Are liberals intolerant?

[PointOfViewGun]

Something called freedom of speech. You know the saying ''I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to Death your right to say it''. That's what used to be liberalism. I think flat earthers are idiots, I still think they have the right to spout their nonsense. It's a basic rule that allowed Western societies to prosper through free Exchange of ideas. It doesn't surprise me at all that you oppose it, hence we apply Popper's reasoning to your argument. Good to see you gave yourself out. I never had any doubt.
Here's an example of what happens if we apply your logic of being intolerant towards idiocy. Islam is idiocy. By your own logic, it should be removed from society.

This question is so boggling I don’t even know where to begin.

The whole point of tolerance is to not be intolerant to things just because you don’t like them, like idiotic ideas. That’s what liberalism, in the broadest possible sense is. Tolerating other opinions.

No, I will not defend to death your right to say idiotic and potentially harmful things. Why on Earth would I do that? Doing that is not liberalism. Flat Earther's can live like Earth is flat in their private lives all they want. I'm not gonna let them teach in school that Earth being flat is a valid hypothesis, nor I will refrain from pointing out how idiotic their ideas are. You might consider Islam idiocy in general which is idiocy in itself. You are free to explain yourself and I'm free to nail those explanations to the ground as the idiotic arguments they are. Tolerance of liberalism doesn't mean one has to play nice with any argument. There is no need to be tolerant of idiocy.

[95thrifleman]

How about we ask these questions to republicans but ask them about Muslims? I am willing to bet that would lead to interesting results.

[Basil II the B.S]

No, I will not defend to death your right to say idiotic and potentially harmful things. Why on Earth would I do that? Doing that is not liberalism. Flat Earther's can live like Earth is flat in their private lives all they want. I'm not gonna let them teach in school that Earth being flat is a valid hypothesis, nor I will refrain from pointing out how idiotic their ideas are. You might consider Islam idiocy in general which is idiocy in itself. You are free to explain yourself and I'm free to nail those explanations to the ground as the idiotic arguments they are. Tolerance of liberalism doesn't mean one has to play nice with any argument. There is no need to be tolerant of idiocy.

What's this Sharia enforcement rewriting liberalism, starting with the abolition of freedom of speech.

The writing was all over the wall.

The problem with your argument is that idiocy is subjective, freedom of speech objective. You want a society where your subjective preferences are enforced. That's tyranny.

Also nobody said flat earth theories should be taught in school. Idiotic strawman. Should we ban you?

[PointOfViewGun]

Sharia enforcers rewriting liberalism, starting with the abolition of freedom of speech.
The writing was all over the wall.
The problem with your argument is that idiocy is subjective, freedom of speech objective. You want a society where your subjective preferences are enforced. That's tyranny.
Also nobody said flat earth theories should be taught in school. Idiotic strawman. Should we ban you?

No, idiocy is not always subjective. For example, in your post, you argue as if Sharia is a singular uniform entity, when in reality it's made up of different versions based on sect and history. To argue as if its a uniform singular entity is an idiotic argument, or an ignorant one. The two go hand in hand. In reality, Quran doesn't really try to abolish freedom of speech either. It's interesting how Muhammad's words saying that the best form of Jihad is to tell a truth a word of truth to an oppressibe ruler. Nobody said to ban flat earther from the soceity either. I love how you talk about banning Islam and then talk to me about using strawman arguments. You're really utilizing no standards whatsoever.

[Himster]

Please, the Right is not a bastion of free speech.

Well duh, that hardly needs to be said. The left used to be the bastion of free speech. Now the right is taking advantage of the left's betrayal of its erstwhile core principle. Welcome to a world of Brexit, Trump, rising Neo-Nazism, etc.

[Basil II the B.S]

No, idiocy is not always subjective. For example, in your post, you argue as if Sharia is a singular uniform entity, when in reality it's made up of different versions based on sect and history. To argue as if its a uniform singular entity is an idiotic argument, or an ignorant one.

Never did that either, second strawman by you in two posts, I'm out.

The two go hand in hand. In reality, Quran doesn't really try to abolish freedom of speech either. It's interesting how Muhammad's words saying that the best form of Jihad is to tell a truth a word of truth to an oppressibe ruler. Nobody said to ban flat earther from the soceity either. I love how you talk about banning Islam and then talk to me about using strawman arguments. You're really utilizing no standards whatsoever.

There's no such thing as freedom of speech in the Quran, let's not be ridiculous.

[Bethrezen]

All the rightists fight for is for the right to say "". That's your freedom of speech, and that's how you know to criticize a religion.

[anant]

The OP is exceedingly narrow in it's premise, first by pitting "liberals" against "conservatives", then by using the two mainstream US parties to represent them. Please understand that labelling people (even those who label themselves!) doesn't mean that an individual can be inserted into a stereotypical pigeon-hole...it is mostly either uninformed, or rather young people with limited exposure to varied views, that subscribe to labels like these. Anyone with a broader experience and insight would agree that sensible arguments can be found in all political views, all religious philosophies, all ethnic traditions, just as easily as idiotic arguments can be found in all of them too. And no stand or principle can be forever "right" or "wrong", it needs to be placed in context to be correctly judged, and if the context changes, so will the judgement. This brings me to another important point; to be a truly sensible debater or analyst, one must be free of bias and prejudice, essentially disregarding one's "personal context" while analysing an argument meant for people other than him/her too. To answer the OP then, yes some "liberals" are intolerant, and others are not; you can find both in large quantities on this very forum.

[mishkin]

It's blatant why leftists love Islam: same will to destroy the West, same hatred for freedoms.

"We" do not love Islam, "we" respect it, as any other ideology or religion (or race or "ethnicity") that is not intrinsically harmful (i.e: racism. fascism, nazism...). Now proceed with your (plural, Basil & Co.) speech about why Islam (and "foreign cultures and ethnicities") is evil and should stay away from our borders, that attitude so respectful, so little totalitarian, intransigent, fascist.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Sooo if your are a letfist you love islam??? wtf is is thread about? it just seems like more needless bashing.

"It's blatant why Cons love Nazi: same will to destroy the West, same hatred for freedoms."

Your move...

[anant]

There's no such thing as freedom of speech in the Quran, let's not be ridiculous.

Well, the modern concept of freedom of speech isn't there in the bible either...you know why? Because they are not modern books!

[Basil II the B.S]

"We" do not love Islam, "we" respect it, as any other ideology or religion (or race or "ethnicity") that is not intrinsically harmful (i.e: racism. fascism, nazism...). Now proceed with your (plural, Basil & Co.) speech about why Islam (and "foreign cultures and ethnicities") is evil and should stay away from our borders, that attitude so respectful, so little totalitarian, intransigent, fascist.

I'll believe that when you start giving Islam the same crap you give to Christianity. You guys don't even dare to say Islamic terrorism anymore, Orwell tier.

[mishkin]

I'll believe that when you start giving Islam the same crap you give to Christianity. You guys don't even dare to say Islamic terrorism anymore, Orwell tier.

As a European I am still affected infinitely more by some aspects of Christianity than any other religion. It is some Christians who want to impose retrograde behaviors (with which the conservatives agree) in my society, not some Muslim. And it is the Catholic Church the responsible for shameful attitudes and crimes in my country.

Islamic terrorism. Whose victims are usually Muslims outside Europe or the United States, by the way, victims that you do not care at all for that reason.

But lets keep talking about tolerance. Would you accept as a roommate a Muslim? Would you accept as a roommate a homosexual? Would you accept an Afghan as a roommate?

I wish "the liberals" were really intolerant of xenophobes, disguised racists ("ethnicists"), homophobes and other ilk. But they (we) really are not. Mainly because we all live in the same society largely racist, xenophobic, etc.

[Aexodus]

All the rightists fight for is for the right to say "". That's your freedom of speech, and that's how you know to criticize a religion.

It’s more stuff like this really

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/...w-woods-jailed
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/e...-29901228.html
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...f-erol-incedal
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...o-refuse-order
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...h-9942347.html

But lets keep talking about tolerance. Would you accept as a roommate a Muslim? Would you accept as a roommate a homosexual? Would you accept an Afghan as a roommate?

Yes, why not

[mishkin]

Could you expose your arguments instead of just links?

Yes, why not

But only if he were the only Muslim (or Afghan) in your country, right? We must preserve cultural and ethnic purity.

[Aexodus]

Could you expose your arguments instead of just links?

Free speech is more than being able to call people . Read the links

But only if he were the only Muslim (or Afghan) in your country, right? We must preserve cultural and ethnic purity.

You’re just being disingenuous now mishkin. When have I ever advocated discrimination. I just think mass immigration specifically is changing the culture in a way I dont like

[mishkin]

I honestly do not have any interest in reading more articles about Alex Jones (the epitome of tolerance, right?). If you are concerned about freedom of expression / free speech visit the thread created to discuss that issue.

[Aexodus]

What? You’re not making any sense. Those articles aren’t about Alex Jones. It’s examples of the kinds of free speech we should be pushing for, and we need a tolerant liberal culture to do so.

[mishkin]

Those articles aren’t about Alex Jones. It’s examples of the kinds of free speech we should be pushing for, and we need a tolerant liberal culture to do so.

Now I know, thanks for the information. I reiterate that there is another thread where we can talk about freedom of expression. This is the thread to talk about how "White liberals are the most intolerant people in the Western world", how intolerant the liberals are with the conservatives.

[PointOfViewGun]

Never did that either, second strawman by you in two posts, I'm out.

Just because you deny doing it doesn't mean you didn't do it. You did refer to Sharia as if it was a singular entity. If you did not you would have specified as such. You can't fool anyone like that.

There's no such thing as freedom of speech in the Quran, let's not be ridiculous.

Except there is, and it wants you to be gentle as you argue with others.