15 ms·

Tolerance is not a moral precept. As a liberal, I tolerate differences in opinion, but I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the

m52go 9y ago
> I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics. > Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? > Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. Another instance of the first point. Who's saying they shouldn't? Again, the other side wants the same thing--they simply disagree with means to achieve it. But you happen think those means are 'sanctioning violence' against them. And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this? The left always tends to fall back on this argument of 'basic human rights' as if the sky is falling because the right wants to take them all away & punish anyone who isn't a straight white male. It's just a ludicrous mindset that, again, makes it almost impossible to have a rational debate. The nonsensical language in your comment makes that clear.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Yes, while the grandparent accuses others of "institutionalized violence", who advocates the use of government force to ensure that the bureaucrat's definition of an ideal sexual and racial distribution is achieved? Who says that people should be jailed for advocating policies with which they disagree? Who leads campaigns to see corporate force exerted against their political opponents, and to hyperbolize benign, even obvious and commonly-believed, statements into threats of genocide? Suggesting that hires be made based on merit and function rather than the "diversity quota" published by some federal bureaucrat trying to justify their department's existence is so far away from threatening anyone's "right to exist" that they're not even in the same universe. People holding such distant frames of reference cannot have a reasonable conversation. And that's exactly the point.
- AnotXOR 9y ago
  Calling your opposition Hitler makes you a pretty strong candidate for sympathy votes. You may not get Hitler assassinated, but you might just get a few programs through that much easier. Think about it.
- ltrcola 9y ago
  > Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? A lot of opinions around trans people are centered around it being a mental delusion that shouldn't be accommodated. That leaves them unable to transition and live in society without mental harm. If that isn't persecution, not sure what is!
  - RaleyField 9y ago
    > around it being a mental delusion But those people aren't Fortune 500 material so not pertinent to the discussion. Those people are on the extreme side of the right. It wouldn't be fair if I started to draw conclusions about the left from what you hear people say on /r/latestagecapitalism either.
    - m52go 9y ago
      Yeah that's another problem. People immediately assume the worst as soon as you say something even the least bit supportive of 'the other side'. Trump tries to get rid of unnecessary regulations "Guys, I think Trump might actually have a point here..." "OH MY GOD YOU MUST BE A CLIMATE DENIER!"
toomuchtodo 9y ago
> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists…but don’t want to be called one yourself? Methinks you protest a little too much. I support bigots and misogynists speaking their opinions because its a right enumerated by the US constitution. I don't mind being called a bigot or misogynists myself if that's what is required to defend inalienable rights. You have no right not to be outraged or offended by someone's opinion. And it is disgusting to see someone's livelihood jeopardized because of political correctness. The backlash started in November, and this is only going to dump gasoline on the raging dumpster fire.
- adjkant 9y ago
  There is a strong difference between supporting their right to speak their opinions and supporting their opinions. By voting for those candidates and if you have supported the party, you have supported their opinions, not just their right to share them. This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? Right now, I think most progressives say no, conservatives obviously say yes. That is the actual gray area this comes down to. This is an exaggeration, but it illustrates the argument of the left: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/223/669/6bc.jpg http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/223/669/6bc... It should also be noted that the US constitution is being used very out of context here. The US constitution guarantees you the right to say what you want. It does not protect you from the repercussions of your speech, which is what is harming the livelihoods you cite. Whether that is moral is a valid debate, but misusing the constitution here is a broken crutch for the argument. The right has made common use of misusing the constitution, most recently in their abandonment of "states rights" during the current administration.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? The debate and argument of ideas is non-negotiable if we desire a free society. EDIT: I choose to be tolerant of ideas that may be abhorrent or cause harm, because the alternative is much worse.
jrs95 9y ago
He was in no way advocating for that though. Not supporting some diversity programs isn't the same thing as thinking women ought to be harassed or discriminated against. We should be studying programs like this and explaining why they work, not just silencing all criticism with blanket accusations of bigotry. The current culture around this sort of thing is counter productive in actually achieving a more diverse and equitable workforce, in my opinion.
- chrissnell 9y ago
  Well said. I do think the tech world needs more diversity, absolutely. It's just that I fundamentally disagree with the way it's being managed. I believe that tech companies need to be working with minorities and women at an earlier age (high schoolers, college freshmen) to groom them and steer them towards STEM careers. What I don't agree with is quota systems and affirmative action programs. I also strongly object to those who criticize these practices being labeled as bigots and mysogynists.
  - kevingadd 9y ago
    If you really think those programs are ineffective, you need to roll out a superior solution before you suggest throwing them all away. Otherwise you're just pulling the rope up behind you because you're already in the treehouse, and you can sit there and continue to wring your hands over the poor state of things.
    - chrissnell 9y ago
      I respectfully disagree with you here. Why do I have to "own" inclusion and equality just because I disagree with the specific implementation? Why can't it be the responsibility of the VP of Inclusion to figure this out in a way that doesn't blatantly favor one class of people over another?
      - kevingadd 9y ago
        You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree - and removing them without advocating a replacement. Apply this same logic to any other workplace context and it should be obvious how unproductive it is. How far would you get in your day-to-day work if the only thing all your coworkers did is say "no"? Should the ACA - or health insurance in general - simply be abolished due to defects that you dislike, without a replacement? If the VP of inclusion isn't doing a good job up to your standards, should they just be fired? When Mr. Damore advocated for the removal of all these programs without providing concrete suggestions on how to replace them with better programs, he committed a similar error. (This is aside from the reasoning he used to try to justify it, which is another set of issues)
toufka 9y ago
Please be more civil and careful with your language. You just called another member of your community a bigot for being a member of a particular political party, not even for their particular beliefs. A bigot is precisely, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance."
- kevingadd 9y ago
  Read the party's official platform sometime, or maybe just a few tweets from the president.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Maybe you should read the Republican platform. I'm going to pull a few at random from https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/ https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/ - A simplified tax code along with tax cuts with the goal of growing the market. - Fairer trade agreements that put American workers first. - Ease the process of home ownership. - Investment in transportation and electric infrastructure. - Investment in, and promoting education in STEM. - Fostering growth in start-ups and small business. - Right to gun ownership. - Right to free speech. - Right to privacy. - Right to life. - Congressional term limits. I don't agree with a lot of it but it seems they're far from monsters. They're pretty up front about what they believe and why.
    - sitkack 9y ago
      The Constitution of Mexico is probably the best written in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Mexico
    - kevingadd 9y ago
      I respectfully disagree with your opinion here, as their official platform and statements also contain many things that a typical american might describe as bigoted or harmful. This single article (near the top of the search results for 'gop platform transgender' just to pick one) contains quite a few real examples: http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-platform-takes-harsh-stance-against-lgb http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-... Furthermore, the bigotry and discrimination in the GOP platform is well supported by the actual conduct of republican lawmakers in the house and senate. An individual's right to hold their own opinions on these matters - regardless of how much I might agree with them - is one matter, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend nothing objectionable is a part of the modern GOP platform. I say this as someone who voted GOP in the past.
tomcam 9y ago
> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists Citation?
tomcam 9y ago
> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists Citation?
lettergram 9y ago
> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists…but don’t want to be called one yourself? Methinks you protest a little too much. Supporting a GOP candidate isn't necessarily making you a bigot. Not all candidates are bigots. I personally am a libertarian, and I get made fun of so often it's pretty insane. Repeatedly, I've been yelled at (yes yelled at) by liberals claiming I "helped elect the next Hitler". This has happened more than once. At work, at social events, etc. and it's insane that just not supporting what I feel is also bigotry (liberal ideals) that I'm treated that way[1]. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry
- vyhd 9y ago
  > Supporting a GOP candidate isn't necessarily making you a bigot. Not exactly, but it is saying that bigotry is not a deal-breaker for your support and that's a distinction with a marginal difference. See also http://time.com/4405018/gop-platform-lgbt-issues/ http://time.com/4405018/gop-platform-lgbt-issues/
ctlby 9y ago
Speech=violence is perhaps the most hyperbolically nonsensical belief held by any political group today.
- kevingadd 9y ago
  United States law classifies specific forms of speech as illegal, in some cases because they incite violence. There's obviously an objective difference between saying 'you should go murder that guy' and twisting the knife yourself but it's pointlessly reductive to act as if all speech is harmless or fully equivalent.
- tunesmith 9y ago
  I agree as someone liberal/progressive, thinks the manifesto is generally idiotic, etc. Progressives are doing themselves a huge disservice to cede the moral authority on free speech to the alt-right.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    The other one they ceded, and the one that lost the election probably, was the traditionally leftist ideas such as anti-globalization and concerns for the workers. Chomsky and even Sanders not that long ago were railing against NAFTA and Open Borders. But then the current president picked and ran with those ideas and the Left was well left (pun intended) with a few issues such as identity politics, Wall Street donors, but also strangely enough Occupy Wall Street supporters... so they they lost. It should have been a slam dunk against a TV personality. There was perhaps a glimmer of hope, thinking "Ok, now the left will rethink its position, will turn the DNC upside down and a new and vibrant left will appear in the American politics, possibly running with many of the idea that Sanders ran" and then nothing much happened. The main political message so far is being "anti - whatever the president is or does". They botched a nice PR initiative about Russia, it was going so well, until they went to far and now they have nothing left. At last someone there raised the alarm and so they limply came up with the new slogan "Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future" "https://www.vox.com/2017/7/23/16016676/chuck-schumer-democrats-populism" https://www.vox.com/2017/7/23/16016676/chuck-schumer-democra... but I think it is too little, too late. It's doing to be an uphill battle. I just expected more, not sure why.. Instead I got a stream of nonsense about Russia, a bunch of anti Trump rallies, how many scoops of ice creams he had and so on.
alexanderstears 9y ago
Do you think the letter was an attempt to deny people "fair civil rights"? If so, can you explain what "fair civil rights" are?
mancerayder 9y ago
Tolerance is not a moral precept. As a liberal, I tolerate differences in opinion, but I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence. Your view that an opinion can be equated with violence is unethical, but I'm convinced a stronger historical reading would make you blush. It's a terrible and thin rationization. It's so easy to do, here are examples from right and left, with varying degrees of extremeness, quite like yours. Not your or my opinions, but historical (if abstracted) examples: - Your opinion that the military in this country should be replaced with an elected government is counter-revolutionary, and your poisonous ideas should be ceased before the imperialist hordes ruin our independence. - Your opinion that our military intervention was wrong in such and such country is unpatriotic, and therefore illegal. - Your opinion that God doesn't exist deeply offends religious people and therefore you should not say it, and people like you should be prevented from these deeply offensive opinions. - Your opinion that drugs should be legalized is illegal because children can view it as a condoning and get hurt. - Your opinion that this first world war is wrong is sedition, and will lead to prison time. It's harmful to this country and the war. I hope I illustrated my point. The last was the Sedition Act, the others are more than just one incident. I've been Left all my life and I'm deeply, deeply ashamed and nervous about the new generation's disregard of free speech and opinions that contrast their own. It's due to a lack of historical knowledge. I am convinced.
- Aloha 9y ago
  It's nice to hear that I'm not the only one with a growing sense of unease at the current trend for every disagreement turning into an 'us' versus 'them' dichotomy.
  - james-mcelwain 9y ago
    Doesn't this memo create an "us" vs "them" dichotomy in itself?
    - Aloha 9y ago
nybbler 9y ago
Accepting arguendo that "tolerance is not a moral precept", and assuming you're referring to Yonatan Zunger's essay, you might consider that he likened it to a peace treaty. Which is now broken. Breaking a peace treaty means active hostilities. Seems like a really bad time to do that, given the current US administration.
- snerbles 9y ago
  Given how frequently some are equating wrong opinions as violence, it seems to be a matter of time before they respond in kind.
stronglikedan 9y ago
There are bigots and misogynists in the Republican Party, and there are bigots and misogynists in the Democratic Party. Politics is much more than that, as are one's political views. No one deserves to be treated vitriolically for supporting a political party.
waterhouse 9y ago
There exist people who think abortion is a murderous violation of certain people's human rights. There also exist people who think forbidding abortion is a violation of the human rights of the mothers. There exist people who think that taxing them and using the money to pay for things they find abhorrent (e.g. war) is a violation of their fundamental rights. There exist people who think that compulsory education is a violation of children's rights. Should all these people say the following: "These are basic human rights and the party you have chosen to support thinks that they are subject to debate", "If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them", "attempts to deny people fair civil rights ... [are] institutionalized violence"? And then feel justified in, say, campaigning to get anyone who disagrees with them fired? I do agree, by the way, that advocating laws that violate people's rights is not much morally different from doing the violation oneself. As an anarcho-capitalist, I conclude that probably >99% of political discourse consists of people advocating laws that violate people's rights. I sigh, shrug, and try to make a difference in the places where I can.
notyourday 9y ago
> Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them. Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them. And this position is exactly what causes sane people to say "Left is embracing insanity. I do not like those I affiliate with embracing insanity. I guess I'm just going to avoid participating"
sitkack 9y ago
I love how the Right has co-opted persecution rhetoric, well done.
swat535 9y ago
How is it possible to claim that tolerance is not a notion that morality addresses? Is morality not a standard of conduct that all should abide by? Or once again is it simply a notion that is brandished like a beacon simply when it is convenient and then snuffed out like a mere candle when it no longer suits the individual and has long outlived its usefulness?
weberc2 9y ago
To be clear, bigotry is the intolerance of dissenting opinions, and your post models that perfectly. This is the most fallacious post I've read in a while, notably the absurd notion that the GOP is existentially opposed to trans, etc people (mind you I'm not a Republican or a conservative). It's these sorts of posts which lead people to believe that lliberals are dishonest, hypocritical bigots.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
LordHumungous 9y ago
>Tolerance is not a moral precept. Yes it is. You mean it's not a moral precept that you value. > I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence. Welcome to the logic of the left wing extremist: speech that he or she disagrees with isn't actually speech, it's violence. After all his politics are self-evidently synonymous with justice, therefore any criticism is synonymous with hatred and bigotry. There will never be any criticism of his politics, no matter how measured, no matter how tame, that he will not consider hate speech.
- devdas 9y ago
  Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral precept. It is fair to not tolerate the intolerant.
hjrnunes 9y ago
How hypocritical. Tolerance is only tolerance if it's voluntary. Otherwise it is coercion at best, tyranny at worst. If you have to impose it, it's not tolerance anymore.
peoplewindow 9y ago
> As a liberal, I tolerate differences in opinion You very clearly do not.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
You perfectly exemplify the problem with that remark. Imagine if pro-life people said that "No your pro-choice belief isn't an opinion, it's institutionalized murder and it triggers me as a parent, and makes me feel unsafe, and so if you express that opinion you are violating my safe space and may need to be fired for your deliberately offensive remarks."

m52go 9y ago

> I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics. > Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? > Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. Another instance of the first point. Who's saying they shouldn't? Again, the other side wants the same thing--they simply disagree with means to achieve it. But you happen think those means are 'sanctioning violence' against them. And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this? The left always tends to fall back on this argument of 'basic human rights' as if the sky is falling because the right wants to take them all away & punish anyone who isn't a straight white male. It's just a ludicrous mindset that, again, makes it almost impossible to have a rational debate. The nonsensical language in your comment makes that clear.

cookiecaper 9y ago
Yes, while the grandparent accuses others of "institutionalized violence", who advocates the use of government force to ensure that the bureaucrat's definition of an ideal sexual and racial distribution is achieved? Who says that people should be jailed for advocating policies with which they disagree? Who leads campaigns to see corporate force exerted against their political opponents, and to hyperbolize benign, even obvious and commonly-believed, statements into threats of genocide? Suggesting that hires be made based on merit and function rather than the "diversity quota" published by some federal bureaucrat trying to justify their department's existence is so far away from threatening anyone's "right to exist" that they're not even in the same universe. People holding such distant frames of reference cannot have a reasonable conversation. And that's exactly the point.
AnotXOR 9y ago
Calling your opposition Hitler makes you a pretty strong candidate for sympathy votes. You may not get Hitler assassinated, but you might just get a few programs through that much easier. Think about it.
ltrcola 9y ago
> Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? A lot of opinions around trans people are centered around it being a mental delusion that shouldn't be accommodated. That leaves them unable to transition and live in society without mental harm. If that isn't persecution, not sure what is!
- RaleyField 9y ago
  > around it being a mental delusion But those people aren't Fortune 500 material so not pertinent to the discussion. Those people are on the extreme side of the right. It wouldn't be fair if I started to draw conclusions about the left from what you hear people say on /r/latestagecapitalism either.
  - m52go 9y ago
    Yeah that's another problem. People immediately assume the worst as soon as you say something even the least bit supportive of 'the other side'. Trump tries to get rid of unnecessary regulations "Guys, I think Trump might actually have a point here..." "OH MY GOD YOU MUST BE A CLIMATE DENIER!"

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists…but don’t want to be called one yourself? Methinks you protest a little too much. I support bigots and misogynists speaking their opinions because its a right enumerated by the US constitution. I don't mind being called a bigot or misogynists myself if that's what is required to defend inalienable rights. You have no right not to be outraged or offended by someone's opinion. And it is disgusting to see someone's livelihood jeopardized because of political correctness. The backlash started in November, and this is only going to dump gasoline on the raging dumpster fire.

adjkant 9y ago
There is a strong difference between supporting their right to speak their opinions and supporting their opinions. By voting for those candidates and if you have supported the party, you have supported their opinions, not just their right to share them. This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? Right now, I think most progressives say no, conservatives obviously say yes. That is the actual gray area this comes down to. This is an exaggeration, but it illustrates the argument of the left: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/223/669/6bc.jpg http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/223/669/6bc... It should also be noted that the US constitution is being used very out of context here. The US constitution guarantees you the right to say what you want. It does not protect you from the repercussions of your speech, which is what is harming the livelihoods you cite. Whether that is moral is a valid debate, but misusing the constitution here is a broken crutch for the argument. The right has made common use of misusing the constitution, most recently in their abandonment of "states rights" during the current administration.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > This comes down to your views on a single question: do you have to be tolerant of opinions or actions that harm others? The debate and argument of ideas is non-negotiable if we desire a free society. EDIT: I choose to be tolerant of ideas that may be abhorrent or cause harm, because the alternative is much worse.

jrs95 9y ago

He was in no way advocating for that though. Not supporting some diversity programs isn't the same thing as thinking women ought to be harassed or discriminated against. We should be studying programs like this and explaining why they work, not just silencing all criticism with blanket accusations of bigotry. The current culture around this sort of thing is counter productive in actually achieving a more diverse and equitable workforce, in my opinion.

chrissnell 9y ago
Well said. I do think the tech world needs more diversity, absolutely. It's just that I fundamentally disagree with the way it's being managed. I believe that tech companies need to be working with minorities and women at an earlier age (high schoolers, college freshmen) to groom them and steer them towards STEM careers. What I don't agree with is quota systems and affirmative action programs. I also strongly object to those who criticize these practices being labeled as bigots and mysogynists.
- kevingadd 9y ago
  If you really think those programs are ineffective, you need to roll out a superior solution before you suggest throwing them all away. Otherwise you're just pulling the rope up behind you because you're already in the treehouse, and you can sit there and continue to wring your hands over the poor state of things.
  - chrissnell 9y ago
    I respectfully disagree with you here. Why do I have to "own" inclusion and equality just because I disagree with the specific implementation? Why can't it be the responsibility of the VP of Inclusion to figure this out in a way that doesn't blatantly favor one class of people over another?
    - kevingadd 9y ago
      You're talking about taking programs that work - at least to some degree - and removing them without advocating a replacement. Apply this same logic to any other workplace context and it should be obvious how unproductive it is. How far would you get in your day-to-day work if the only thing all your coworkers did is say "no"? Should the ACA - or health insurance in general - simply be abolished due to defects that you dislike, without a replacement? If the VP of inclusion isn't doing a good job up to your standards, should they just be fired? When Mr. Damore advocated for the removal of all these programs without providing concrete suggestions on how to replace them with better programs, he committed a similar error. (This is aside from the reasoning he used to try to justify it, which is another set of issues)

toufka 9y ago

Please be more civil and careful with your language. You just called another member of your community a bigot for being a member of a particular political party, not even for their particular beliefs. A bigot is precisely, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance."

kevingadd 9y ago
Read the party's official platform sometime, or maybe just a few tweets from the president.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Maybe you should read the Republican platform. I'm going to pull a few at random from https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/ https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/ - A simplified tax code along with tax cuts with the goal of growing the market. - Fairer trade agreements that put American workers first. - Ease the process of home ownership. - Investment in transportation and electric infrastructure. - Investment in, and promoting education in STEM. - Fostering growth in start-ups and small business. - Right to gun ownership. - Right to free speech. - Right to privacy. - Right to life. - Congressional term limits. I don't agree with a lot of it but it seems they're far from monsters. They're pretty up front about what they believe and why.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    The Constitution of Mexico is probably the best written in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Mexico
  - kevingadd 9y ago
    I respectfully disagree with your opinion here, as their official platform and statements also contain many things that a typical american might describe as bigoted or harmful. This single article (near the top of the search results for 'gop platform transgender' just to pick one) contains quite a few real examples: http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-platform-takes-harsh-stance-against-lgb http://www.hrc.org/blog/republican-national-convention-2016-... Furthermore, the bigotry and discrimination in the GOP platform is well supported by the actual conduct of republican lawmakers in the house and senate. An individual's right to hold their own opinions on these matters - regardless of how much I might agree with them - is one matter, but it's intellectually dishonest to pretend nothing objectionable is a part of the modern GOP platform. I say this as someone who voted GOP in the past.

tomcam 9y ago

> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists Citation?

tomcam 9y ago

> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists Citation?

lettergram 9y ago

> You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists…but don’t want to be called one yourself? Methinks you protest a little too much. Supporting a GOP candidate isn't necessarily making you a bigot. Not all candidates are bigots. I personally am a libertarian, and I get made fun of so often it's pretty insane. Repeatedly, I've been yelled at (yes yelled at) by liberals claiming I "helped elect the next Hitler". This has happened more than once. At work, at social events, etc. and it's insane that just not supporting what I feel is also bigotry (liberal ideals) that I'm treated that way[1]. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry

vyhd 9y ago
> Supporting a GOP candidate isn't necessarily making you a bigot. Not exactly, but it is saying that bigotry is not a deal-breaker for your support and that's a distinction with a marginal difference. See also http://time.com/4405018/gop-platform-lgbt-issues/ http://time.com/4405018/gop-platform-lgbt-issues/

ctlby 9y ago

Speech=violence is perhaps the most hyperbolically nonsensical belief held by any political group today.

kevingadd 9y ago
United States law classifies specific forms of speech as illegal, in some cases because they incite violence. There's obviously an objective difference between saying 'you should go murder that guy' and twisting the knife yourself but it's pointlessly reductive to act as if all speech is harmless or fully equivalent.
tunesmith 9y ago
I agree as someone liberal/progressive, thinks the manifesto is generally idiotic, etc. Progressives are doing themselves a huge disservice to cede the moral authority on free speech to the alt-right.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  The other one they ceded, and the one that lost the election probably, was the traditionally leftist ideas such as anti-globalization and concerns for the workers. Chomsky and even Sanders not that long ago were railing against NAFTA and Open Borders. But then the current president picked and ran with those ideas and the Left was well left (pun intended) with a few issues such as identity politics, Wall Street donors, but also strangely enough Occupy Wall Street supporters... so they they lost. It should have been a slam dunk against a TV personality. There was perhaps a glimmer of hope, thinking "Ok, now the left will rethink its position, will turn the DNC upside down and a new and vibrant left will appear in the American politics, possibly running with many of the idea that Sanders ran" and then nothing much happened. The main political message so far is being "anti - whatever the president is or does". They botched a nice PR initiative about Russia, it was going so well, until they went to far and now they have nothing left. At last someone there raised the alarm and so they limply came up with the new slogan "Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future" "https://www.vox.com/2017/7/23/16016676/chuck-schumer-democrats-populism" https://www.vox.com/2017/7/23/16016676/chuck-schumer-democra... but I think it is too little, too late. It's doing to be an uphill battle. I just expected more, not sure why.. Instead I got a stream of nonsense about Russia, a bunch of anti Trump rallies, how many scoops of ice creams he had and so on.

alexanderstears 9y ago

Do you think the letter was an attempt to deny people "fair civil rights"? If so, can you explain what "fair civil rights" are?

mancerayder 9y ago

Tolerance is not a moral precept. As a liberal, I tolerate differences in opinion, but I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence. Your view that an opinion can be equated with violence is unethical, but I'm convinced a stronger historical reading would make you blush. It's a terrible and thin rationization. It's so easy to do, here are examples from right and left, with varying degrees of extremeness, quite like yours. Not your or my opinions, but historical (if abstracted) examples: - Your opinion that the military in this country should be replaced with an elected government is counter-revolutionary, and your poisonous ideas should be ceased before the imperialist hordes ruin our independence. - Your opinion that our military intervention was wrong in such and such country is unpatriotic, and therefore illegal. - Your opinion that God doesn't exist deeply offends religious people and therefore you should not say it, and people like you should be prevented from these deeply offensive opinions. - Your opinion that drugs should be legalized is illegal because children can view it as a condoning and get hurt. - Your opinion that this first world war is wrong is sedition, and will lead to prison time. It's harmful to this country and the war. I hope I illustrated my point. The last was the Sedition Act, the others are more than just one incident. I've been Left all my life and I'm deeply, deeply ashamed and nervous about the new generation's disregard of free speech and opinions that contrast their own. It's due to a lack of historical knowledge. I am convinced.

Aloha 9y ago
It's nice to hear that I'm not the only one with a growing sense of unease at the current trend for every disagreement turning into an 'us' versus 'them' dichotomy.
- james-mcelwain 9y ago
  Doesn't this memo create an "us" vs "them" dichotomy in itself?
  - Aloha 9y ago

nybbler 9y ago

Accepting arguendo that "tolerance is not a moral precept", and assuming you're referring to Yonatan Zunger's essay, you might consider that he likened it to a peace treaty. Which is now broken. Breaking a peace treaty means active hostilities. Seems like a really bad time to do that, given the current US administration.

snerbles 9y ago
Given how frequently some are equating wrong opinions as violence, it seems to be a matter of time before they respond in kind.

stronglikedan 9y ago

There are bigots and misogynists in the Republican Party, and there are bigots and misogynists in the Democratic Party. Politics is much more than that, as are one's political views. No one deserves to be treated vitriolically for supporting a political party.

waterhouse 9y ago

There exist people who think abortion is a murderous violation of certain people's human rights. There also exist people who think forbidding abortion is a violation of the human rights of the mothers. There exist people who think that taxing them and using the money to pay for things they find abhorrent (e.g. war) is a violation of their fundamental rights. There exist people who think that compulsory education is a violation of children's rights. Should all these people say the following: "These are basic human rights and the party you have chosen to support thinks that they are subject to debate", "If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them", "attempts to deny people fair civil rights ... [are] institutionalized violence"? And then feel justified in, say, campaigning to get anyone who disagrees with them fired? I do agree, by the way, that advocating laws that violate people's rights is not much morally different from doing the violation oneself. As an anarcho-capitalist, I conclude that probably >99% of political discourse consists of people advocating laws that violate people's rights. I sigh, shrug, and try to make a difference in the places where I can.

notyourday 9y ago

> Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them. Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them. And this position is exactly what causes sane people to say "Left is embracing insanity. I do not like those I affiliate with embracing insanity. I guess I'm just going to avoid participating"

sitkack 9y ago

I love how the Right has co-opted persecution rhetoric, well done.

swat535 9y ago

How is it possible to claim that tolerance is not a notion that morality addresses? Is morality not a standard of conduct that all should abide by? Or once again is it simply a notion that is brandished like a beacon simply when it is convenient and then snuffed out like a mere candle when it no longer suits the individual and has long outlived its usefulness?

weberc2 9y ago

To be clear, bigotry is the intolerance of dissenting opinions, and your post models that perfectly. This is the most fallacious post I've read in a while, notably the absurd notion that the GOP is existentially opposed to trans, etc people (mind you I'm not a Republican or a conservative). It's these sorts of posts which lead people to believe that lliberals are dishonest, hypocritical bigots.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

LordHumungous 9y ago

>Tolerance is not a moral precept. Yes it is. You mean it's not a moral precept that you value. > I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence. Welcome to the logic of the left wing extremist: speech that he or she disagrees with isn't actually speech, it's violence. After all his politics are self-evidently synonymous with justice, therefore any criticism is synonymous with hatred and bigotry. There will never be any criticism of his politics, no matter how measured, no matter how tame, that he will not consider hate speech.

devdas 9y ago
Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a moral precept. It is fair to not tolerate the intolerant.

hjrnunes 9y ago

How hypocritical. Tolerance is only tolerance if it's voluntary. Otherwise it is coercion at best, tyranny at worst. If you have to impose it, it's not tolerance anymore.

peoplewindow 9y ago

> As a liberal, I tolerate differences in opinion You very clearly do not.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

You perfectly exemplify the problem with that remark. Imagine if pro-life people said that "No your pro-choice belief isn't an opinion, it's institutionalized murder and it triggers me as a parent, and makes me feel unsafe, and so if you express that opinion you are violating my safe space and may need to be fired for your deliberately offensive remarks."