There is no such thing as tolerance in modern culture. The typically example of "tolerance" is loud, accusatory liberals demanding everyone be tolerant of every choice every social deviant makes, while they pick and choose all those they believe to be intolerant and call for their ouster from society, and then pat themselves on the back for being so open-minded and wise.

It's ridiculous.

Well, THAT was helpful.

Thanks for contributing, Smoker. It wasn't meant to be "helpful", it's simply the truth.

Out "tolerant" liberals want to silence Christians, want to silence anyone that doesn't 100% support everything and anything LGBT, wants to silence anyone that speaks anything but one political argument regarding solving race/poverty/etc/etc issues, and on and on and on. There is no "tolerance"...."tolerance" in modern society means "shut up unless you are saying exactly what I want you to say....and if you don't, I will try to take away your job/your business/your livelihood/etc and make it so that you are persona non-grata." THAT is exactly what modern liberal "tolerance" is.

This is actually a really interesting article, but very long. I got the gist of it, but only read up to part 9 of 12 or so.

The author does say this: "the underlying attitudes that produce partyism are stronger than the underlying attitudes that produce racism."

That's what it's about. It's a pretty nuanced way to look at what people consider their "in" groups. Thanks for posting the link.

"Thanks for contributing, Smoker."
LOL, I suppose I deserved that. I haven't actually read the article yet. Going to do that now.....

So I didn't get very far into it, but I just wanted to say the author may be overestimating how common it is not to know people who politically disagree with you. Creationists? I know dozens. Homophobes? Ditto. Even out and out racists. Maybe this is because I live in the south? Now, granted only two of these types do I consider very close friends, but still. I am friendly with the others. We just avoid talking about those things, or, when we do, I treat it gingerly. They know what I believe though.

So, I'm not too sure the point is ringing true for me. I have a very diverse social circle, mostly because, I think, my lifestyle has changed a lot in the last few years, so I know people from all different walks of life. And I like almost all of them - and love each and every one of them.

I'm not trying to suggest I'm a paragon of tolerance though. I don't think I could ever be friends with a rich kid.

Don't worry. He didn't read the article either. He does exemplify the "red tribe" mentioned in the article quite nicely, though.

However it is a good point near the beginning that even bigots are human. Many human rights proponents forget that from time to time.

Eat the rich

Krellin you really should avoid grown-up conversations with your "Liberals are bad because....." rhetoric that actually never changes. Your world view is so limited you have limited value in any proper debate. Why don't you just get yourself a bit more educated then you wouldn't score 100 on the Krellometer all of the time. It can't feel that good continually being so ignorant, or can it?

Thucy,

I agree with you that the author's intellectual/cultural gettoization seems very extreme. Like you, I have quite a lot of friends with whom I sharply disagree on a lot of things. That said, I thought a lot of his other analysis was still strong.

I want 10 minutes of my life back.

It's nothing but a long rant from a so-called member of the "Blue Tribe" claiming that white liberals hate people who are similar to them (white conservatives) more than they do people who are different than them (Al Qaeda) and this makes them terrible people and hypocrites, because they preach "tolerance" while espousing hate worse than racism for conservatives. Whereas I suppose the "Red Tribe" hates who they should hate, (funny the article doesn't touch the Red Tribe's foibles at all, I guess they're entitled to be intolerant of not only the Blue Tribe but racial, sexual, and religious minorities too).

This is like a Krellin post written in Obiwan-ese. It's not worth your time.

Only a psychiatrist could make something so obvious in human nature sound so complicated. Let's look at this in very simple terms, baby rats in a cage, all related, to the human eye identical.
As food and water get scarce these rats (siblings) are going to turn on each other, they all want the same things but there is not enough to go around so they will have to take sides or team up to protect themselves, if they are left on their own they risk alienation and death so they pick a side, their individual chances of surviving are now much greater but some rat to go, the one unable to form good social bonds with the other rats, you could say there social failings made them favourites to be picked on in a crisis.
This could continue on until there were only 2 rats left and there was no food left, then to survive a little longer one would have to eat the other. Even if they didn't fight the weakest would die first and the strongest could survive by eating their mate.
You may abhor Albanians but if you have no dealings with them that prejudice cannot be reinforced and sustained, that doesn't mean you actually are tolerant of them just because you never meet them.
Liberal and Conservatives in the USA are very close to each other on the political spectrum when you look at world politics, in the UK they are actually in a political coalition. We as politicians only seek to accentuate the differences to make it easier for stupid people to tell us apart and give them a simpler decision to make.
Send this guy to live in the projects for a week, then send him to a posh private health spa where he gets pampered, now how is he feeling, I bet he can't wait to re-live that 1st week :-)
Some people seem to think that because they can write lots of words it bestows on them some kind of superior intelligence ....... I don't want to burst their bubble. If he was real smart he would be able to get his point across in 100 words.

Very interesting essay.

""shut up unless you are saying exactly what I want you to say....and if you don't, I will try to take away your job/your business/your livelihood/etc and make it so that you are persona non-grata."

Which is why conservative companies want to impose their religious beliefs about contraception and abortion on their workforce, why conservative companies force their workers to vote Republican or threaten to fire them, why conservative student groups on college campuses write up blacklists of professors they don't like in order to get them fired, and why conservatives have made a habit of firing people for being LGBTQ and blocking the construction of mosques.

Because ya'll are so tolerant.

Your idea of tolerance is forcing everybody to kneel down and conform to your culture and allow you to denigrate anybody who does not.

And anybody who even criticizes your habit of denigration and hatred is "out to get you". Because "freedom of speech" in your view means being able to bully people without being criticized.

"shut up unless you are saying exactly what I want you to say....and if you don't, I will try to take away your job/your business/your livelihood/etc and make it so that you are persona non-grata." (Putin33)
How this is specific to (or even, on a percentage basis and taking the entirety of the world's present and history into account, practiced most often by) Republicans, conservatives, Red Tribers, and bourgeoisie-lovers everywhere is a bit beyond me.

I didn't say that. Krellin did. I quoted him. Is your reading comprehension that poor?

"How this is specific to (or even, on a percentage basis and taking the entirety of the world's present and history into account, practiced most often by) Democrats, liberals, Blue Tribers, and proletarian-lovers everywhere is a bit beyond me."

The question you should be asking Krellin but of course won't.

As for the article, I think his definitions of Red Tribe and Blue Tribe were more than a little stereotypical and pretty specific to the United States -- where, as he sort-of noted occasionally, there are in fact sub-tribes galore -- but I thought his overall point was sound: it takes a great deal more difficulty to tolerate someone whom you view (on whatever basis) as an existential threat than to tolerate someone whom you view as either irrelevant to you or, obviously, friendly to you. It also takes a good deal more fortitude (and effort) to lay into someone else who is on "your" side ideologically, morally, or in some other abstract sense when doing so would make you appear to be on the "other" side than it is to actually lay into someone who is on the "other" side. And putting down the idea that ideologies are necessarily co-extensive with geographical or ascriptive characteristics is, I think, useful.

On the other hand, there's not a lot of new information here. I did find his application of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to the realm of political discourse interesting, but now, having read it, it seems so obvious that it's kind of embarrassing that I missed it before.

"I didn't say that. Krellin did. I quoted him. Is your reading comprehension that poor?"
Ooooooh. Good point! It would appear that it is. Sorry about that. :(

Actually, what I would say to Krellin is: okay, but who cares?

And as for:
"Which is why conservative companies want to impose their religious beliefs about contraception and abortion on their workforce, why conservative companies force their workers to vote Republican or threaten to fire them, why conservative student groups on college campuses write up blacklists of professors they don't like in order to get them fired, and why conservatives have made a habit of firing people for being LGBTQ and blocking the construction of mosques."
Okay, but who cares?

Sigh. Do I have to take on the weary task of showing, point by point, how Putin is either delusional or a liar, again?


"why conservative companies want to impose their religious beliefs about contraception and abortion on their workforce"

Not wanting to pay for something is not equivalent to imposing a belief. Indeed, it is those who wish to force others to use their money in ways that are against their consciences that are actually guilty of that imposition. Which is the liberal way--blame the opponent for doing exactly what you are doing.

"why conservative companies force their workers to vote Republican or threaten to fire them"

Bullshit. There is no evidence of this.

"why conservative student groups on college campuses write up blacklists of professors they don't like in order to get them fired"

People can make whatever lists they want. Does it ever succeed? I doubt it. And it is demonstrably true that the vast majority of college faculty are liberal in inclination (except for the engineers who actually have to deal with reality). There are constant attempts to block conservative commencement speakers or to publicly shame scholars whose research or writings violate the Political Correct Orthodoxy. If you want to talk about which side is facing a hostile environment on college campuses, it is not the liberals.

"why conservatives have made a habit of firing people for being LGBTQ"

Have they? I doubt it. And if they have, so what? People should be able to enter or terminate their contracts freely.

"blocking the construction of mosques"

To limited success. But is there something wrong with trying to prevent the spread of a political movement that is openly hostile to our way of life. Which is what Islam is.

"To limited success. But is there something wrong with trying to prevent the spread of a political movement that is openly hostile to our way of life. Which is what Islam is."
How naive a statement is this, do you honestly think Islam is a political movement and that by blocking the construction of mosques this will help.
1) Islam is not a political movement
2) The people building the mosques are probably US citizens that just happen to have a different religious persuasion than you
3) Do you get your info from the 'Tea Party Weekly' or Fox News?
4) How many of your close personal friends are Muslims and when you discuss your views with them what is their take on your views?