I thought of DCUM when reading this Buckley quote

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks folks, your replies have been thoroughly entertaining! Not a scintilla of self-reflection, just pugnacious aggression. There are really too many silly points to take on here (too busy watching baseball) but I will point out I was talking liberal/conservative, not Dem/Rep--ya know, there is a difference?

I tend to the libertarian myself and don't care who marries whom. But I also don't like it when the EPA fines a property owner $30,000/day. I'm pro-choice, but respect that an honest dialog around partial and late term abortions may be useful. There's more, but watching yanks/O's is more interesting tonite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I rarely read George Will but loved his citation of Wm Buckley's: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

It reminded me of all these faux "gee how can anyone support Romney" threads which turn into more bashing of conservatives.

And people who spend time on the internet repeating grand blanket assumptions about people they probably have never met and know nothing about are... what? Open-minded geniuses? Get a life, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks folks, your replies have been thoroughly entertaining! Not a scintilla of self-reflection, just pugnacious aggression. There are really too many silly points to take on here (too busy watching baseball) but I will point out I was talking liberal/conservative, not Dem/Rep--ya know, there is a difference?

I tend to the libertarian myself and don't care who marries whom. But I also don't like it when the EPA fines a property owner $30,000/day. I'm pro-choice, but respect that an honest dialog around partial and late term abortions may be useful. There's more, but watching yanks/O's is more interesting tonite.

Wow, you might take a good look at yourself,OP. Not noticing much self-reflection on your part, either. So you've got a variety of views. So what! Being willing to listen to other people has nothing to do with how varied your views are. So far you haven't shown anyone that you're any different from the people you're criticizing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks folks, your replies have been thoroughly entertaining! Not a scintilla of self-reflection, just pugnacious aggression. There are really too many silly points to take on here (too busy watching baseball) but I will point out I was talking liberal/conservative, not Dem/Rep--ya know, there is a difference?

I tend to the libertarian myself and don't care who marries whom. But I also don't like it when the EPA fines a property owner $30,000/day. I'm pro-choice, but respect that an honest dialog around partial and late term abortions may be useful. There's more, but watching yanks/O's is more interesting tonite.

Well then you must find it ironic that the conservatives who claim to be tolerant actually care who marries whom. Apparently it's important to be tolerant of ideas, but it's just fine to be intolerant of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks folks, your replies have been thoroughly entertaining! Not a scintilla of self-reflection, just pugnacious aggression. There are really too many silly points to take on here (too busy watching baseball) but I will point out I was talking liberal/conservative, not Dem/Rep--ya know, there is a difference?

I tend to the libertarian myself and don't care who marries whom. But I also don't like it when the EPA fines a property owner $30,000/day. I'm pro-choice, but respect that an honest dialog around partial and late term abortions may be useful. There's more, but watching yanks/O's is more interesting tonite.

Well then you must find it ironic that the conservatives who claim to be tolerant actually care who marries whom. Apparently it's important to be tolerant of ideas, but it's just fine to be intolerant of people.

What would you say to those who want to marry a 13 year old? 14 year old? 12 year old? Do your tolerant views extend that far?

[Anonymous]

"What would you say to those who want to marry a 13 year old? 14 year old? 12 year old? Do your tolerant views extend that far?"

sure, if it's good enough for Jerry Lee Lewis...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I rarely read George Will but loved his citation of Wm Buckley's: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

It reminded me of all these faux "gee how can anyone support Romney" threads which turn into more bashing of conservatives.

This is a straw man argument, and a weak one at that.

To the degree that liberals are intolerant of conservative viewpoints, they are usually based on the inherent intolerance espoused in the views, or the policy that would otherwise restrict one's liberties.

Otherwise, most good liberals are perfectly open to hearing and considering viewpoints that may be different than their own. It's just when those other views essentially are intolerant in and of themselves that liberals stop listening.

That is not inconsistent. Not all viewpoints are valid.

i.e., You value your own "valid and intolerant" opinions above all! Thanks for the reminder!

No, and I'll thank you again for never again putting words in my mouth or deliberately twisting what I say.

Liberals are exceedingly tolerant. They welcome all views. UNTIL those views involve the infringement of others' rights.

For example, a liberal is willing to tolerate a discussion on voter rights. But the minute a conservative starts advocating voter ID laws as a thinly-disguised attempt to disenfranchise lots of voters, I'm no longer interested in what you have to say. It's not a valid opinion since voter fraud is not an actual problem.

The minute a conservative starts trying to restrict women's rights to make decisions about their own bodies, same thing. Your opinions are not valid.

Tolerance does not mean everything is equal and valid. I can hear you out, decide you're not worthy of my time (or citizenship in this country even) and tune you out and shout you down, and that is entirely consistent.

Democrats and liberals believe in personal freedom and equal opportunity. Conservatives tend to not.

Once again, your statements reveal your high opinion of your own beliefs and views, as well as your low regard for conservative opinions. That's fine because freedom of speech is one of our country's greatest freedoms, but you're not sounding like a person who's tolerant of views different than your own.

And once again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "tolerance."

Tolerance does not mean I have to accept your viewpoints. You seem to think that it does. It also doesn't mean I have to give them careful consideration if they are patently offensive, invalid, or otherwise unsupported by facts.

True story: The KKK once marched in my town. Legally, I tolerated it. But you seem to suggest that my failure to invite them to dinner and engage them in deep, open-minded conversation about their views on the supremacy of white people somehow makes me "intolerant." It does not.

Alternative, I'm as liberal as they come. But I am more than capable of having a genuine, rational give-and-take with a conservative who believes, for example, that the estate tax is bad. I can acknowledge their views that they view it as confiscatory and that it hurts capital formation. I can rebut them with my own views that our country was founded on a meritocracy and that the accumulation of wealth in dynastic families is bad for the country over all. But I will shut that person out if they start ranting about the "death tax" and insisting that it hurts small business owners, because I can prove, with facts, that not to be the case.

Similarly, I can discuss abortion with someone who opposes it if they're willing to meet me half-way decorum-wise. But for you to suggest I should have to tolerate being told "abortion is murder" or have gory photographs shoved into my face, you're wrong.

I realize you're trying to prove hypocrisy here, but you're failing miserably. It's not necessarily the content or the argument that liberals reject in these alleged cases of "intolerance" -- it is the pugnacious, strident tone they react to. Granted, there are polemicists on both the left and the right, but it's also true that no one likes them very much, except the true believers.

I might also add that you, OP, fall into this latter camp of people with your lazy intellect and straw man argument techniques. I'm sure you find it amusing, but you're pretty much alone in that.

[Anonymous]

Once again, your statements reveal your high opinion of your own beliefs and views, as well as your low regard for conservative opinions. That's fine because freedom of speech is one of our country's greatest freedoms, but you're not sounding like a person who's tolerant of views different than your own.

NP here, and this is one of the sillier tautologies I've ever read. So your beef with the PP is that she thinks she is right, and thinks you are wrong? And she thinks that people with whom she agrees are correct, and people with whom she disagrees are incorrect? Well . . . yeah. Of course. Do you often go around espousing ideas you KNOW, or even think, are incorrect?

As to your final "point," you seem to be mistaking tolerance with agreement. I tolerate opposing views just fine. Just because I don't end up agreeing with you, though, doesn't make me intolerant. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

I think that DCUM, the internet in general, and Will and Buckley themselves, demonstrate that the quote should actually replace "liberals" with "people".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Once again, your statements reveal your high opinion of your own beliefs and views, as well as your low regard for conservative opinions. That's fine because freedom of speech is one of our country's greatest freedoms, but you're not sounding like a person who's tolerant of views different than your own.

NP here, and this is one of the sillier tautologies I've ever read. So your beef with the PP is that she thinks she is right, and thinks you are wrong? And she thinks that people with whom she agrees are correct, and people with whom she disagrees are incorrect? Well . . . yeah. Of course. Do you often go around espousing ideas you KNOW, or even think, are incorrect?

As to your final "point," you seem to be mistaking tolerance with agreement. I tolerate opposing views just fine. Just because I don't end up agreeing with you, though, doesn't make me intolerant. Good grief.

No, I don't think tolerance should be equated with agreement. Within a supposedly polite discourse or internet discussion (not some guy hidden behind a robe and spouting hatred), I'm referring to the idea of "listening" with politeness and respect for another person's viewpoint without name-calling and belittling terminology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, I don't think tolerance should be equated with agreement. Within a supposedly polite discourse or internet discussion (not some guy hidden behind a robe and spouting hatred), I'm referring to the idea of "listening" with politeness and respect for another person's viewpoint without name-calling and belittling terminology.

Why even bother trying to have a discussion? You will always be wrong in their eyes.

[Anonymous]

OP,
Thanks for starting this thread and giving DCUM posters the chance to prove Buckley's point. The usual DCUM aggression, closed-mindedness, and intolerance.
They don't even recognize it.

[Anonymous]

NP. I am liberal, and a Democrat. It seems[i] to me that more liberals/democrats jump to conclusions or make up "real" motivations behind conservative views. For example, if a conservative opposes abortion, liberals say they are keeping women down. if they oppose affirmative action or illegal immigrants, they are racists. it is rude, disrespectful, and often wrong. it certainly doesn't encourage a real discussion on issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am liberal, and a Democrat. It seems[i] to me that more liberals/democrats jump to conclusions or make up "real" motivations behind conservative views. For example, if a conservative opposes abortion, liberals say they are keeping women down. if they oppose affirmative action or illegal immigrants, they are racists. it is rude, disrespectful, and often wrong. it certainly doesn't encourage a real discussion on issues.

You just d the republican candidate for president say that 47% of America is dependant on government and will never vote republican. And yet the liberals are the ones most guilty of ascribing motives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am liberal, and a Democrat. It seems[i] to me that more liberals/democrats jump to conclusions or make up "real" motivations behind conservative views. For example, if a conservative opposes abortion, liberals say they are keeping women down. if they oppose affirmative action or illegal immigrants, they are racists. it is rude, disrespectful, and often wrong. it certainly doesn't encourage a real discussion on issues.

OP here. Thanks for the note and the one above. The one below also makes one of my points, which is there's a yawning difference btw "liberal/conservative" and "dem/rep" and this inside-the-beltway crowd usually blurs the distinction. Of course my other favorite quote is from Churchill--as I near the age of 50 I think I'm trending from heart to brain!