Well, I'm guessing that you wholeheartedly agree, right? I'm surprised you didn't mention this.

I sort of agree, but it depends on the liberals you talk about.

Most people on the left and right wings are fairly decent people. They're not extravagant in their beliefs and vote with their innate principles.

Then you get those on the extremes. The far right wingers have the neo-nazis and Klan types, who are roundly condemned by many on the right. However, they're dedicated to their causes.

The far left? Oh, fuck me they're embarrassing. The BLMers who took over Bernie's speech? The Berkley students who tried to stop people turning up who they disagree with and stifle free speech? Those who shout down people who are voicing opinions and can hold a debate?

The term SJW is one I don't like to use*, though it's mostly a perjorative term these days, but the concept I like to use is 'authoritarian left'. If they don't like it, they stifle it. They don't want challenge to their views, no opinions in their safe spaces that they haven't vetted. Nothing that diverts from their specialist manifesto.

*I don't have a problem with those who fight for social justice, but this is not what this lot are after.

They're only a minority, but they're loud and good at being spotted on camera. They're good at being seen when they are desperately trying to shut down narratives they disagree with. Whilst the right tends to seek authority through power, they seek to dominate others by their weaknesses.

It's pretty depressing, and that's my view from this side of the pond.

I also think that this craze will die out.

Rapscallion

This just in: Liberals are no longer putting up with conservatives' crap.

Conservatives cry intolerance.

When, exactly, did Liberals ever "put up with conservatives' crap"?

In any case, I'm more leaning towards Raps' position: most Liberals and Conservatives are decent enough folks, following their own beliefs and values, without trying to get in other people's way. And then there's the extremists, on both sides.

And, no: left-wing extremists are in no way "better" than right-wing extremists. They may dress up their assholery more prettily, but that's about it.

actually, if you read the article, it is actually fairly balanced as these articles go- my read of the article is that it is more-or-less Raps's position.

However, it's worth noting that there is a difference between conservatives and Republicans- and between liberals and Democrats, for that matter. Much of the "conservatives suck" narrative is more accurately "Republicans suck" since in the case of the Republicans, they tend to take pages from the extremist playbook (obstructionalism, outright making crap up, etc) than the democrats do.

Tolerance is a weird word. I'm not tolerant at all. Being tolerant means you don't like something but will put with it.

I'm not tolerant of LGBTQIA people because I welcome and respect them.
I'm not tolerant of other races and religions because I welcome and respect them.

I'm not tolerant of racists and creeps and sexist pieces of crap because I tell them to shut their mouths.

Meh. Humans derive power and self-worth where they can. I've been watching too long to believe tolerance is a thing. It's not. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who are "live and let live" types but they are on the whole the minority (or at least quieter.)

The other group that can't deal without an outgroup (however they arrive at that designation) needs a villian. Thing is, intolerant liberals get off on discomfitting conservatives in the same way there are morons who this weekend protested in Virginia and chanted Russia is our friend. It's not about stupidity - rather a misplaced belief that by upsetting the "other", they make the world better. Historically, that was just prelude to war.

The are (on the whole) too stupid to realize what humanity is right now: capable of easily destroying itself with comforts beyond what human beings have experienced throughout history. They WANT to fight like a much more innocent society. The reality is, there is no version of their war that works out better for anyone. Flat out, look at the civil war, or WW1, or WW2 and you will see the same type of language. However those societies were capable of a "civilized" mass slaughter of each other which wasn't existential.

We're not. People don't realize, there is no "war" that ends well. There is no version of elevated rhetoric that helps. We either work together or die. Those (in the end) will be the options. I'm tired of pretending either side is concerned about "America" at this point. No, they're pro "team" without understanding historically how poorly that ends-ever-single-time.

As far as the "live and let live" types, I don't think it's completely a tolerance thing. With some people it's "I just don't care". I see a difference there. It may be a slight one, but I do see a difference. Probably just semantics on my part, though.

Though one group tends to call the other "stupid", "undeducated", "naive", "greedy", "intolerant", "hateful", etc...

That doesn't help matters, I'm sure you'd agree there. It ties into the "upsetting the 'other'" point that you make. But I think there are people that genuinely believe it. Read comments sections of articles. You'll see what I mean.

To piggyback on this, though, I just came across this article. That can't help matters.

For the most part, this is true. But I think some people look at a "war" without conventional weapons (i.e. a "culture war"), and think it's winnable. And each side has their own idea of Victory.

That's why I kind of understand The Doctor's "War Speech" in the Osgood Box episode.

It basically boils down to "When you win, then what? And what do you do when the next insurgency comes long? How do you think they'll treat YOU?"

I don't know if you've ever watched the show or not, but watch the clip and see what I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI

The problem is, that to a point a lot of people (or at least the most vocal ones) are so far apart on a lot of issues that it'll be very, very hard to work together on things. Sometimes it's in the name of morality (because whose morality is "correct"?), sometimes it's for other reasons. I think that the elected officials in Congress somewhat reflect this attitude. Look at the issues they focus on, and see if that's really the issues most Americans care about. I would guess that it's not. I think that's part of the reason that Democrats lost seats nationwide, and the federal and state levels. I'm not saying the Republicans are any better because they gained seats. But I think "middle America" Democrats and "southern" Democrats are FAR different than "coastal" Democrats. I mean, I think you're in Texas (IIRC), I'm sure you can see a difference.

We're at a point where we still argue over what a "right" is, and what's in the Constitution and what isn't. There are chasms there that I don't know if we as a country can resolve.

I would guess that a lot of us are. How many "Democrats" or "Republicans" do you know who would vote for the "other" party? How many would vote for an "independent" candidate or a Libertarian (or someone not of "their" party) for the "good" of America? I can't say I know very many, and I would wager most people don't.

And what's "good" for America is likely going to differ among those of different political stripes. There may be some "common ground" on a few things, but I think a lot of other issues there will be a divide. I'm not sure what we can do about that.

I consider myself an independent Conservative. Though I do think I have some "indifferent" opinions on some issues (both fiscal and social), and I'm probably "libertarian" on some things.

I think it depends on what you mean by a war "ending well", actually. It's fair to say, for example, that WW2 was necessary, and arguably the problems afterwards weren't caused by WW2 itself. (the Cold War was caused by distrust between Communist and Western leaders- even if Hitler hadn't come to power, it's likely the Cold War- or even an actual shooting war- would have broken out. It had little to do with WW2 itself, except that WW2 meant nuclear weapons existed.)

This seems very black and white. I mean, people are rarely defined only by a single characteristic; what do you do when, inevitably, some of these characteristics combine? How do you deal with the sexist Lesbian, the racist Queer, the homophobic Buddhist?

To me, being tolerant means I don't judge people based on gender, race, religion. I frankly don't much care whether someone identifies as straight, bi, or gay; or whether they are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist. That makes no difference to me.

On the other hand, I don't see the need to specifically "welcome and respect" someone just because they're LGBTQIA , or from a different race or religion. To me, they're neither worse nor better than people who are straight, white and Christian, so I extend the same degree of welcome and respect to them. I try to judge and treat people according to their behavior.

it's a generalization meant to make a point. If someone is being racist I tell them to knock it off, if they refuse I leave or kick them out depending on where I am. I don't tolerate the hate speech.

You're trying to poke holes for the sake of argument.

I was trying to make a point. There are shitheads in every group. I was taking issue with the word "tolerate" because it's usage and meaning are flawed here.

I'm not poking holes for the sake of argument; I am trying to understand where you are coming from. And I am taking issue with your definition, and thus rejection, of the word "tolerate". It doesn't necessarily mean not liking something; of course, for something you like, no tolerance is necessary, but there is also a vast area where neither like nor dislike is present, and this is where tolerance comes in.

We humans are tribal people. From our earliest times, it has been part of our ways to form groups, find some sort of collective identifier within our group, and protect what is ours from other groups of humans. Because resources are scarce; and even if they're not, they might someday be, and why should we share what we need with others? Whether they have a different skin colour, or dress in deer hides instead of wolf pelts, or revere the river goddess rather than the storm god: we've found something that's different about them, and thus, we can feel good in excluding them.

This is why practicing tolerance is important: it is difficult, it requires work, precisely because it is against our very nature. Because it we don't actively work on it, our instinct will be to close off against someone who's different. Shut them out, disregard them, dehumanize them, fight them. Because they're not our tribe.

Here is an interesting example from Canada: cis-women feeling threatened by support for trans-women.

my definition was pretty clear. I was making a point. I am saying that I don't tolerate people who are LGBTQIA because I accept them and don't discriminate and automatically dislike them because they belong to that group.

Tolerating would be if I were a homophobe but had to work with a gay man. I'd be tolerating that man.

I personally don't care, if he does his job and is a nice person I don't care about his orientation.

I'm a liberal, and I'm not tolerant at all. Because to tolerate something means to put up with or accept something you hate. And the only thing I hate is people trying to tell other people how to live. And the only time I tolerate that is at work because I need the job.

I don't have to tolerate other religions or races, or gender identity, or sexual preferences, or what ever, because it really doesn't effect me one way or the other how someone else lives, as long as they get the same rights that I do.

I think our society is in a very dangerous place right now, as one side labels everything it disagrees with "hateful", "racist", "fascist", "intolerant", etc., and makes comments like Greenday, that the left is done dealing with our "crap."

The problem here is that what is crap and what isn't entirely depends on your point of view. SJWs and the left have taken the view (unjustly, in my opinion), that they have the moral high ground and anyone who disagrees is evil and literally Hitler. Groups like the antifa have arisen and are literally using violence, threats and intimidation against conservatives. And while some of you may actually cheer and say "They deserve it," can't you see what this is going to do to our society? When violence becomes the only answer to those you disagree with, peaceful change and participation in the political process becomes impossible. I know some extremists have visions of killing, suppressing and otherwise "shutting down" those who don't conform to their worldview.

The problem is that when peaceful debate and change become impossible[, history shows us that violence becomes inevitable.

And I have news for the far left--Try coming for us, and you'll be in for a shock, because we will defend ourselves. We will not lay down and die at your command. By legitimizing violence, the antifa and other "SJWs" are sending the message that they care only for their agenda, with no regard to elections, the democratic process, law and order, or any of the other foundations of a free and civil society. In essence, they are demanding they be allowed to rule and their policies be implemented regardless of the will of the electorate or the system for elections set up by our Constitution. And there will ALWAYS be dissent. You cannot regulate or outlaw thoughts, opinions, or ideas. It may drive them underground, but it will not eliminate them, and it will cause problems.