Liberals and Tolerance

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Some commentary based on a Pew research study:

Online, liberals far less tolerant than normal people ("normal people" -- lol)

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy -- such as, say, uniting diverse Americans -- liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That's double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

The proportion jumps even higher when someone on a social site disagrees with a liberal's post.

Only 1% of moderates would block or shut out someone who dared to disagree with them, compared to 11% of liberals, whose rate was nearly three times that of conservatives.

The same 11% of liberals would block or unfriend people who offended them by daring to argue about political issues, vs 6% and 7% for other political views.

Liberals (14%) even blocked or shut out those they deemed posted too frequently on politics, vs 8% and 9% for moderates and conservatives, respectively.

Of those who dropped or shunned someone over political disagreements, Pew asked a follow-up question:

-- 21% of them blocked, unfriended or hid a coworker,

-- 31% blocked, unfriended or hid a (formerly) close personal friend,

-- and 18% blocked, unfriended or hid an actual family member.

Bottomline, this study is obviously racist.

[emphasis added]

[Fist and Faith]

Those who are liberal where politics are concerned are not regular Americans?!? Extraordinary news! Does that mean everyone who is not liberal is a regular American? Or only political conservatives?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

FF there's a bit of dry humor at work there in the commentary, I think. But the study itself is legit.

[Orlion]

That's an interesting study... I'll have more to post later since my brother is one of those liberals.

All right, from by brother's point of view (as I see it) he has blocked some conservative friends for one reason: because they are annoying.

At least on my end, liberals tend not to take the battle to the conservatives on facebook for every little thing. For example, he might make a joke about his cat, and conservative family will be stumbling over themselves to say something about Obama. He's not even saying anything political, but they'll bring the conservative argument anyway... and it's bad. It's like having Jehova Witnesses and Mormons showing up at your house with their 'message' over and over again and then showing up at your work, while you're watching a movie, etc. It's annoying.

So my brother blocked the conservative people who can not leave a post without lamenting the state of affairs under Obama Bin Laden.

In conclusion, in my experience conservatives are much more persistent and annoying in presenting their views, and liberals do not have the patience for it on Facebook. I do not know if that makes them more intolerant or not.

[Avatar]

*shrug* Haven't read the study yet, but for what it's worth, I think you're all pretty much as bad as each other.

And y'know what? I think it probably starts with labels like "liberal" and "conservative." 'Cause the way people use them are like condemnations.

--A

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Orlion, that's sort of a chicken and egg question, isn't it.

It has been my anecdotal experience that liberals are more likely to post something they can't handle being challenged than conservatives. And I agree, conservatives are probably more annoying than liberals in response. But the way I look at it, if you've posted something that is politically controversial in a public forum -- even if you are treating your obnoxious point of view like it is self-evident truth -- you'd better be prepared for a response, or you are simply being disingenuous. Otherwise, step down off the soap box and STFU.

Of course, this tendency does not apply to all or even many liberals, or all or even many conservatives for that matter, etc., etc.

[Cail]

There's a former poster here who I see regularly on Facebook, and literally everything he posts there is a swipe at conservatives and Republicans. Several people I knew in high school are the same way. While I won't try to extrapolate my particular experiences into a general trend, it certainly seems as though there is far less tolerance for dissent amongst self-styled liberals and progressives than there is from all but the Mark Levin-style far right.

[SerScot]

I think any study like this should have in bold print at the beginning and end of the discussion, "corrilation does not equal causation".

[Cail]

I think any study like this should have in bold print at the beginning and end of the discussion, "corrilation does not equal causation".

Absolutely. Aside from the fact that a trend like this would be hard to map, there's way too many other variables to make any sort of sweeping claim.

[[Syl]]

There was one girl from high school who sent me a friend request who turned out to be a crazy tea-partier (not that all tea-partiers are crazy. she got hauled off the state legislature's steps). Every post she made was far-right blather. I tried politely rebutting some of the more extreme viewpoints she posted, but she never addressed my comments. She didn't make the cut in my last purge.

Another girl got mad about a news article I posted about stuff back home (some Native Americans got into it with some local boys related to the local PD). She told me that you had to know the people to understand; I politely tried to tell her she might have a bit of a bias. She unfriended and blocked me.

[Vraith]

I think any study like this should have in bold print at the beginning and end of the discussion, "corrilation does not equal causation".

Absolutely. Aside from the fact that a trend like this would be hard to map, there's way too many other variables to make any sort of sweeping claim.

Yea, there's that.
And on the previous thing, not wanting to generalize my anecdotal's either, but in my experience [and agreement with what O was talking about]...almost every single time [we're talking Facebook here] some friend of mine posts something liberal related, in the comments/responses a Con will say [no matter what the issue/story is] "Obama is a Muslim." or "Obama is a Kenyan."...it gets really really old.
disclaimer: I'm pretty sure I've never unfriended or blocked or hidden anyone for anything. I did get unfriended by 10 people back in the day for saying "The proof that Intelligent Design isn't really science is the number of people who think it is." [heck, I think I might repost it as status if the issue gets headlines again in the current political races]

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

There's a bit more at work here IMO: I think when certain liberals (far fewer than all or many) have the attitude that their point of view is absolute, it is much more likely to be tolerated or sympathized with than a conservative with a similar outlook. Even if people disagree, they are likely to give points for 'sincerity' or 'good intentions.' Consequently, it is easier for liberals to get away with outright chauvinism than conservatives (who are always roundly condemned).

[Zarathustra]

There's a bit more at work here IMO: I think when certain liberals (far fewer than all or many) have the attitude that their point of view is absolute, it is much more likely to be tolerated or sympathized with than a conservative with a similar outlook. Even if people disagree, they are likely to give points for 'sincerity' or 'good intentions.' Consequently, it is easier for liberals to get away with outright chauvinism than conservatives (who are always roundly condemned).

Good points. [Warning: generalizations to follow.] I think this absolutism comes from a sense of righteous indignation. Liberals don't just think their position is pragmatically sound or efficacious, they think their position is morally right. And their disagreements with conservatives aren't limited to whether or not their idea will work, but extend into the realm of "not fair," "wrong," "greedy," "selfish," etc. While the religious right might have similar moral judgments on specific issues, those issues are usually moral or social issues, like abortion, marriage, etc. Liberals extend this moralizing and righteous indignation into realms that are purely fiscal and pragmatic. They turn discussions about economics and tax policy into social issues, turning into a discussion of "social justice" etc. Whether it's reparations for slavery, affirmative action, welfare, universal healthcare, wealth redistribution, all of these purely economic issues are viewed in a social context where one side must be Good and the other side must be Evil. Fiscal conservatives don't tend to view the economy in moral terms such that liberals are bad for their opinions. They might think liberals are misguided or naive, but not really bad people. We recognize that they have good intentions, but we just think that these intentions aren't realistic and will end up hurting both the economy and the people they want to help.

I think this is the biggest difference between the two camps, and might explain the results of this study: it's easier to tune out people whom you believe are morally inferior, aside from the merits of their argument.

As a little experiment, I urge others here to note how often "despicable" or "suspicious" or "greedy" or "bad, really bad" etc. are tossed around by posters, and then compare this word usage to their political leaning. Also note how Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter is described compared to Bill Maher or Chris Matthews.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Z I think that pretty much represents a certain segment of the left, although I think it is important to continue to emphasize that very few liberals are truly chauvinistic. But among that segment the attitude is similar to a psychotic girlfriend who thinks she has the right to beat you senseless if you disagree with her, but immediately plays the victim card if you grab her wrists to stop her from attacking.

[Zarathustra]

Yeah Ron, I think it's a good point to remember that generalizations can get you in trouble, and that large numbers of liberals don't act this way. That's why I included the bracketed warning. I recognize that my post wasn't entirely, um, fair.

I think that the most energized, vocal liberals are the ones who tend to be this way. Activists, especially, have this righteous indignation tendency, whether it's PETA or environmental groups. For them it's like religious zealotry: there can be no reasonable discussion of the merits of the various arguments becuase the opposing view is the morally inferior position of the "enemy." It's not debate, it's proselytizing. It's conquering the "savages." And we're the savages. I'd put the Occupy movement in this catagory, too. It's a movement all about attacking another segment of humans because they are "bad." Contrast this with the Tea Party movement, which was not attacking another segment of humans as Enemy, but instead merely wanted to be left alone.

I hate to bring up actual discussions here, but I'm just drawing on my personal experience. Personally, the most recent examples I can remember of this judgmentalism is, for instance, the view that opposition to affirmative action is intended to keep black people poor and subservient, or that deregulation is intended to allow corporate malfeasance. We can't just talk about whether it makes sense or not, we have to talk about the "evil" motives of those on the other side of the debate.

I think liberalism works best (as a successful meme) when it has a Bad Guy, an enemy, coupled with a compelling narrative to sell it. Nearly every liberal position is cast in the light of Those Who Must Be Fought, those characterized as the cause of another's victimization. It's literally ideological warfare.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Z, it is not too much to say that I am in near total agreement with what you are articulating, including your prior post as well. I am a bit suspicious of my own motives in forming impressions of the opposition, so I am self consciously trying to limit what I am saying to that which is most defensible. And, within the broader context of what we have been saying, I think the following has been or could be readily supported:

1) that the hard left gets a pass most of the time, but they are every bit as authoritarian and undemocratic as the hard right
2) since the hard left is largely unchallenged they are if anything more dangerous than the hard right
3) that the left in general is more dualist and eschatological than the right, which explains in large measure why the left is less tolerant of criticism

Forgive me if this seems patronizing (and it will), but from my perspective the modern left is much more primitive as a political movement than the modern right. The modern right has been gutted and rebuilt ideologically more than once within the past 50 years, but the left continues pushing the nth permutation of the same agenda that arose under the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Vraith]

and I think their may be an appearance of things like ron's 3 points, yet if Z were to try and run for an important federal office all I'd have to do is anonymously quote and email his sig from here to any other conservative campaign and the right-hand machine would crush the life out of the run with "god is dead," "superman" and "nazi." If 100 Z's ran for every Senate seat, it would be a Liberal/Socialist civil war, even though Z is none of those things by any stretch, and not one OTHER thing he thinks, nor the fact that he very likely understands Nietzsche better than anyone in the machine would make the slightest difference. None. No one but Fox would even have to cover it...and they're the conservative network who should approve.

something similar could, and probably would, be done to almost every self-labeled conservative here...which is why I hardly even think of most of them as conservatives compared to the political machine definition.
[and just twisted a bit, something similar could work on the self-lableed libs here, too.

[Avatar]

Good posts guys. Just wanted to mention I think conservatism needs its bad guys too. They just happen to be different bad guys.

--A

[Prebe]

Even if people disagree [with liberals], they are likely to give points for 'sincerity' or 'good intentions.'

That's because they are sincere and have good intentions

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Didn't you Europeans learn anything from the 20th century?