Modern Liberals Are Intolerant Hypocrites

Very much agree with you, am surprised you have come to the stance that you currently have, if only more of these "modern liberals" would do the same.

Why are you surprised?

It's difficult to tolerate being oppressed. I'm frequently amused by people invoking there freedom of speech in an attempt to silence objections, while they opine about denying the rights of others.

In this case the liberal must either be intolerant of the Christian or accept the Christian's intolerance of homosexuality. Either way someone is getting intolerated, so it might as well be the person who is themselves being intolerant.

Furthermore, you are calling out liberals by saying that criticism of ideas they don't like is intolerant and they shouldn't do it, which is the same thing you criticise liberals for doing themselves.

I do not believe that the right to free expression creates obligations on third parties. No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship. It is also important to remember that some speech can be harmful, as opposed to offensive, misleading or anything else. In those cases it is reasonable to ask whether we should permit that speech, or whether the right to free expression is outweighed by the duty to prevent harm. I think we have erred in the way some laws, particularly regarding hate speech, are structured in that they are over-zealous.

The problem with liberals is that they don't realize they are fighting symptoms and not causes.

Ironically, its often the poor that are most victimized by the liberals. Far easier to bitch about the working class person who wolf whistles at you or 'wants the poles out' than anything else...

Very true. It seems as if the working class are often put down as simple plebs by the majority of these liberals. They instantly dismiss any opinion that these people have as idiotic because they haven't got a degree in some fancy, yet completely irrelevant to life, subject. This is often what makes organisations like the EDL so popular for a short space of time: it allows those that go otherwise unheard to be heard. The modern liberal doesn't seem to understand that it is infact their own rhetoric and ideology that pushes a huge proportion of the population away from Liberalism simply because they cannot relate to it anymore.

A classic example is on my course right now. During one of my modules I have to do social context of health. Basically this module goes on and on about how the racism is rife in the NHS and always will be; how being born a White Judeo-Christian European male is the biggest privilege you could have. Being one of the only white males in the class I often get a lot of flack come my way simply because of the colour of my skin. The lecturer is indeed one of these modern liberals who seems to hate being born white. When I attempt to argue my case he always brings up my background (Blackburn: a small Northern town) and says it is easy for me to say what I do because I am white and a male. I then get called a typical Tory (although I'm not even conservative) and told that I need to open my eyes to the real world. My opinion is instantly dismissed purely because of where I'm born, my background and my skin colour.

Personally, I don't agree with no platform policies, for two reasons. Mainly, I see it as an attempt to restrict free expression. All that Mill stuff. By restricting the public discourse, you restrict progress.

More than that though, it's cowardly and counter-productive. If you're so confident that your position is the better/stronger/right one, prove it. Defend that position. You should be able to win a debate, if the other guy's so full of it. That's how you deal with bad ideas.

Take your average BNP supporter. He isn't really a neo-Nazi, foaming at the mouth and thirsting for Paki blood. He's a working class white guy that would, in other circumstances, vote Labour. He feels ignored by the establishment, disenfranchised, and blames immigrants for the difficulty he faces in securing employment and the decline he perceives in the prominence of the culture he loves. Maybe he's just a tad racist on top. Which do you think is more likely to win this guy round, to convince him of the evil of the dark side:

1. Being further marginalised, branded a racist, right wing fanatic and seeing his champion, his representative, be it Nick Griffin or whoever, denied a voice/platform.

2. Seeing said representative given the chance to air his grievances and having them considered and answered (probably systematically torn apart, but that's fair enough)?

1 or 2?

Also, I'm curious as to what sort of speech you consider actually harmful in itself. Are we talking hurtful comments or incitement to violence or what?



Posted from TSR Mobile