Political Cartoons

[Alastor]

But you see that in the end you end up sending a lot of people to jail? It's not exactly far from what I'm suggesting. At the end of the day, you aren't tolerating the intolerant and you are removing them from society. The form changes, but the substance doesn't.

Not really. People usually don't follow the law only when they believe they can get away with it. If it becomes clear the law will be followed and they will be punished that will change. And jailing isn't the only way, or even my preferred way of punishment anyway. Enforcing applicable financial penalties is a better approach for instance. Particularly against the wealthy. In effect, this is a false equivalence. Punishing the people that break the law doesn't have to do with sociopolitical tolerance. The law itself is decided by the climate of the times but the general notion that breaking the law levies penalties is not.

[Muizer]

''the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves.''
That's the profile of the White Liberal .White Conservatives tend to be lesser educated and/or non-urban.

Your inference, not the article's.

The most intolerant areas in the map of the article also overlap with deep blue areas. My source backs my statement. Seattle, Boston and NYC aren't exactly consevative bastions. Aren't they?

Selective reading. The article concludes no such thing. Nor should it, considering there are plenty examples that show the opposite.

Inasfar as the article 'judges' liberals vs conservatives (which is not actually the point of the article) it conlcudes:

In general, Republicans seem to dislike Democrats more than Democrats dislike Republicans, PredictWise found. We don’t know why this is, but this is not the only study to have detected an imbalance. For example, in a 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center, half of consistently conservative respondents said it was important for them to live in a place where most people share their political views—compared with just 35 percent of consistent liberals. But a more recent survey, conducted in December by The Atlantic and the Public Religion Research Institute, found that Democrats were the ones showing more ill will—with 45 percent saying they’d be unhappy if their child married a Republican (versus 35 percent of Republicans saying they’d be unhappy if their child married a Democrat). So it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on, but what’s clear is that both sides are becoming more hostile toward one another.

The standout feature is quite evidently that the democrat's prejudice against republicans and the republican prejudice against democrats are highly correlated with eachother.

There's a word for that: polarization. What else is new.

Do you actually believe you're correct, I wonder. Are you aware that you're reading these sources selectively? Have you just stopped seeing when data could be open to alternative interpretations?

[Basil II the B.S]

Let me be clear here. Are you seriously claiming that urban, highly educated white voters are not overwhelmingly liberal?

Because that's delusional at best:

https://www.people-press.org/2018/08...idated-voters/

Or:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/27/u...rst-place.html



White liberal intolerance is well documented anyway:
https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/who-doe...w-9a7cdf3ad702

And the already mentioned paper on censorship:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_Censorship

It's always the same group: urban, educated, white liberals.

What you did is saying: the first paper says urban educated and white but not liberals. The second says college white liberals but not urban. The third says white and liberals but not urban and educated... as if the groups don't overlap. That's incredibly dishonest dude. If that's the base for discussion, I think we can move on.

[Genghis Skahn]

God, the NYT has just totally forgotten about the importance of free expression, hasn't it? Apparently they think it's better to protect their readers feelings than *gasp* post "uncomfortable" political cartoons.

This is sad and tragic, and really a sign of the times. As was made clear to me in the "Nazi Punch" thread, censorship is now cool and desired--and that's a decidedly dreadful thing.

[Cyclops]

Cartoons are not good or bad in and of themselves. If the NYT wants to change its format that's their business.

The Netanyahu cartoon has a context of old Jew-hating propaganda. Maybe its not in Portugal but in the anglophone world it was bound to get a reaction, not just from the easily offended.

Idiots shrieking about censorship need to get a dictionary, a privately owned for-profit newspaper making a format change is not a reason to wet your underpants.

[Basil II the B.S]

God, the NYT has just totally forgotten about the importance of free expression, hasn't it? Apparently they think it's better to protect their readers feelings than *gasp* post "uncomfortable" political cartoons.

This is sad and tragic, and really a sign of the times. As was made clear to me in the "Nazi Punch" thread, censorship is now cool and desired--and that's a decidedly dreadful thing.

It's part of the same newspaper that advocates ''fully automated LUXURY communism''. Fairly sure censorship is part of the deal.

[Muizer]

What you did is saying: the first paper says urban educated and white but not liberals. The second says college white liberals but not urban. The third says white and liberals but not urban and educated... as if the groups don't overlap. That's incredibly dishonest dude. If that's the base for discussion, I think we can move on.

No it's not. Remember what I said: your article does not back up your statement. In doing so you reveal your own bias. You read 'white, urban, higher education' and simply assumed that equates to 'liberal'. You just appended that, when that wasn't actually part of this study as far as we can tell by this source. That other studies make those claims is neither here nor there. Let's not forget there are also distinctly conservative demographics that fit 'white, urban, old, and well educated'. Florida comes to mind, and guess what. Suspiciously high rates of bias there.

[Basil II the B.S]

Why are you refusing to address the ones that highlight that it's LIBERAL PARASYTES THE ONES MOST LIKELY TO BLOCK OR UNFRIEND PEOPLE FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT OPINION?

3rd time I post it:
https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/who-doe...w-9a7cdf3ad702

Just like it's the 3rd time I post the ones showing that it's WHITE LIBERALS THAT ARE PRONE TO APPLY DOUBLE STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO CENSORSHIP:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_Censorship

Nothing to say uh Muizer? Your post is one of the most dishonest pieces of garbage I have ever read. I post multiple sources to build an argument, you stop at the first one and say ''argument incomplete''. DUH that's why there are more. Thanks for proving that honest discussion with liberals is often a complete waste of time. Militarization is the future.

[Commissar Caligula_]

Just like it's the 3rd time I post the ones showing that it's WHITE LIBERALS THAT ARE PRONE TO APPLY DOUBLE STANDARDS WHEN IT COMES TO CENSORSHIP:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_Censorship

Says the person who wants to censor all liberals so that conservatives won't be censored? How quickly we forget.

Liberals: satyrical cartoons should be censored only if they offend groups that we like, namely Muslims, blacks, sometimes Jews,etc.
Conservatives: satyrical cartoons shouldn't be censored.

The only reason there's this controversy is that we are listening to liberals. Boot liberals from political discussion and there's no problem.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yeah and as I stated in my argument, I simply apply Popper's rule: you don't tolerate the intolerant, unless you want to end up under a dictatorship. Are you blaming Popper?

[Cyclops]

Can we have an addendum to Godwin's law about the probability of Popper being mentioned?

Interesting guy, I googled him because I'd only heard the name vaguely (I think he was a mathematician, lets not call him a philosopher, lets leave him some dignity).

Karl Popper, life long Liberal Internationalist (I think he was a commo in his youth, a lot of people were). You know, founding member of Mount Pelerin Society, the liberal internationalist society that promotes free market economics, "neoliberalism" some people call it . They win all the Nobel prizes for economics. Part of the Swamp and all that.

Bundling all imagined enemies into a single entity and ascribing to all the sins of individuals is ignorant bumbling at best, clumsy trolling at its worst. Its as primitive as the moieties of stone age superstition, without the venerable elegance of those systems.

Once again, a private entity making a format change is not censorship. If you're confused by this statement go to OED.com, there's a wonderful dictionary (best in the world IMHO) that can help you with your ignorance. Hopefully a fact or two will quiet all this screeching.

[Basil II the B.S]

He's also the teacher of Soros. Kind of irrelevant since the former preaches a society of scepticism, the latter one of ''one truth''. The irony is that Soros foundation is titled ''Open Society'' after Popper's teachings, yet represents an Orwellian version of it.

[Morifea]

Its like Bingo...
Popper? Check
Soros? Check
Orwell? Check and Bingo!

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Next point on the list:

Ethnic Cleansing?

[Morifea]

@Carmen Sylva: Only if "teh evil liberals" counts as an ethnic group.
40 Celcius in Germany, we Germans instantly think about ethnic cleansing... Nothing to see here

[Cyclops]

Next point on the list:

Ethnic Cleansing?

Universities are gulags of the mind.
Why won't you apologise for someone else?
We must militarise!
I am only intolerant of SJWs because one did a mean tweet therefore Popper
OMG [someone] are the real Nazis.

I have to say, its a pretty basic troll playbook list.

[Aexodus]

Nazis were the real nazis.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Oh pardon, my mistake.

The correct point on the list would be:

ethnic cleansing of straight white men.

[sumskilz]

I think he was a mathematician, lets not call him a philosopher, lets leave him some dignity

I'm sympathetic to this jab, but Popper was pretty much the most important philosopher of science of the Twentieth Century, and arguably one of the most influential philosophers of science to this day. Falsifiability, that's Popper.

Karl Popper: Philosophy of Science

[Basil II the B.S]

Its like Bingo...
Popper? Check
Soros? Check
Orwell? Check and Bingo!

But I like Popper. Pretty smart guy.
Also Jewish if we really want to play the bingo of conspiracy theories.