the Intolerance of the left.

[MiltonLeBerle]

This is one of the biggest problems I have with being(at least in my own mind) a liberal. David Brock(Blinded By the Right) talks a bit about it, and how it was "the intolerance of the left" during his Berkeley days that helped drive him to the right in the first place.

The problem with Idealism is that nobody is, or can ever be ideal. I've heard people on the left who like to think that they are only 'intolerant of intolerance'- but isn't that hypocritical on it's face?

Everybody has something or things that get under their skin, and sometimes it might not fall exactly in line with the party line...I'm not sure how to say what I'm trying to say here...but for instance-
there was a thread yesterday about gay marriage, in which it was announced by one poster that if you are against gay marriage, you can't be a Democrat.
I'm not against gay marriage, but I'm willing to bet that plenty of fine Democratic voters are.

Another type of example- the word "oriental", especially when applied to those people who are now "Asians". I've seen people jumped on as being racist for using the term oriental to indicate a person from southeast asia, as if they had said 'gook' or 'chink', when they honestly just didn't know any better- a lot of people grew up being taught and using the words orient and oriental as perfectly acceptable- Northwest Airlines used to be Northwest Orient Airlines, and this was in many if not most of our lifetimes.

On theses forums, just about anyone who strays slightly outside the lines on any subject is derided as a 'freeper'.

People are flawed creatures, with deeply held and ingrained beliefs which may many times be very NON-pc on this or that particular issue.
If people are going to demand complete purity of thought & deed in order to be accepted or considered as Democrats in good standing, they are going to see more and more people deciding that they identify better with the rush limbaugh or sean hannity types. That's how assholes like those two (and countless other radio-fascists) aquired a big part of their following in the first place.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. I agree

A lot of liberals need to get over themselves.

[Skittles]

2. I dont tolerate

injustice or oppression or hypocrisy or racism or bigotry, you name it. And if that makes me INTOLERANT, then SO F***ING BE IT.

[BayCityProgressive]

4. Neither do I

However, when someone is attacked on this board for not agreeing on EVERY liberal issue as a freeper it is ridiculous. Also, when dealing with the american public in general there are many people in the older generations who honestly don't know good PC and they have never really been exposed but they mean no harm either. We should make sure not to look down ont hese people and instead try to educate. Instead of screaming "FREEPER" "NAZI" "REPUKE" blah blah blah.

[skudros]

10. True

Im just waiting to be called a freeper myself, my time will come ;)
Shalom

[Skittles]

17. maybe we should just beat the rush

and hate you now? :P

[skudros]

20. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

O8)

[blondeatlast]

21. Skittles, he will give us ample opportunity.

He's already had one post (that I had the misfortune to read) deleted.

Still, it's nice to avoid the rush . . .

:evilgrin:

[skudros]

27. Which one was deleted?

??????????

[roughsatori]

23. After reading your posts in this thread

and your obvious thrill at pouncing on libruls (sic) and your low level of posts--I'd say you won't have to wait much longer. I'm even considering it--but it is against the rules.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

56. the same could be said of the

overly-concerned-for-"our"-image originator of this thread. (Like this is the kind of thing we need to waste our time here on.)
Skittles said all that needs to be said.

[JitterbugPerfume]

5. It's politically incorrect to say

Oriental ????


who knew?

Hi Skittles

[MiltonLeBerle]

6. So I've been told.

In no uncertain terms on occasions where I have dared to utter it.

[StandWatie]

8. hmmm...

wonder what they take on Edward Said's work on Orientalism, ask whoever told you that to read the book and ask if they think Said is a bigot or not.

[roughsatori]

22. Well if they had actually read Said's "Orientalism"

They would realize why it is considered offensive and a remnant of imperialism to call people "Orientals."

There was a time when many White Americans did not "know" it was offensive to use the word "nigger."

[StandWatie]

26. I could take it two ways

that would definately be one way to come away from the reading which was why I was curious.

It also represents however that there is a unifing theme of "orientalism".

[Catherine Vincent]

39. There was a time when many White Americans did not "know" it was offensive

When was this?

[roughsatori]

44. That is why I put put the word know in quotes

It was meant to indicate the contempt that members of a majority sometimes display when they are asked to alter their language by a group that has not historically had equal power in that society. The contempt is implicit in statements like "they are stupid if they are offended."

And yes the word "nigger" was so common that it would not have entered some White people's heads that it was offensive--because it did not matter to them. So the quotes were meant as irony. I should have just stated it more clearly.

[MiltonLeBerle]

43. There's a big difference between the two words-

"nigger" and "oriental"

While growing up, many of us were taught in school to refer to that particular region of Southeast Asia as "The Orient" (I can still remember the jingle for "...North-west Or-i-ent Air-lines") To refer to people from 'the orient' as "orientals" seems completely natural, and not meant in a degrading way. In that sense, it's a lot more like calling blacks "Africans" than "ni##ers".

Besides, Asia is a big place- those people that many might refer to as "orientals" would prefer to be called Asians, but not all Asians are "Orientals"

[roughsatori]

45. Of course they are different

I did not say they were the same. What I was implying is that when a label for a group of people comes to be considered pejorative by members of the labeled group--the group doing the labeling tends to rebel. That process could be extrapolated to other derogatory words as well. For instance "fag." Quite different histories, but shared reactions when the "dominant" culture was notified that the word's meaning was changing.

[Skittles]

16. HOWDY JBP

:hi: how's the granddaughter?

[Character Assassin]

38. It is only 'offensive' to fools

There is the Orient and the Occident.

Usually, the objection to "oriental", in the sense of 'eastern' is that it identifies asian countries, or asian people, or both, in terms of location relative to Europe. Since it is a term, based in Latin, used in many different languages, naming it as, somehow, 'racist', is simply ignorant.

I have never heard this same objection made of other eurocentric terms such as near- and/or middle eastern.

Most probably, the real problem with 'oriental' is what it connotates from the time when europeans considered, and were taught that the anywhere east of the Mediterranean was 'exotic', 'foreign', 'romantic' or simply inscrutable.

To think that 'oriental' should be thought of as an ethnic slur is, quite frankly, derivative and stupid. I have never heard anyone complain about 'Oriental Medicine'.

In fact, I could name several institutes that proudly affix that word to their official (and publically posted) formal names.

Tempest, meet Teapot.

Hey, Skittles, HTFAU?

[roughsatori]

40. Here is a quote regarding Oriental being East

"Asians today find ridiculous this concept that Europe was established first and is therefore "the center". China which was around thousands of years longer. Hence, "the Orient" really isn't "east of" anything, and no longer appropriate in today's times (other than perhaps describing a type/style of rug)."

Here is a link to a website where Asians discuss the issue. Some are not bothered by it--but the ones that saythey find it offensive certainly don't sound stupid.

http://members.tripod.com/runker_room/tiestalk/oriental.htm

[Character Assassin]

46. There are very intelligent people who support very stupid things

Again, what is China called in Chinese.

Even more important, who cares? It's a damn linguistical description. It's not some sort of gospel.

People who utilize the term 'oriental' are not racists.

[philosophie_en_rose]

49. Really?

People are human. They can say offensive things in ignorance and shouldn't be lynched. However, anyone who chooses to be ignorant is a damned fool and a racist.

Not everyone who is Asian really cares that much what language ignorant people use. However, everyone deserves to define their own experience and history. Now that you know that there are people who are offended by your choice of words, you can still choose to say what you will. However, I am very interested in your defining half the world and then ranting when people aren't giddy at your attempts to judge and define another culture.

[Character Assassin]

53. Sure. Here you go.

People are human.

Quite. Thanks.

They can say offensive things in ignorance and shouldn't be lynched. However, anyone who chooses to be ignorant is a damned fool and a racist.

Of course, we agree. Did you think we didn't? If so, why?

I think we're on the same page.

Not everyone who is Asian really cares that much what language ignorant people use.

That's quite interesting.

I'm 'western', I speak five languages at native fluency, and I don't give one good goddamn, oriental, occidental, western or asian, in which language some racist fool chooses to express him or herself in. Would you like to go into detail about the inherent structural racism in asian languages?

However, everyone deserves to define their own experience and history
Now that you know that there are people who are offended by your choice of words, you can still choose to say what you will. However, I am very interested in your defining half the world and then ranting when people aren't giddy at your attempts to judge and define another culture.

Let's you and I be very, very specific about terms and what we're talking about here.

There are people who are offended by my choice of words? I can't help them. Frankly, I don't care.

I have been slandered, insulted and defamed here, but I understand that language is just language. 'Sticks and stones', as it were.

But the only way we possess here to exchange ideas is language. And believe me, my view has changed since coming here. But, perhaps, not like you might think. I just see a bigger selction of fools, and a broader selection of brothers and sisters.

I judge nothing, other than fools who step beyond their knowledge of history and semantics.

I understand that words have meanings. Words can be quickly and, in some cases, ignorantly and politically defined.

If you can actually back that challenge up, I defy you to show where I have judged or defined a culture, any culture at all, in any sense of the word.

Go ahead.

[Az]

13. The trouble is

That not everyone is on the same page at the same time. Our society is evolving. We are learning that some things once thought appropriate were highly unjust. It takes time for a mind to unload itself of such notions. Not all are ready to make the transition.

What those of us who champion social justice need to learn is how people unlearn prejudice and set about implementing this. You can't just tell someone something is wrong and expect them to embrace your position. Even if you use reason and rational arguments it takes time to overcome belief. You need to build trust and confidence in alternate positions so that they have something they can come to believe as an alternate to their current delusion.

It takes time. In the meantime defend those who are oppressed and help those who would oppress to learn.

[The Lone Liberal]

54. Skittles are you feeling well.

You seem so mellow with that post. :evilgin:

[meow2u3]

3. Some lefties ARE as bigoted as rat-wingers--with one difference

The only difference between left-wing bigots and their right-wing counterparts is in kind, not in degree. Here's the difference: On which issues do left-wing radicals show prejudice against dissenting views, as opposed to the bigotry on the right:

Here's an example of this intolerant attitude from extremists on both sides. Left-wing bigots insist on lockstep conformity to approve--and embrace--"choice" and gay marriage (or else you're branded a "bigot" <who's calling whom a bigot?> ), while right-wing bigots demand the same, only you have to be against "choice" and gay rights--or else you'll burn in hell! Both kinds of bigots insist that if you deviate from what they think is liberal or conservative, you can't be a member of their respective party--be it Democratic or Republican.

[skudros]

18. AMEN!!!

right on the money :spank:

[HootieMcBoob]

24. i think the difference is

that liberals want the government to stay out of our personal lives and allow people to go on with their lives as long as they aren't harming anyone in the process. Liberals believe that everyone regardless of ethnicity or sexual preference should be treated equally under the law.

Right wingers on the other hand want everybody to believe just what they believe and behave just as they do and they want that reflected in law. When liberals complain about that, right wingers scream that liberals are hypocrites.

It's absurd reasoning at its finest.

[Walt Starr]

29. As far as I'm concerned, anybody opposed to choice or gay rights

cannot be a liberal. At best, that defines a moderate position. More times than not, that is descriptive of a conservative position.

One cannot be liberal and not support choice or civil rights. One can be moderate and be on the wrong side of those two issues.

[skudros]

32. Id have to disagree with that but Im afraid of being deleted again

MUST CONFORM!!!! :hurts:

sHALOM

[dsc]

34. are the following not liberals

Noam Chomski, David Bonior, and Dennis Kucinich prior to 2002? All of them are (or were) staunchly against abortion or against choice as you call it.

[redeye]

42. Not on abortion

One can be liberal on issue X and conservative on issue Y. You can generally call someone who's liberal on most issues a liberal even if he diverges sometimes from the liberal mainstream.

[REP]

59. Chomsky is Pro-Choice

He has concerns with the ethics, but is politically pro-choice (Source: Understanding Power)

It is possible to be liberal and not love Kucinich, you know.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Thus we have liberals who oppose the execution of a Ted Bundy,

oppose war, argue for disarmament but insist that abortion is a moral option -- and condemn those of us who think that all killing should be avoided.

[geomon]

60. A perfect example!!

applying a conservative approach to define liberals!!! nice one..LOL...

[NashVegas]

51. I Could Kiss You For That

*smooches*

[DavidMS]

7. Unless discource and understanding occurs,

...we end up like the California Repubican Party and their circular fireing squads.

We should tollerate ideological diversity to an extent. I will alwasy chalenge animal 'rights' activits and other romantics (romantics, like Wagner in the 19th century were idealists who opposed the enlightenment and wanted to go back to the old fudal disorder). While at the same time I do not tollerate Randites who claim like Gordon Gecko that "greed is good" and virtous.

In a liberal society we must be carefull in chosing what we chose not to tollerate and keep it to the smallest number of principles possible, yet protect the weakest and most vunerable members of socity.

As for language "political correctness" is a conservative linquistical construct intended to restrict discource to a narrow range of 'acceptable' options. Of cource, out of respect we should not use certan discriptive words. And when I come across offensive use of language, I try to gently correct the speaker at first, then hit the big red "alert" button it it continues to be a problem.

What bothers me more is the way that its quite easy to get into a yelling screaming ideological spat because its easy to misentpeperate what is said here and we should ask for an explanation first. Or when a poster has the "one best way" and all others are heathen idolotors. I sugest looking in the Gun Dungon for examples.

[skudros]

12. Pollitical Correctness

is conservative? I doubt it

[xchrom]

9. if i were using racially offensive language

i'd want to know.
there are, after all, folk who hold onto extremely derisive phrases and claim not to be bigoted.
others claim liberal roots -- but harbor sexual or racial bigotry that they occaisionally let slip.
just remember, generally, a liberally idealist might verbally slap you around for a slip -- a freeper might really shoot you. i.e. abortion clinics.

[HootieMcBoob]

11. this is all so

intolerably disorienting. :)

[burr]

14. I am a liberal because I consider myself to be a realist.

It is strange that you attack liberals for being too idealistic. This is the charge the Republicans have made to me, time after time! And yet my response is that I have never been an idealist. If I was, I wouldn't feel that we would need laws, or a government to enforce those laws. I would not believe that we would need social programs, because those in religious groups and the wealthy would do their part in helping the poor, educate the workforce, cure the sick, and hire the unemployed. If I was an idealist, I wouldn't feel that we would need a Social Security system because I would trust the private market and stock market never to fail. If I was an idealist I would not vote, because there would be no need for a two party political system to become involved in a perfect world.

But this is not an ideal world, and we are a nation of sinners all interested in our own needs before the needs of the comman good. This is why we need laws, government, and safety nets. Because they help to balance this darker side of human nature, which if left uncontrolled, would lead us to our destruction. The beauty of democracy, the government cannot take action without the comman agreement of the majority. In other words, the government's actions should be taken only to serve our comman interest

[NashVegas]

52. Idealism and Liberalism

The Repubs, in their extremes, have their own idealists. Buchanon strikes me as one.

[burr]

55. Those who vote Republican to have small government are idealists....

The leaders like Shrub, Delay, and Frist have their corporate interests to protect, and they would do that regardless of what party they were in.

It is so much easier to manipulate a party of idealists than a party of realists. This is why these advocates of small government will never get what they desire. Shrub will leave behind a federal bureacracy that is larger, more wasteful, and unresponsive to the will of the people than ever before. But the GOP idealists will never except the fact that shrub has betrayed them.

[John_H]

15. Just go about your merry way

the loudest bashers around here are loud because they are helpless politically--even though their idologogy is at least 97 percent pure. So pure, in fact, that it is never adulturated by more than three percent of the vote.

[StandWatie]

19. I don't see it that way at all

It seems to me all the democratic party functions at anymore is social liberal sort of issues, they've completely co-opted "free market" republicanism so if the social liberals aren't getting taken care of who is?

[jiacinto]

25. I'll tell you what I don't like

Those posters who call every US Soldier a "Baby killer" or who scream that they "don't support the troops". I don't like those posters who generalize about all Southerners or ridicule those who are religious.

They are a very small minority here at DU, but they do exist.

[burr]

30. I have never seen any such posters...

The only people I have heard use the term "baby killers" recently are rabid, neocon lunitics. I have not heard people bash all southerners, I have ripped racist voters and flaggers in parts of the south. But the south is a diverse region, producing many of our nation's greatest leaders from Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, and John Lewis.

And all the Democrats I have seen posting..support the troops, maybe in different ways. They all support increasing troops' pay, VA benefits, opposed the benefits cuts backed by shrub, and some by calling for bringing home most of the troops who are now targets in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[jiacinto]

31. You haven't been following DU enough then

nt

[burr]

33. Some have told me I spend too much time here.

However, I do think what you stated is also true of any zealots.

It is true there are many zealots on this forum. But the so called moderates are just as rough in how they rip those from the northeast or California, as the zealots on the left are in ripping those in the center or from the south. Being a moderate does not mean one is not a fanatic.

[ibegurpard]

28. Sometimes I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt

a little more and not instantly assume things like racism, homophobia, etc. when they say certain things...particularly terms like "oriental" which was considered an acceptable term until recent years.

[LondonReign2]

36. And it plays out in all the candidate discussions

We find one flaw in a candidate not of out choice and rail on him/her. Even Holy Joe Lieberman is about 100 times better than Chimpy.

Actually, though, the beauty of being liberals is that we can vehemently disagree and still lilsten to each other somewhat rationally. The lockstep mindless agreement of the rabid right-wing is truly frightening.

[the_sam]

37. A Few Points

This is one of the biggest problems I have with being(at least in my own mind) a liberal. David Brock(Blinded By the Right) talks a bit about it, and how it was "the intolerance of the left" during his Berkeley days that helped drive him to the right in the first place.

I have a few gripes with Brock's book. For one, he obviously hasn't disabused himself of all those years of right-wing brainwashing. For example, he seems to believe that the media are biased to the left, even though he's never worked for anything but conservative media outlets. He also buys into the Forces of Light (the Contras) vs. the Forces of Darkness (the Sandinistas) mythology. He's still bound by the black-and-white thinking of the right.

He also seems to be unable to differentiate between personal intolerance and social/legal intolerance. There is a difference between kids standing up and shouting at gov't officials, knowing they'll get kicked out of the room, on one hand; and COINTELPRO, dirty tricks, institutional discrimination, etc. on the other. The latter is much worse than the former.

If Berkeley had refused to host right-wing officials based soley on their views, that might be a cause for complaint. Some students attempting to protest their appearance is not.

The problem with Idealism is that nobody is, or can ever be ideal. I've heard people on the left who like to think that they are only 'intolerant of intolerance'- but isn't that hypocritical on it's face?

The counterpoint is, of course, that pragmatism leads to opportunism, which leads to the disintegration of any of a movement's original ideals. For example, almost all of Europe's social-democratic parties are now centrist. The Democratic Party is increasingly similar to the Republican Party.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Another type of example- the word "oriental", especially when applied to those people who are now "Asians". I've seen people jumped on as being racist for using the term oriental to indicate a person from southeast asia, as if they had said 'gook' or 'chink', when they honestly just didn't know any better- a lot of people grew up being taught and using the words orient and oriental as perfectly acceptable- Northwest Airlines used to be Northwest Orient Airlines, and this was in many if not most of our lifetimes.

So not knowing any better makes O.K.? If someone didn't know any better than to call an African American a "nigger", would that make it O.K.?

"Oriental" is just as bad as "gook" or "chink". If people use it, they should, I think, be told that people find it offensive.

On theses forums, just about anyone who strays slightly outside the lines on any subject is derided as a 'freeper'.

And on the other hand, leftists are derided for not always voting Democrat.

People are flawed creatures, with deeply held and ingrained beliefs which may many times be very NON-pc on this or that particular issue.

"Political correctness" is a figment of the right's imagination. It was a non-issue dreamed up by Republican strategists to deride the left. It used to just be called being considerate.

If people are going to demand complete purity of thought & deed in order to be accepted or considered as Democrats in good standing, they are going to see more and more people deciding that they identify better with the rush limbaugh or sean hannity types. That's how assholes like those two (and countless other radio-fascists) aquired a big part of their following in the first place.

But if we become more like Limbaugh and Hannity, then we're not really fighting for anything worthwhile, are we?

[wellstone_democrat]

50. Interesting what gets fought over here and elsewhere

"political correctness" cries seem to revolve around the terrible fact that someone is no longer allowed to call someone else a name that is deemed insulting or demeaning. Is it so very important to be able to call someone Chinese "oriental"? Is this a terrible lack in your life?

It used to be called good manners to address someone in the manner that they want to be addressed. Now, when laziness or ill manners cause the speaker to be embarrassed by their hurtful carelessness, the cry "political correctness!" goes up. So, obviously what is being abridged here is either your "right" to run down the street screaming epithets to others or to avoid correction in conversation when you can't be bothered to be polite. Excuse me if I wonder about both your priorites and your manners.

the_sam said it perfectly---the personal and the legal are two different things. No one guarantees that your right to speak won't be met by a challenge out there in the dangerous "public sphere." But, as long as no one is preventing you from speaking by legal or institutional means, you are still doing just fine.

(BTW, the_sam, that was a great post that hit all the stupid arguments advanced in these arguments. Nice work)

[BushHasGotToGo]

41. Intolerance of any kind is bad

Political discourse is fine. Hatred is not.

[redeye]

47. Right...

...a few months ago, on DU1, I posted something a little lighter and more abusive showing a few inconsistencies and hypocrisies common on DU. You can't possibly imagine how much I got bashed; chances were that had my postcount been, say, 20, I'd have been tombstoned.

Anyway, a few examples on the intolernace of the left:

1. Like many extreme rightists rape the terms freedom and conservatism, so do man DUers rape freedom (for their own side, needless to say) and liberalism.
2. The Democratic party is seen as the sole liberal party, even though the only connection between it and liberalism is that it has one or two liberal Senators and a couple of liberal Representatives.
3. Anyone who says something divergent is being called a freeper or, worse, brainwahed by the conservative media.
4. Any media outlet that doesn't agree 100% with DU is conservative (Friedman is constantly demonized, for example).
5. If Bush says something, it's automatically considered false.
6. You have no idea how many people here think that we're in a war and must give sacrifices - a war against Bush and the GOP. Pacifists my ass.
7. Everyone who thinks a little bit about himself is considered selfish; everyone who would draft-dodge is seen as egotistic ("would you let someone die in your place?"); everyone who thinks that Indians are worth as much as Americans is a capitalist pig or just plainly a traitor.
8. All rich people here are thought of as pigs and thieves.

I, by the way, got called a right-wing plant by a poster with a 5-digit postcount whom I won't name. Why, you ask? Because I confessed to be unpatriotic and exalted treason over subordination to a country.

[skudros]

48. Soundly Put

=)

[Phatfish]

58. some great points there, redeye

number 7 seems very interesting to me. I keep hearing Bush bashing about dodging the draft, yet if I were around in those times with a child that old and if I'd have the means to do so, I'd put him in the air national gaurd. Just a thouhgt. Though I dont understand the last part of #7 ," everyone who thinks that Indians are worth as much as Americans is a capitalist pig or just plainly a traitor.".... where are you going with that? Just wondering.

[redeye]

62. Thanks, and...

...the last part comes from people who oppose outsourcing on the ground that it taeks jobs from Americans and gives them to Indians, Indonesians, Chinese, etc. I respect and am willing to discuss the issue with people who oppose outsourcing on the grounds that it allows corporations to exploit third-world workes or that it hurts third world countries' chances of developing their own industries and thus makes them dependent on foreign investment. However, I have no respect for people who think that an American who lives in a country that has a little welfare and can afford much more deserves a job more than an Indian who lives in a country that is far from having a welfare system or from affording one and where thousands die from hunger every year.

There's a thread by me, "I don't want corproations taking my job," in the GD archives in DU2, where you can see the treatment I got after saying the above. I'd get a better treatment if I painted myself black and raped white women in Alabama.

[Phatfish]

64. oh i feel dumb

When I first read your post, I just finished reading a whole big discussion about racial slurs and I thought in my pretty little head, that you meant American Indians, or Native Americans. I see now. However, I do very much disagree on the continued outsourcing of jobs to third world workers but I don't have the energy to dog you about it. Its your opinion and as long as it is well thought out then thats fine with me.

[Trajan]

57. Oh .. I get it ...

I am liberal .....

I am on the LEFT of the political spectrum ....

Therefore: ... I am bad, because I am intolerant, and I should get over myself ....

Ehem ....

ANYONE who can explain WHY this isnt a vanity thread wins the prize ....

The Prize is the ability to be perfectly tolerant, like the other posters who think that liberals, those on the left, are intolerant .....

My oh my: .. it gets pretty deep here pretty fast ...

[tameszu]

61. Weirdly recursive question

Not to get too philosophical about, but if it's hypocrtical on its face to be "intolerant of the intolerant," than isn't it similarly hypocritical to be only intolerant of the intolerance of intolerance?

Just kidding (sort of).

Actually, if you look at the composition of this thread, you'll note that people have been pretty polite, and I daresay, tolerant. Would we have gotten the same result if

So, yeah, Milton, you have some good points about why fanaticism/absolutism of thought (which I don't think should be equated with idealism, in either its philosophical or political sense) is bad, but I don't think that it's particularly characteristic of "the left."

You also seem to be conflating two issues: "political correctness" and fanaticism/absolutism. Being a very "language-aware" lefty and being a fanatical lefty are in no way necessarily related. You might see it as such because you think using inclusive language is a relatively trivial thing, and therefore anyone who's concerned about *this* must be a fanatic. But some people--who might be very moderate politically--might think using inclusive language is very important.

I, for one, think it's pretty important--but I also like to think that I'm quite moderate about advocating it. So I'll make arguments like this in writing and try to write and speak in a manner that I think is inclusive, but I won't interrupt someone because they're using what I feel is exclusionary language, nevermind sic the "thought police" on them. Similarly, you can be a political centrist and be an absolutist asshole about your position, too.

Finally, I also think it's unlikely that a "demand for complete purity of thought with deed" is what led Rush and Hannity to acquire a big part of their following. Those guys are popular because they were willing to break other "oppressive" norms of discourse: objectivity and fairness. There are people who think it's fun to listen only to what they want to hear, and that's why Fox wins. Or could you argue that it's because the other news networks were too left and too PC?

[buddhamama]

63. intolerance

and idealism exist on both the left and right.

i can be cool with people;i try to talk with those i disagree til the point when you know it is a lost cause.

i'm not going to apologize however, for believing in human rights.

i am intolerant of the intolerance of others race,ethnicity, gender,sexual preference,religion and murder/abuse for greed/power.