the example of the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another recent case was the murder of Brian Thompson.
Quoting Questioner
I'll just quote what I said in my first post:
Quoting Leontiskos
if you look at the whole picture, we should also include Melissa and Mark Hortman.
And statistics actually show the majority of politically-motivated murders have been committed by right-wing extremists. (Murder and Extremism)
Also, according to the Anti-Defamation League:
Extremist-related killings in recent years have primarily been committed by far-right extremists. Mass shootings caused a substantial portion of those deaths.
Quoting Leontiskos
Could it not be that the left is indeed more tolerant of difference?
Also - in what context are you using "litigiousness"?
That's fair, but what did we see in the wake of such things? Was there widespread support for the murderer of the Hortman's from the right? Heck we even had a TPF mod implicitly supporting the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Quoting Questioner
I wouldn't accept the ADL as a reliable source.
Quoting Questioner
I pointed you to my post about criteria. What are you criteria for intolerance? How are you measuring?
Quoting Questioner
I am just thinking about the general quantity of lawsuits emerging from each side.
They just mostly ignored it.
Quoting Leontiskos
I don't believe this. I've seen a lot of people, though, try to remind others of what Charlie Kirk actually stood for, without justifying the violence, in the wake of the Administration making a martyr out of him for political reasons.
Quoting Leontiskos
Why not?
And if so, please provide a source that rebuts it.
Quoting Leontiskos
I am intolerant of anyone interfering with another's right to "life, liberty, and happiness."
Quoting Leontiskos
Well, currently there is a right-wing president in the White House and he is the most litigious president in history.
Which is odd, because all signs point to it being left wing in-fighting. You can buy whatever you want about it - what I buy seems reasonable to me.
There is decidedly more events of left wing violence. Raw deaths are on the right, though. A distinction that matters. The right simply doesn't kill people for their opiinons. The left will. Not only Kirk, but two attempts on the President's life.
Well, to play devil"s advocate and precisely what I meant in the OP, that is exactly what the Right are saying the Left do, in the form of 'wokeness' and demanding everyone use new genders to refer to people and such.
Though I would say that the super wokies are not representative of the majority on the Left, however the closed mindedness you point out on the Right is probably more prevalent. I say probably as I have not bothered to think about it much but in general the Right are less 'tolerant' of other's ideas as a fundamental part of the party/political views whereas that is not the case with the Left. The authoritarian wokeness trend seems a more new phenomenon, I would trace back to the 70s, where it started with noble goals but become 'runaway' ideology with finding more and more things to be outraged about just for the sake of adding fuel to the movement rather than it being legitimate injustice.
In my experience, having lived in both camps at various times, the issue comes from what people mean when when they talk about intolerance. I would argue the right side of the aisle uses a more traditional meaning of the word, putting up with things they may not like because they have to, while the left seems to want tolerance to mean acceptance and celebration, which is not the same thing.
I would add that the reason for this is imo is likely because the left has been quietly winning most of the cultural battles for some time now, and is no longer used to having to tolerate dissent to the degree the right has in recent years. I suspect 50 years ago things were very different.
Well said
It's having missed the boat on when we got somewhere workable that's caused the flip, I think. Being used to being 'on the right side of history' no pun intended, seems to be where the left has gained its psychopathy. You're now allowed to be openly racist to white people, publicly, even in parliaments and senates - no issue. That is a problem. We shouldn't - tolerate - it.
Agreed, and part of what I find so frustrating about the current political situation. Everyone still seems to want to play by rules for a game that isn't what anyone is playing anymore. All the talking points are out of date, but everyone still wants to be smug like 20 year old, irrelevant gotchas are conversation enders.
Yeah, that's a clean way to get at it. :up:
Quoting MrLiminal
True, and I also think the left has been more proactive in pursuing cultural influence. A lot of the ideologies of the left are oriented to such a thing in a way that the right has not been.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yeah, and it's causing a lot of rippling problems.
Quoting AmadeusD
Why differentiate political liberalism from classical liberalism on this point? Aren't they the same with respect to your example of opposing racism?
I think this used to be true, until around when Obama won and the "demographics are destiny" folks convinced people they didnt have to try anymore. Meanwhile the right started plugging away at changing their image and taking a more grass roots approach at times. Ironically, the Democrats are arguably the conservative party now, because they want to conserve what we already have from some of the regressive changes the Republicans want to make
This just does not line up with the facts. Could you please provide a source for this?
Quoting AmadeusD
What a wholly unfounded statement.
For every crazy on the left, I can find for you two crazies on the right. Here's one specific example - death threats against election workers and candidates in the 2024 election spiked to over 2,000. Fed by Trump's lies and hate, many MAGA lashed out against those Trump said were the enemy.
According to Gary M. Restaino, the U.S. attorney in Arizona, “There’s a common denominator in many of these cases: election denialists announcing an intent to violently punish those who they believe have wronged them.
He’d announced that a judge had sentenced an Ohio man, Joshua Russell, 46, to 30 months in prison for sending death threats to Katie Hobbs, then Arizona’s secretary of state, between August and November 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/13/us/politics/election-workers-threats.html
Quoting AmadeusD
I think it's been made apparent that in all three cases an unstable person for personal reasons did what they did. In no way is it representative of what you term "the left" and "the right" -
-- which, lumps a whole lot of different people together. It is viewing the world through an "us vs them" lens and that leaves no room for critical thinking.
I'd like to add - it is important to distinguish "regular people" from political leadership. Leadership sets the tone, and Trump has solidly embraced violence, just like he gave the green light to the J6 rioters.
It's leadership that especially has to be held accountable.
I've been denounced for disagreeing with the idea that the working class must achieve class consciousness in order for the global warming crisis to be averted. "I never want to speak to you again", he said, and he hasn't for several years. It would be just great if the working classes DID achieve class consciousness this afternoon, but our enlightenment doesn't seem to be on the horizon, and at this point, the global warming crisis is becoming present tense, rather than future tense.
Defenders of embattled ideology (which Marxists are, pretty much, especially in rampantly capitalist economies) are reluctant to agree with the opposition on anything. That said, the opposite very conservative, ultra-religious types are in the same boat. They find it difficult to grant credit to dissenters on just about anything.
Ideology is a chunk of the problem, as is personality. Some people have rigid personalities who experience pain when they have to bend, even a little. Some informed ideologues, left and right, are able to be flexible enough to agree with opposing ideas.
Group think sets in, too. Social dynamics make it difficult to wander even a little from the party line, be that revolutionary or reactionary in nature.
Quoting Questioner
Not only unfounded, entirely unreasonable. They are left-wing individuals killing, or attempting to kill 'right wing' individuals on policy grounds. There isn't another way to spin this. If you are wanting to do so, I suggest it's better we do not go into this because I can only ignore that type of thing.
Quoting Questioner
It seems to me you can't really say the first thing and then ask the second in good faith. Forgive me for ignoring hte former. The latter seems better to go on. Herehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DOteAHtCI56/?igsh=dmhremExczJ2cjdl is something you may find interesting.
We can also look at the fact that the 'right wing' has not killed anyone for their opinions in a very, very long time. We've had the Left do it in the last 12 months. And attempted several more. In fact, if some reports are to be believed they will kill their own: Hortman. I'm not going to stand too strongly behind that because, like everyone else, I can only go on what's public and what's public is a shitshow mess of a narrative. The list given in the Senate hearing is pretty damn ample for current purposes.
I am not denying that the right-wing has had a history of political violence. Its not as if the left haven't either, but i recognize the disparity. You need to carefully understand what my claim was - in the last two election cycles it has skewed one way. And perhaps there is only one example on either side, but Kirk is the prime example evidencing the claim that they will kill over speech/opinions.
This is to also entirely ignore the on-the-ground damage done by protests across the country - which almost universally turn violent at the behest of left-wing protestors.
Quoting Questioner
He has not. He did not. Sincerely, someone who wishes the constant lies about Trump were true.
Possibly, but "classical liberal" values are considered either cowardly centrist or right wing values in a lot of quarters these days. The current "political liberalism" seems to me more like running with scissors.
Quoting MrLiminal
100%. No one states their goals, no one listens to the other person, massive ad hominem, ignorance of facts etc... It's all about point-scoring. I thought high school was where that was meant to end.
Using that video as your source is the equivalent of saying, "If you don't believe me, just ask me."
Trump has put a lot of targets on a lot of backs. The latest ones are the six courageous lawmakers who reminded military that they should not follow illegal orders. Trump is totally and completely intolerant of anyone who does not kiss his ring.
It was literally someone else.
Quoting Questioner
This is clearly unhinged political emotionalism. Given the other clearly bad-faith responses in another thread, I shall bow out. Take care :)
Yep.
Truth is important to us philosophers. I am confused, though, why the truth should be called "unhinged" and "emotional" and in "bad-faith" - Here's the truth -
There has been an onslaught of death threats against Mark Kelly because Trump posted that Kelly should be put on trial for “seditious behavior.” “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on Truth Social.
Did Trump put a target on Biden when he posted an image of Biden kidnapped and hogtied in the back of a pick-up truck, on his social media?
Or how about when he doxed Letitia James? – he shared a link with her home address, accusing her of a “miscarriage of justice” - raging against her, including calling her a “lunatic” who had “defrauded the public with this trial.” Yes, she received death threats.
Trump also incited death threats against Mark Milley - Trump (posting on social media) accused him of committing “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”
And on January 6, Trump knew that windows at the Capitol were being kicked in, that the riot was underway, and that rioters were chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.” So, he tweets the green light to his supporters: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done.”
The violence – especially directed at police - at the Capitol escalated quickly after that tweet. (Some White House officials describe that tweet as their breaking point that prompted them to resign).
I recently read an article that said the reason so many Republican lawmakers toe the Trump line is because they fear the death threats that come from going against Trump.
So please do not dismiss Trump’s rhetoric as harmless bluster.
Something work examining. There are great philosophical lessons in politics.
Fwiw, I don't. The rest of this is pretty much just you throwing things at a wall while not listening. That's fine, bt not something I'm keen to lean into. You seem to think incitement is something other than what it is, for instance.
Our conversation will go a lot more smoothly if you refrain from making unfair and inaccurate accusations against me.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, then, let's have an examination of incitement. I guess we could begin with "what is the power of words?"
I would find this more compelling if Trump wasn't also the target of political violence and threats. Not that I approve of the current flavor of political discourse, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and imo Kathy Griffin started this Trump's first term with the severed head thing and it has only continued since. People openly wish for Trump's violent death in some parts of both the real world and internet, and there have been at least 2 high profile attempts on his life.
The thing Griffin did was horrible. I certainly wouldn’t condone that sort of thing.
But, as I mentioned before, for every leftist extremist, there's two (or more) that belong to the right.
For example, I subscribe to the website MAGA Report that monitors MAGA online forums and reports on them. With the news that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was to be released, posters to one particular forum suggested extrajudicial violence as the solution to immigration
Here are the copied comments:
***
• [i]We should have killed this guy months ago. It would have saved us a lot of time and hassle while taking a violent criminal off the streets.
Why is it that we can blow up foreign criminals/terrorists in international waters and abroad, but the moment they set foot on US soil, they’re entitled to an attorney, a trial, an appeals process, etc?
o It baffles me how a criminal alien, involved in human trafficking, and open gang member doesn’t get the rope.
? Why not have the cameras malfunction for a few minutes while he “hangs himself” like Jeffery Epstein did?
? Criminal aliens charged with felonies should be under military court jurisdiction and justice.
? You might run into some issues with that due to ex parte Milligan.
Which is why I’d prefer to deny them a trial outright
? Just a hundred years ago, regular people like you and me would have already hanged him from a tree...
? 60 years ago.
20 years ago no judge would dare do this.
We’ve been conquered. There hypothetically and unfortunately needs to be a civil war to end this.
? Revolution, not civil war.
There’s a huge difference[/i]
***
What is the source of this hate?
Indeed, much of the research suggests that compared to left-wing extremists, right-wing extremists may be more likely to engage in politically motivated violence.
And -
“Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives…”
“In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.”
The Trump DOJ quietly removed the results of this study from its webpage in September. Why? What false narrative is it trying to advance?
When Trump tells the base that all Somalians are “garbage” – and even specifically calls Rep. Ilhan Omar the same epithet - when he constantly dehumanizes and hammers home that any political opposition are “enemies that must be destroyed” – he is radicalizing a good portion of his base.
My point is this – Leadership must be held accountable. They set the tone.
The assassination attempts on Trump were sickening, and they were soundly denounced by Democrat leadership.
But Trump says things like this: “We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections … The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave that the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”
Death threats to lawmakers have doubled during the Trump years.
Here’s one example:
Kevin Patrick Smith left dozens of threatening voice messages for US Senator Jon Tester (Montana – Democrat)
“You stand toe to toe with me, I rip your head off. You die.”
FBI agents issued Smith a warning, but he didn’t stop, and ramped up his messages, alluding to guns.
His accusations were vague – “you’re pedophiles and you’re criminals”
When they arrested Smith, they confiscated four shotguns, five rifles, eight pistols, a homemade silencer and nearly 1,200 rounds of ammunition. Smith pleaded guilty to threatening to injure and murder a US Senator and was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.
So these questions remain –
What incited Smith and made him so angry? Who creates the political environment? What role does leadership play? Can leadership be held accountable for incitement? What limits should be put on political rhetoric? Are politicians role models?
I remain unmoved. I used to be incredibly anti-Trump and still largely disagree with him, but I have seen too many examples of actual bloodlust from friends and family further left than me to believe this isn't a politically neutral problem. What's more, the right has *always* been fine with being seen as the heartless party, so it's much more jarring to see the supposedly soft-hearted and empathetic democrats sink to their level.
Sorry, you have ignored the main point of my post - what is the role of leadership in all this?
Do you think the bloodlust from either side would be as bad if leadership from both actually tried to stop it? This is a both sides problem, and I'm tired of pretending like it's not. Unless you can admit that, I do not think this conversation will be productive. There is clearly a growing appetite for political violence in our society that is starting to boil over, I would argue largely due to the left catastrophizing Trump from a bad President to an almost supernaturally evil one. For all the talk about how much the right hated Obama like the anti-Christ, he never came nearly as close to assassination as Trump has.
I haven't seen any bloodlust from Democratic leadership. I have seen them calling Trump out on the many ways he is poisoning politics in the US.
Quoting MrLiminal
This betrays a reluctance to accept any criticism of Trump at all. Something I have noticed, is that, MAGA takes any criticism of Trump as criticism of them - as if they have melded their identifies with his.
Quoting MrLiminal
There were many, many plots made against Obama, and a lot of racist hate spewed his way.
Odd, seeing as I never voted for him and said I openly disagree with a lot of what he does. I really dont forsee this conversation going anywhere; you have already have made assumptions about me without evidence
Quoting Questioner
Plots =/= almost getting domed on live tv
I never mentioned you, but I invite you to review the things you have said about me.
I am sorry you could not discuss the issues with me instead of getting defensive.
Quoting Questioner
So this was just unrelated to anything then, huh? Come on, man.
Quoting Questioner
I just did and found that I have made no assertions about you at all, aside from guessing this conversation would not be productive, which it has not been. You are tilting at windmills.
Quoting Questioner
I disagree with your interpretation of how this conversation has gone and will not be responding further if you're going to play these games.
Isn’t “we don’t accept” essentially another way of saying “we don’t tolerate” or “we are intolerant of…”? I’d say your “we” and “they (their)” are both intolerant of something here. But you seem to imply that the left is not tolerant of the right, maybe for good cause.
I take your point to mean: we on the left are reacting to the particular way the right manifests its intolerance. From the view on the left, intolerance on the right looks like racism, religious intolerance and fascism (etc.), so when the left becomes intolerant of the right, it is intolerance of bad righty things, which makes the left’s intolerance good.
So your above quote seems to involve the question: whose intolerance is the good kind and whose intolerance is the bad kind?
And “more“ intolerance now becomes a question of how you measure intolerance - are 50 intolerant lefties worse than 10 intolerant righties by sheer obnoxious volume, or do 10 righties generate way more harmful intolerance than 100 intolerant lefties? Or do we measure the nature of what each side won’t tolerate, or measure how each side won’t tolerate, and is this purely subjective or somewhat objective measurement…?
But whose intolerance is worse, left’s or rights?
Quoting unimportant
Yes. People all seem to align so firmly as right or left, and think of each is good or bad, and easily close our minds to seeing any goodness from the opposing side.
We need to be mindful of our own closed-mindedness, of our implicit pre-judgments like “I just don’t like you, because you are bad, and intolerant like a racist, like a tyrant, etc…”. That’s bad-faith though. Tough to avoid, because we are so wrapped up in our politics, but an impediment to truth or progress nonetheless.
Accusations of who is MORE intolerant puts everyone in a tough light to start. From my experience, if someone merely knows I am left or I am right, and from that also already hates me for it, they are not going to discuss my ideas, but stay focused on me and my hateful qualities.
So is left or right more likely to let their hate for their opposition render any discussion almost pointless, if not tedious or loathsome as well?
———
Individuals on the left tend to define their personal identity and their morals based on others, and groups, and a consensus of like minded people. They identify who the good ones are, the ones they like and who like them, and who the bad ones are, and left-leaners align with the good ones, and learn to do and say what the good ones do. Because a leftie gets their moral standing from alignment with a group, if someone outside the group challenges the group or challenges one aspect of the group’s ideology, it is simultaneously a challenge to the leftist’s personal identity (since this identity is tied up with the group identity). This is why lefties often can’t even tolerate other sub-groups of lefties. Feminists and Trans folks are clearly left - but they often can’t stand (can’t tolerate) each other, and won’t accept each other into the ultimate group that defines their own identity.
Leftist’s identities therefore don’t have crisp lines, can change drastically while keeping moral justification in the fact that the whole group might change with them as they change the whole group…
All people, left and right, do this to some degree, but it seems to be more essential to leftism that classes of people fall in line, and one’s own good group has members who all pass some sort of litmus test (which can be simply showing up to protest, or raising an American flag), and unite against the bad classes of other people.
Individuals on the right tend to define their personal identity based on some ideal - like a religious figure, or a nation, or family and blood. Their identity is more rigid, and relies on things that are more permanent, have stood the test of time so to speak. So when someone challenges a rightie or a right-leaning idea (“x” country first) by saying “you do bad things” and “your group are baddies” or “you are a hypocrite and don’t really value freedom” it doesn’t affect the right as much; they can chalk that up to bad judgment and ignorance of left. But when someone in the left challenges a rightie by saying things like “your God wasn’t actually a good God, and doesn’t even exist” or “your country isn’t a good country,” the righty’s own identity is challenged and they become intolerant too.
So who knows who is worse. Maybe we should just ask: who is more capable of having a debate with the opposing side? Who can stand each other the longest?
All that said, in my experience, not everyone on the right is racist/sexist etc, (so some are very tolerant) and not everyone on the left is good at all (so some lefties are racist and sexist and facist etc.).
On the narrow question of who is more intolerant: the left is more intolerant. I’m a rightie. :grin: I don’t tolerate people on an individual basis.
Some of those folks are liberal (nuts and screamers) and some of them are conservative (arrogant pricks). I also love some people on the left who appear to hate me.
But of the two ideologies on paper, and most times in experience, I less frequently meet a person on the left who truly respects people on the right. It’s a rare wonderful pleasure. (Some of my family are like that - burning, emotional libs who still love me when I tell them they are wrong, again.)
Religious righties (particularly in America) are often intolerant of non-religious people. This is sloppy of them - this is religious intolerance and really has nothing to do with right or left. It’s also, to me another topic, because right doesn’t equal religious.
Lefty Christians are just as likely to say righty Christians are not real Christians, and righty Christians are as likely to say leftie Christians are not real Christians. They are both wrong, mixing religion with politics (like the Muslims do, also from the right) because left and right need have nothing whatsoever to do with good and bad Christians or good and bad anything. Religious intolerance does manifest from the right, but using left-leaning tactics and leftist type identity politics, subsuming religious identity under political identity. All it does is make bad politics, and provides a weak basis or justification for political argument.
But staying political, generally, more lefties hate righties, and with more passion, in a personal way. Lefties have an archetype for the righty - the rich, white man. Lefties don’t personally tolerate us for very long if at all.
For righties though, due to Hollywood, the news media, the K—PhD education system, and secular, modern culture in general, righties have long been conditioned to tolerate leftism and lefty arguments and left argument style. Righties have to reassure lefties that “I’m not a racist.” Or “I respect women” just for permission to join a conversation. Righties have to get out of the way of the protestors, or else the righty is part of the problem and may as well join ICE. Etc..
I know lefties can say all the same things about the right, and I know it is is easy to be a racist, sexist king from the right, but in my experience, there are many more righties who just get it, and understand freedom, and hate racism and facism, etc; and there are more leftists who seek to create a world where all but an elite are under one government control, everyone left subject to a headless tyrant.
———
ADDED
Economically, socialism can’t function best in a capitalist world, because capital reserves flee the socialist system (the oligarchs and elites have to hide their wealth so they remove it from the socialist system - this is why they say the rich will shrink from NYC). So socialism, in order to function best, and keep capital inside itself, has to be a closed system. It can’t coexist with any other economy and function best.
Socialism, is therefore, an intolerant economic system.
Capitalism doesn’t care what you do, just as long as everyone can make and visit and retreat from, a marketplace.
What you quoted isn't remotely close to incitement. That's what matters here. I am genuinely sorry I don't want to get into another match about incitement - i'm just worn on it.
Quoting Questioner
The bad faith has become essentially untenable. I suggest we avoid discussing anything about politics together. Take care of yourself :)
You misunderstood.
I quoted that to mean not that Smith was doing the inciting, but that Trump supporters had been incited by Trump.
What an odd response to being corrected.