Discussion in 'General Chat' started by musicguy, May 10, 2011.
Anal penetration= eternal damnation.
What the hell are you talking about? You can't get pregnant from the butt.
all the stupid "inspirational" quotes!
In other words, tolerance means accepting things I never had a problem with. It doesn't mean I have to tolerate things that I don't like.
Well, yes, assuming of course that you're "Liberal (sic)," because then you can be certain that your opinions and beliefs are all fundamentally correct, and anyone who disagrees with you is a wrongheaded bigot.
Neo, you're a guy. You cannot get pregnant, full stop.
You have summarized what it means to be the average Canadian when talking about the US.
Of course there are people who identify as liberals who are quick to identify anyone who disagrees with them as a bigot, and they are annoying as hell, no doubt about it. But on the other hand, there are also many people whose attitude is "I want to use the power of the state, or at very minimum the power of social convention, to make life really hard for people I don't like. And if you don't think I should have the power to do that, you're the one who's intolerant HAHAHA gotcha!" It's a deeply dishonest rhetorical move.
Another liberal move.
Nobody should have to accept or like ideas that are hateful to them. I just think that the whole "tolerance" angle is bullshit, as it's just a code word for "accepting what I think should be accepted." It has nothing to do with tolerance in an objective sense.
"tolerance" just means you accept the right of people, things and ideas that you dislike to exist. The confusion comes from people, largely on the left, using "intolerance" as a code for anything short of whole-hearted endorsement of certain people and ideas, but those same people don't apply anything like the same standards to those people and ideas that they dislike.
I think "tolerance" can function that way for sure. And no doubt about it, there are some assholes who use it as a cudgel to beat others over the head. But there is a genuinely important idea that's worth salvaging, too. Big picture, there is clearly a difference between a culture that is generally tolerant of different ways of life and one that is not. Again, big picture, the tolerant society is a better place to live than the intolerant one, where social pressure molds everyone into a very few forms of life. (This is just John Stuart Mill.)
I agree that ideologues tend to be dingbats in general, but I was addressing a particular type of self-righteousness that comes from self-identified liberals like the person who wrote that post. I don't think I should be expected to include of criticism of every political behavior I find objectionable each time I address one type of disagreeable behavior.
Of course. And my point was just that there is an important point in the post, even though the person who wrote it might come off as self-righteous in making it.
Separate names with a comma.