Poll of the Day > You know, the one main thing that annoys me about liberals is ...

(+) Yeah! (+)

how freaking hypocritical a lot of them are. They cry and froth at the mouth about tolerance and accepting others for diversity, but it can only be within a certain area. No tolerance for people that think, act, or believe differently. It's either think like or identical to them, or not at all. And that, frankly, is why a lot of, if not most conservatives and even moderates in the middle resent them. No compromise, just total absolute arrogance.

And it's horribly ironic, though, as a lot of conservatives are the exact same way. No tolerance, just arrogance. But that's the cornerstone of the conservative beliefs, though. A clinging to traditional values and beliefs, which isn't entirely a bad thing. There are a lot of areas where being conservative in beliefs is a good thing, but I'm not going into that as that's a different topic entirely.

In all fairness, though, I guess both sides being arrogant and intolerant of others is what you get when both sides have been at each others' throat for decades. Can't learn anything new when the same rhetoric is filling their brains.

I may also be a little drunk. I had pork tacos for dinner and tequila to top off the night. Good night everybody. Be sure to tip your waiter or waitress or whatever the genderfluid nonbinary whatever trrm is.

Nobody point out the hilarious amount of irony

---

Go to sleep tc, regret this topic tomorrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Anyone who expects us to tolerate the intolerant can go to Hell. Some behaviours should not be tolerated.
---

Damn bro this topic is enlightened

---

Have a great night, ya filthy asswhipe!

---

DeltaBladeX posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Anyone who expects us to tolerate the intolerant can go to Hell. Some behaviours should not be tolerated.

But then who decides what behaviors should and should not be acceptable? Why is behavior X fine and behavior Y wrong?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

But then who decides what behaviors should and should not be acceptable? Why is behavior X fine and behavior Y wrong?

When one is "X people are less than human and are better dead than equal", you should know that is the wrong one. Don't tolerate the intolerant. Doesn't seem that difficult to understand.
---

DeltaBladeX posted...

When one is "X people are less than human and are better dead than equal", you should know that is the wrong one. Don't tolerate the intolerant. Doesn't seem that difficult to understand.

So then it's wrong to treat people who disagree with you as less than human and try to unperson them?

---

DeltaBladeX posted...

When one is "X people are less than human and are better dead than equal", you should know that is the wrong one. Don't tolerate the intolerant. Doesn't seem that difficult to understand.

So if youre being intolerant of the intolerant, and we shouldnt tolerate intolerance, then you also should not be tolerated.

I see now why its listed as a paradox.

All thats going to do is lead to a society where nobody tolerates each other.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

So then it's wrong to treat people who disagree with you as less than human and try to unperson them?

depends on what they disagree about

if they want to view others as people that shouldnt have the same rights that they do then fuck em

---

zebatov posted...

So if youre being intolerant of the intolerant, and we shouldnt tolerate intolerance, then you also should not be tolerated.

I see now why its listed as a paradox.

All thats going to do is lead to a society where nobody tolerates each other.

I personally believe it's really simple. Judge people how they treat the least among them. The people in positions of servitude being a prime example. If someone talks big about equality but then gladly berates retail employees for 'being stupid' or accuses them of being racist because they can't help for whatever reason or something similar; they're a hypocrite. Saying people should be equal yet treating people as 'inferior'.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

I personally believe it's really simple. Judge people how they treat the least among them. The people in positions of servitude being a prime example. If someone talks big about equality but then gladly berates retail employees for 'being stupid' or accuses them of being racist because they can't help for whatever reason or something similar; they're a hypocrite. Saying people should be equal yet treating people as 'inferior'.

how much time would you say you spend contemplating these fictional people you have in your mind?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

So then it's wrong to treat people who disagree with you as less than human and try to unperson them?

If a person expects you to tolerate their intolerance, there is a problem. They will not allow tolerance. That should not be tolerated. They are the opposite of a tolerance society. Their goal is to destroy such a society and have intolerance thrive.

https://i.imgur.com/CW7dFKJ.jpg
---

DeltaBladeX posted...

If a person expects you to tolerate their intolerance, there is a problem. They will not allow tolerance. That should not be tolerated. They are the opposite of a tolerance society. Their goal is to destroy such a society and have intolerance thrive.

Okay. So I shouldn't tolerate liberals who are intolerant of republicans then.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Okay. So I shouldn't tolerate liberals who are intolerant of republicans then.

nobody said you have to my dude

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Okay. So I shouldn't tolerate liberals who are intolerant of republicans then.

Well, we have a group of people who are intolerant of the intolerant, and a group of people content to act like fucking monsters.

I don't want to hate Conservatives. I don't agree with their political opinions, but I don't hate them as a people. I hate the groups of people that are happy to call themselves Conservatives, but are also just pure and simple monsters. The Nazis, terrorists and other such groups that are happy to have the Conservative party be a party of intolerance.

But the fact that you somehow see me being intolerant of that as worse than the filth such people spout shows I'm not likely to change your mind.
---

Njord posted...

how freaking hypocritical a lot of them are

/topic

That's all you need to say.

---

DeltaBladeX posted...

Well, we have a group of people who are intolerant of the intolerant, and a group of people content to act like fucking monsters.

I don't want to hate Conservatives. I don't agree with their political opinions, but I don't hate them as a people. I hate the groups of people that are happy to call themselves Conservatives, but are also just pure and simple monsters. The Nazis, terrorists and other such groups that are happy to have the Conservative party be a party of intolerance.

But the fact that you somehow see me being intolerant of that as worse than the filth such people spout shows I'm not likely to change your mind.

Of course not. Because you're violating my core principle. You are treating a group as less than human, undeserving of recognition as beings, and possibly better off dead than equal. How could I agree with a viewpoint that decrees other people to be filth for their political beliefs. I don't even go that hard on the CCP which I see as hopelessly corrupt.

This is why I divorced myself from both parties. I can't agree with the right on many of the issues and feel it is hopelessly ineffective; but the left is unacceptable as an alternative.

---

Its almost like you shouldnt judge people for things that people cant control like where they were born or who they are attracted to

But if someone thinks that other people deserve a worse life or fewer opportunities, or they flagrantly disregard the well being of others for selfish reasons, then fuck those people.

---

DANTE20XX posted...

/topic

That's all you need to say.

Are you angry that TC said a bunch of conservatives are also hypocrites?

---

DeltaBladeX posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Anyone who expects us to tolerate the intolerant can go to Hell. Some behaviours should not be tolerated.

People often try to defend things with the so-called paradox of tolerance, but nobody goes into the paradox of the paradox of tolerance >_> Namely that for a society to remain free, it has to be intolerant of the intolerance of intolerance because otherwise all you replace is one awful thing with another, often more awful thing. Popper's propaganda is no different than all of the fascist fucks throughout history who tried to hide villainy under the guise of virtue to control speech and thereby control all of society, because there are few things that fascist fucks fear as much as free speech and peoples' movements against free speech have generally resulted in the most repressive regimes throughout history.


---

The fun thing about this argument is that it's inherently hypocritical from the right.

They confess to intolerance while simultaneously demanding tolerance.

How about y'all just dont be racist shitlords and we leave it at that?

---

When my conservative Facebook friends post Im like How can you seriously believe this?

When my leftist anti-neo-liberal anti-racist anti-fascist fuck-the-orange-cheetah go-join-a-union Facebook friends post Im like Man, you are so hateful of others.

After living decades of my life hearing from conservatives that I'm an abomination / going to hell / need to undergo conversion therapy / am a second-class citizens who shouldn't be allowed to marry my husband / should be fired if it's discovered I'm gay, even if I'm am otherwise outstanding employee, any conservative who cries about tolerance can rightly fuck off.

---

Clench281 posted...

After living decades of my life hearing from conservatives that I'm an abomination / going to hell / need to undergo conversion therapy / am a second-class citizens who shouldn't be allowed to marry my husband / should be fired if it's discovered I'm gay, even if I'm am otherwise outstanding employee, any conservative who cries about tolerance can rightly fuck off.

And I would say that's terribly wrong and not right. You are a person and deserve to be treated as such and any person who would treat another so terribly like that is part of the problem. I'm all for LGBT acceptance, equality, and the like. Just not the crazy ideology that... basically Poochie's the LGBT movement in media.


---

Unbridled9 posted...

I'm all for LGBT acceptance, equality, and the like. Just not the crazy ideology that... basically Poochie's the LGBT movement in media.

What is this supposed to mean?

---

What does "liberals" mean to you Njord? The things you are complaining about do not sound very centrist to me.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

What does "liberals" mean to you Njord? The things you are complaining about do not sound very centrist to me.

I think he's going by the US definition of liberal, i.e. left, as opposed to the rest of the world's definition

---

Then just say so, liberals is a specific ideology in the centre of the political compass...

So basically he is trying to address people like me, but I would not even have realized, because I am not a liberal...

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Just not the crazy ideology that... basically Poochie's the LGBT movement in media.

Poochie from the simpsons Episode The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie show?

---

Clench281 posted...

What is this supposed to mean?

In one of the older Simpson's episodes the in-show executives decided to introduce a new character into Itchy & Scratchy named 'Poochie'. They designed him to be 'hip' and 'cool' with a bunch of 'attitude' (and Homer ended up voicing him). Then they introduced him and, in the episode, he completely derailed all the violence that normally happens to sing about how awesome and cool he was. He quickly became the most reviled character on the show and was killed off (extremely lazily. They didn't even animate it) so the cat and mouse could get back to their antics.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

In one of the older Simpson's episodes the in-show executives decided to introduce a new character into Itchy & Scratchy named 'Poochie'. They designed him to be 'hip' and 'cool' with a bunch of 'attitude' (and Homer ended up voicing him). Then they introduced him and, in the episode, he completely derailed all the violence that normally happens to sing about how awesome and cool he was. He quickly became the most reviled character on the show and was killed off (extremely lazily. They didn't even animate it) so the cat and mouse could get back to their antics.

How exactly does this apply to the LGBT movement?

---

PMarth2002 posted...

How exactly does this apply to LGBT movement?

Cause a lot of times I see the LGBT movement, or more accurately people on Twitter claiming to support it, go all bonkers and try to do basically the same thing; just with LGBT stuff instead of 90's 'hip'.

I'm not saying you can't have things like comics dealing with LGBT issues, or things going on IRL, or games where those issues come to the forefront. Nothing like that at all. What I am saying is that inserting a character, engaging in mass retcons, or harassing distributors or the like does nothing more that irritate fans of the media and add something which holds little, if any, inherent value.

While comics is the most obvious example of this you can find examples elsewhere (The Wolfenstein sequel had it pretty bad as I understand). I can't stand that sort of thing and find it extremely frustrating because it's, well, Poochie'd whatever media it was.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Cause a lot of times I see the LGBT movement, or more accurately people on Twitter claiming to support it, go all bonkers and try to do basically the same thing; just with LGBT stuff instead of 90's 'hip'.

I'm not saying you can't have things like comics dealing with LGBT issues, or things going on IRL, or games where those issues come to the forefront. Nothing like that at all. What I am saying is that inserting a character, engaging in mass retcons, or harassing distributors or the like does nothing more that irritate fans of the media and add something which holds little, if any, inherent value.

While comics is the most obvious example of this you can find examples elsewhere (The Wolfenstein sequel had it pretty bad as I understand). I can't stand that sort of thing and find it extremely frustrating because it's, well, Poochie'd whatever media it was.

ok but clench was talking about his own lived experience as a gay man, not a show or video game

---

So "It's not okay for people I arbitrarily don't like to do a certain thing, but it's okay when people I arbitrarily do like do a certain thing"

You're so cute, TC.

---

Kanatteru posted...

ok but clench was talking about his own lived experience as a gay man, not a show or video game

And that's great. I fully support LGBT equality and such. Just not the abomination that is the Twitter LGBT movement.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

And that's great. I fully support LGBT equality and such. Just not the abomination that is the Twitter LGBT movement.

twitter is not a monolithic platform so i genuinely have no idea what you mean by that (don't explain please, i don't care)

and either way, it's irrelevant. if you have to qualify your support with "but not THOSE ones" then you might not be as supportive as you think

---

Kanatteru posted...

twitter is not a monolithic platform so i genuinely have no idea what you mean by that (don't explain please, i don't care)

and either way, it's irrelevant. if you have to qualify your support with "but not THOSE ones" then you might not be as supportive as you think

Considering I AM part of the LGBT (B. And yes, I have done things with the same sex) grouping I have to wonder if you are as supportive of the LGBT movement as you think.

---

i am a trans person

---

Kanatteru posted...

i am a trans person

Cool. I might go T if it becomes more fiscally viable in the future, but it's just too costly for me right now.

---

well i hope you get a better attitude about your fellow LGBT people before you do, because the way you're talking about us really sucks right now

---

Unbridled9 posted...

(B. And yes, I have done things with the same sex)

Is being (or having been) sexually active relevant to one's sexuality?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Cool. I might go T if it becomes more fiscally viable in the future, but it's just too costly for me right now.

Is T a thing you go? I could be way off, but I'm pretty sure that's more about who you identify as, as a person.

hockey7318 posted...

Is T a thing you go? I could be way off, but I'm pretty sure that's more about who you identify as, as a person.

since they mentioned cost i'm guessing they were referring to hormones/surgery/wardrobe, etc

which can definitely get pretty pricey

---

hockey7318 posted...

Is T a thing you go? I could be way off, but I'm pretty sure that's more about who you identify as, as a person.

Hard to say. The way I'm using it right now basically means that I have decided I identify more as a member of the opposite sex but since it's not something I can fiscally consider at the moment I'm not even attempting it. However should that change I will likely transition.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Hard to say. The way I'm using it right now basically means that I have decided I identify more as a member of the opposite sex but since it's not something I can fiscally consider at the moment I'm not even attempting it. However should that change I will likely transition.

Okay, that makes sense that you identify as the opposite gender, but it's not exactly a route that is open to you right now due to fiscal reasons. Thanks for the answer.

as a gay black man

---

conservatives are such snowflakes. "why won't liberals cater to my weird phobias?? so much for the tolerant left!"

---

Njord posted...

how freaking hypocritical a lot of them are. They cry and froth at the mouth about tolerance and accepting others for diversity, but it can only be within a certain area

Those people are not liberal. They are quite authoritarian.

Njord posted...

And it's horribly ironic, though, as a lot of conservatives are the exact same way.

This brings up something I don't understand. The political compasses I've seen go left/right, liberal/authoritarian. I don't know where conservative falls on that scale. Nor do I get how a party is still considered to be either thing when their actions don't convey that. Stop calling them liberal when they're telling people what to do. Stop calling them conservative when they don't know themselves what their values are.

Njord posted...

In all fairness, though, I guess both sides being arrogant and intolerant of others is what you get when both sides have been at each others' throat for decades.

I think what you are describing here is called tribalism. Neither side actually stands for anything. They just want to undermine what they think the other side stands for.

Unbridled9 posted...

But then who decides what behaviors should and should not be acceptable? Why is behavior X fine and behavior Y wrong?

An authoritarian would say that they decide. A liberal would say let the person doing the behavior and anyone effected by the behavior sort it out between them.

---