Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Modern Liberals Are Intolerant Hypocrites Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Why are you surprised?
    Because most are so hardlined and intolerantly hypocritical that it is impossible for them to ever change!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    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?
    I'm inclined to agree. I often find that those who stress tolerance of "alternative lifestyles" are often those who are most intolerant of those who disagree with them. The attitude of some liberals towards opponents of gay marriage is an example of this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I'm inclined to agree. I often find that those who stress tolerance of "alternative lifestyles" are often those who are most intolerant of those who disagree with them. The attitude of some liberals towards opponents of gay marriage is an example of this.
    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.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    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.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was making the point that many liberals (who often speak of tolerance and understanding, and who sometimes go so far as to endorse moral relativism) are completely intolerant of those who oppose the liberals' own ideas of how society ought to be ordered. Thus, if someone is a Christian and cannot accept the idea of gay marriage, it is often the very liberals who stress tolerance who are most vocal in criticising this person.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You're using the American definition of liberalism
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This video puts this whole thread into perspective, especially from 2:10 onwards.









    :ahee:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was making the point that many liberals (who often speak of tolerance and understanding, and who sometimes go so far as to endorse moral relativism) are completely intolerant of those who oppose the liberals' own ideas of how society ought to be ordered. Thus, if someone is a Christian and cannot accept the idea of gay marriage, it is often the very liberals who stress tolerance who are most vocal in criticising this person.
    To continue with the example of same-sex marriage: how are we failing to tolerate a Christian who disagrees? I really don't see a problem.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Ahh...finally a decent post amongst the mountains of crap that there is on this site.

    If only I could pos rep. I would do it 100 times.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I was making the point that many liberals (who often speak of tolerance and understanding, and who sometimes go so far as to endorse moral relativism) are completely intolerant of those who oppose the liberals' own ideas of how society ought to be ordered. Thus, if someone is a Christian and cannot accept the idea of gay marriage, it is often the very liberals who stress tolerance who are most vocal in criticising this person.
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Liberals forget that Bernard Manning was always funnier than Ben Elton, whether you agree with his views or not.
    True, Ben Elton wrote some of Blackadder but he was assisted by Richard Curtis and cast contributions who, let's face it, probably did nearly all the very good stuff.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    This is something I have said for a long, long time. What you tend to find is that these "Modern Liberals" usually hail from middle to upper class backgrounds, where they have not really suffered the consequences of many things they campaign for.

    If I am to put across my opinions to my friends in University I am called a racist or intolerant. The fact is, I'm not. I don't judge a person on the colour of their skin, I judge them on the way they lead their lives, yet when I say I cannot stand rganised religion I am called a bigot and told I should respect their right to believe. Then when I say I oppose mass immigration I am a racist even though race has absolutely nothing to do with it. It seems as though you cannot have a remotely right-wing idea without being branded the next Nick Griffin.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    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.
    You assume that I subscribe to the liberals' principle of tolerance, which I do not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This hipster liberal movement is spreading quite quickly. But I have logic on my side so there's no need to worry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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 ***** about the working class person who wolf whistles at you or 'wants the poles out' than anything else...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    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 ***** 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    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.
    It's funny because if you go through history the working class had it pretty badly, ask him when did WORKING class men get the vote? Ask him when did WORKING class men get a right to education and university?

    Working class men over 21 didn't get the vote until 1918 the same year any women over the age of 30 got the right to vote. Women over 21 could vote in 1928.

    Whilst you're at it bring up spending on prostate and breast cancer, and relative spending on healthcare on males to females, just for fun.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP, you are now my favourite person.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbot)
    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
    I agree no platform policies are often not a positive thing to do; I think it's better to challenge ideas you disagree with than to ignore them. But just because I don't think they're the best thing to do, doesn't mean they're not a legitimate thing to do.

    By harmful speech I mean things like incitement to violence, certain kinds of hate speech (when extreme and/or directed at people who are especially vulnerable), things like that. To be harmful, you have to be able to show how someone is likely to be harmed. Simple offensiveness isn't actually harmful to people; neither is criticism, even of things which others consider sacrosanct.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.