Conservatives are allowed to be delicate snowflakes, liberals are not.

[DetlefK]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/08/tolerance-and-diversity-of-views-on-the-left-not-anymore

A month earlier, violence greeted provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos when he tried to speak at the University of California at Berkeley. His speech was canceled. More recently, Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley―once the alleged home of the free speech movement―was canceled (allegedly due to security concerns). Even Sixties activist Joan Baez has spoken out against that.

First, the Revolution comes for Louis XVI. Then for Danton. Then for Robespierre. Then for you.

1. If your aim is to create controversy, don't complain if your presence creates controversy.
2. Robespierre was a psychopath who happily sent scores to death by guillotine for any imagined counter-revolutionary crime.





Haidt told me that this crackdown on ideological diversity is a recent phenomenon and is a result of the convergence of America’s political polarization, sorting (college campuses have finally reached a saturation point where there are virtually no conservative professors), and the rise of social media that “greatly amplifies the power of whatever the majority is.”

Are so little conservatives professors? Or are so little professors conservatives?





Whether speakers or books, topics that challenge politically correct views about race and gender seem to be especially non-negotiable on campuses.

Politically incorrect? Or immoral?





In recent weeks, we have seen immense pushback to The New York Times hiring Bret Stephens, a conservative columnist who is skeptical of some of the science behind climate change. Just as issues involving identity are “no go” zone on today’s campuses, environmentalism has emerged as a secular religion for today’s left.

1. That column was error-riddled.
2. It's weird how environmentalism is an evil religion that should face the wrath of criticism, while laissez-faire-pollution is supposed to be normal and beyond criticism.






It’s easy to see why this is a problem for America. Tolerance and diversity were once liberal ideas; today’s “liberals” eschew these values—when it comes to anything that challenges their worldview. But this is also bad news for liberals, who are creating a generation of “snowflakes” whose ideas may melt outside the safe confines of academia.

Florida's and Virginia's coastlines beg to differ.
The very existence of the Birthers and the Teabaggers begs to differ.
The Republican Party desperately sticking to the "tax-cuts-solve-everything"-dogma, no matter whether it makes sense or not in a given situation, begs to differ.
The Evangelicals arguing that not being able to infringe on the freedoms of other people is an infringement on their freedom, that begs to differ.
Liberal ideas being mainstream and conservative ideas being fringe in other societies around the world, that fact begs to differ. The US is not the only society in the world.






Americans once grew up hearing liberals say “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Those days seem sadly gone. They grew up hearing people say, “Hey, it’s a free country.” All of a sudden you don’t hear that anymore. All of a sudden, it doesn’t seem so free.

They want that country back again.

Why won't you liberals do the right thing and be tolerant of other people's intolerance again? That's how it's supposed to be!

We want our country back! A country where liberals are polite and back down!






What is more, today’s “liberals” don’t even realize how smug and off-putting they come across—not just alienating conservatives—but alienating average Americans.

They claim to be for science but forget the Third Law of Physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

1. That law describes the conversation of momentum in physics. It's not a catch-all rule that can be applied to all situations one might ever encounter, you smug, self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual piece of shit.
2. Conversation of momentum is only valid if there is a symmetry of spatial translation. Or put in simpler terms: There are exceptions possible if the playing-field is not level. For example: If somebody is intolerant, one might think that the ensuing conflict is the fault of the guy who commited the offense. But it's actually not, because conservatives and liberals are not equal in the eyes of conservatives. To conservatives, the conflict is the fault of the offended, not the offender.

[ck4829]

1. It shows up in a lot of ways

Kind of like how we have media and politicians tie so-called "anarchists" to the rest of the left and Democrats and demand they say something but there are no demands for "moderate Trump supporters" to denounce the violence when one of them shoots up a bar, or a mosque, or attacks the patrons of a coffee shop with a machete.
-Conservatives are allowed to have violent people among their ranks

[CousinIT]

2. Conservatives are pretentious hypocrites. Every minute. Every day. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Not "so little". So few. If you like people, refer to people as individuals, not aggregates.

So little sand.
So few professors.

So little time.
So few hours.

[Johonny]

4. They always play the victim to their base because it works and brings them cash

The GOP voting base are the biggest suckers on the planet. Many like Coulter have gotten rich knowing how to play to that base. That base will sell everything they own to placate their own victim status. There's one born every minute and they all vote Republican.

[Orrex]

5. Conservatives have been delicate snowflakes for a long time

And oh how they love their safe spaces!