Modern Liberals Are Intolerant Hypocrites

I was presenting my reasoning against gay marriage a while ago, and I got a heap of abuse from supposedly "tolerant" people. When I asked why they were behaving this way, I got told that because my views were "wrong", I wasn't entitled to any tolerance or respect or politeness. I don't think my views are wrong, but even if they are, that is absolutely no excuse for people to behave abusively and not treat me with courtesy.

To most of the modern "liberals" that think you are progressive and tolerant people - You need to extend that courtesy to everyone, not just people who have the same politics that you do. In life people don't always agree with everything you say, and your opinion might actually be wrong. In both of those cases, it would benefit you to learn the concept of "agree to disagree".

I'm guessing their logic was something along the lines of 'You espouse hatred so we can hate you and your views'??

Whilst I'm personally for gay marriage but I wouldn't go out of my way to send you abusive messages or comments. And what a lot of them forget is that they're on the other extreme end of the spectrum, as bad as those who advocate killing gays and hate them for being gay. If you can't tolerate someone else's opinion to be debated and simply yell abuse at them then you're not fit to be a liberal.

No platform policies and the like are entirely reasonable, and distinct from censorship.

No Platform is a policy of the National Union of Students (NUS) of the United Kingdom. Like other no platform policies, it asserts that no proscribed person or organisation should be given a platform to speak, nor should a union officer share a platform with them.

In February 2010, the NUS was heavily criticised after two of its officers forced a proposed debate on multiculturalism at the University of Durham to be cancelled.[8] The debate, organised by Durham Union Society, was to have featured two prominent British National Party members: Andrew Brons MEP and Leeds City Councillor Chris Beverley.[9] Upon hearing of BNP involvement in the debate, NUS Black Students' Officer Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy and NUS LGBT Officer Daf Adley jointly sent a letter to both Durham Union Society and the university demanding its cancellation. The pair incorrectly stated that the debate would be illegal and threatened to organise a "colossal demonstration" in tandem with Unite Against Fascism, adding that "if any students are hurt in and around this event responsibility will lie with you".[10] The subsequent cancellation of the debate by Durham Union Society President Anna Birley on safety grounds was met with fierce backlash. NUS President Wes Streeting was prompted to personally appear before Durham Union Society to apologise for the actions of the officers concerned, though outrage among Durham students was sufficient that a significant number protested outside the debating chamber at the time.[11] A further protest group on Facebook quickly amassed over 2,500 members. An official petition was soon lodged with Durham Students Union to call for a referendum on disaffiliation from NUS.[12] On 12 March 2010, the referendum concluded with a majority of voting students having voted to disaffiliate.[13]

Completely disagree. No platform, by definition:



So basically, it's saying that a few people, maybe 2 or 3, will decided that thousands of students will be denied the right to make their own opinions on the evidence and counter-evidence provided by two parties in a debate. Judge, jury and executioner all in one. "No need to upset your little heads with this "differing opinion" thing, just leave it to the politbu...er, I mean, NUS".

Worse, "no platform" is often a "gateway drug" to more violent and intimidating anti-democratic action. Remember this? (Quotes: Wikipedia)



Everyone knows full well that UAF means violence; nothing else could be read into the threats above. In this case, the students rightly railed against this and disaffiliate from the NUS.

"Student" doesn't mean "child" or "mentally feeble", and students have every right to be able to make their own minds up.

I swear ive seen you make this EXACT post before...
Also comparing all liberals to these people is like comparing feminazis to feminists.

I'm so sick and tired of the amount of *******s I see on Facebook, or hear in day to day life on campus about how 'tolerant' liberals are because frankly they are not. I cannot generalise about all and every liberal because that is not fair, but I do want to argue the existence of one particular strain of liberalism which has flourished wildly across the western world.


I want to first establish two camps of liberals, with the latter of which I am referring to as the liberals who I despise. Classical Liberals are more closer to a libertarian position - they advocate equality on all fronts, allow a debate for any and all opponents, and believe in free expression for all. Modern Liberals, on the other hand, believe in equality but take a much more hard-lined approach, and ignore rights for expression when it comes to those they disagree with. They do not believe in giving those with bigoted views 'a platform for debate' - in other words, they are right; you can't argue with them; don't try.


Having previously been a modern liberal, I can tell you that it is easy to get swept up in their dogma, and very easy to think what you are doing is the morally right thing for everyone. But when I began to question things a little further and examine perspectives from a neutral position, I was immediately labelled a 'racist' and 'sexist'.


Modern liberals do not like free thinkers, and their first go-to in any argument is to immediately suggest or openly say you are a bigot of some kind. This is largely because it is an easy option but also it makes the audience turn against you:





It comes as a surprise that many liberal groups are now turning to violence as a means of getting their message across. Groups such as the UAF and Smash-The-EDL advocate rather aggressive and hypocritical messages in order to ostracise their opponents and rally support:





No platform for debate with bigots? Essentially they're saying it's okay not to offer democracy to those who are willing to debate with the UAF. And lest you disagree with them you are automatically a homophobe, a misogynist, you hate blacks, and any other thing under the sun they can think of. Apparently speech and the right to debate is now a weapon for their opponents. Rather ironic considering they think they are against fascism when you only have to scroll down a tiny section to see another message advocating a desire to ban their opponents voice, rather like this person who seems to think that human rights should be rewritten:





What is worst is that modern liberals seem to think they have the cure to the world and knows what it, and everyone else on the planet, needs. Its one thing to assume you have the moral high ground in one in their own country, but to try to force others to change and impose their views on other country's is nothing short of imperialism. I think this sums up this attitude towards children in another country:





'If you are a straight, white, male then you are automatically the most privileged person in the world.' - I heard those exact words coming from perhaps the most posh, rich girl I have ever had the displeasure of meeting, who has a stark cheek telling me that I'm privileged; simply being a white straight male does not guarantee any privilege. White guilt is almost a necessary component of being a modern liberal - if you don't feel shameful of your ancestor's past actions (actions which you haven't committed yourself) you are racist. And if so much as hint that immigration is unsustainable at its current rate then you are also labelled as a racist.




To sum up, I find the modern liberal agenda a hypocritical, fascist and rather aggressive new political drive that is not focused upon equality or democracy for those it opposes; they are intolerant of those who disagree with them. It is a severely flawed philosophy that is becoming ever more prominent, and revels in PC drivel. Am I the only one who thinks that modern liberals are hypocrites? What do you think?

Here are a few examples of 'liberal logic'

Here are a few examples of 'liberal logic':

1) There is no place for racism in society.
...blames everything on white people.

2) The West are oppressors.
...likes Castro and Chavez.

3) Our country has no culture.
...strongly defends any other culture.

4) We defend free speech.
... makes it illegal to say anything non-PC.

5) Capitalists are greedy.
...likes to live off other people's money.

6) I'm a free spirit.
...tells everyone else how to live.

7) I hate the elite.
...wants a bigger government.

8) Religion is evil.
...defends Islamic extremists.

Liberals are an odd bunch really.

+1. This. Best. Post. Evaaaah! I'm nicking that!

Can I add one more? The UAF.

I think no-one or group sums up liberal intolerance and hypocrisy more concisely than the UAF. They see no irony in calling themselves United Against Fascism while acting in ways which are textbook definitions of fascism.

Here are a few examples of 'liberal logic':

1) There is no place for racism in society.
...blames everything on white people.

2) The West are oppressors.
...likes Castro and Chavez.

3) Our country has no culture.
...strongly defends any other culture.

4) We defend free speech.
... makes it illegal to say anything non-PC.

5) Capitalists are greedy.
...likes to live off other people's money.

6) I'm a free spirit.
...tells everyone else how to live.

7) I hate the elite.
...wants a bigger government.

8) Religion is evil.
...defends Islamic extremists.

Liberals are an odd bunch really.

I wonder what you make of this: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-march-for-england-was-humiliated-in-brighton-this-weekend

there IS no 'anti' fascism without fascism.

People calling themselves Antifascists shouldn't behave as fascists any more than people calling themselves patriots should act as fascists. These so called 'black-bloc' people look just as radicalised and intimidating as the EDL lot.

you're an idiot.

Good find there! I think that article (and site) neatly illustrate most of what is being said in this thread.

That article is childish, immature minds appealing to childish, immature minds who love a bit of a fight. Look at the rhetoric in the article - "smash, beat, destroy". As the poster says...

btw I have no problem with anti fascism, but the UAF's approach is counter productive and apolitical

liberals are sly and sneaky and coniving but most of the people who whine about liberals are open or closeted racists who feel like they are an endangered species so they feel very bitter.

But people who are against taking seriously the implications of evolution, strongly enough to want to attack those who disagree, including those who teach those implications, are quite likely to be on the left.

Consider the most striking case, the question of whether there are differences between men and women with regard to the distribution of intellectual abilities or behavioral patterns. That no such differences exist, or if that if they exist they are insignificant, is a matter of faith for many on the left. The faith is so strongly held that when the president of Harvard, himself a prominent academic, merely raised the possibility that one reason why there were fewer women than men in certain fields might be such differences, he was ferociously attacked and eventually driven to resign.

Yet the claim that such differences must be insignificant is one that nobody who took the implications of evolution seriously could maintain. We are, after all, the product of selection for reproductive success. Males and females play quite different roles in reproduction. It would be a striking coincidence if the distribution of abilities and behavioral patterns that was optimal for one sex turned out to also be optimal for the other, rather like two entirely different math problems just happening to have the same answer.

The denial of male/female differences is the most striking example of left wing hostility to the implications of Darwinian evolution, but not the only one. The reasons to expect differences among racial groups as conventionally defined are weaker, since males of all races play the same role in reproduction, as do females of all races. But we know that members of such groups differ in the distribution of observable physical characteristics--that, after all, is the main way we recognize them. That is pretty strong evidence that their ancestors adapted to at least somewhat different environments.

There is no a priori reason to suppose that the optimal physical characteristics were different in those different environments but the optimal mental characteristics were the same. And yet, when differing outcomes by racial groups are observed, it is assumed without discussion that they must be entirely due to differential treatment by race. That might turn out to be true, but there is no good reason to expect it. Here again, anyone who argues the opposite is likely to find himself the target of ferocious attacks, mainly from people on the left.