Are the left wing less tolerant of the views of others?

[anonymous-user]

Fat Fairy said:

El stovey said:

And on the rare occasion a labour policy like the foxhunting ban has adversely affected traditional conservatives and their way of life, they've got just as angry. Check out the countryside alliance protest in London,

Checked it out. 400,000 people. 2 arrests (anti-hunt demonstrators). One particular bit of police brutality by a red-headed cop who loved his stick. Seven charges against police officers for misconduct (found innocent upon enquiry) The rest had their say and took their litter home.

Oh, and of course, no squeals from the left about police brutality/right to demonstrate etc 'cos they were all toffs, and deserved it.

(Apologies if I didn't get it all in, I was out of the country, relying on Auntie for home news)

FF

Sorry, what's your point?

We were discussing whether labour policies (like the fox hunting ban) would lead to typical conservatives ever protesting.

As someone was commenting about the labour protests regarding conservative policies.

The point is that typical past conservative policies usually affected typical labour voters more adversely than the other way around. In the unlikely event of labour policies actually affecting conservatives voters adversely, they might also protest, as happened with the fox hunting ban.

To suggest it's only leftys that complain about government policies or organise protests is absurd. I'd likely vote conservative. The effect of labour tax rises on me or vat on school fees is much less than the social decay caused by closing down a traditional employer in the midlands or the north east. Past conservative policies in Glasgow or the midlands or Newcastle have been much more damaging to local areas than labour policies were to say Surrey.

The reason you get this anti conservative view in poor areas and don't get an anti labour protest in well off areas isn't just because lefties are spiteful and angry and right wingers are just nicer people.

This is the comment, you unfortunately snipped from my post that I was agreeing with. Which I think at least partly explains the different levels of protest from different sides of the political spectrum.

durbster said:

Have you considered the perspective? Think about the actual impact these policies have on people.

If a set of policies looks likely to destroy the industry that your community depends on, or remove your fundamental working rights, or push you into poverty with no obvious means of escape, or take away a disability lifeline that you or your family member are wholly dependent on, you may justified being upset.

Then consider how badly affected your typical Tory supporter will be by any Labour policy? Nobody's going to go raging through the streets of London risking arrest because they might be forced to postpone their Chamonix skiiing holiday for a few weeks.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th May 08:28

[anonymous-user]

BigMon said:

Glad to see there is some common sense in this thread rather than it being a right wing echo chamber.

As has been pointed out, the extreme of either side are loons and you can't tar everyone with 'lefty' views with the same brush (I have sympathies with some views of either side so I guess that makes me a hybrid Tory bd \ lefty snowflake).

If you're looking for labels, you might be a Red Tory or Blue Labour (depending on your views of the role of the state).

Most people probably fit in somewhere in these mixed views like yours, and mine,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39946611

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

Are lesbians left-wing?

Depends which one is pierced........

[anonymous-user]

Yvette Coopers been in the news complaining about how Laura Kuenssberg is treated as sex doll.
Think that's what she's on about

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labours-yvett...

I haven't digested it all yet but I'm sure its all very debatable and worthy. Thing is I can't help it I think Yvette I get images of Shami Chakrabarti and its a months therapy down the drain.
There's only so much eroticism one can handle talking of handles, love handles. Now DA's in my thoughts

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

I do understand that you need things repeated to you few times in order to get them. So;

You are lying.

There was no 'connotation' there was no 'shouting racism'.

Are you trying to shut down debate by lying that people are calling you racist? Are you?

I might be mistaken (and I cannot be bothered to search - god I'm on garden leave and can't be arsed to waste time on that ), but I recall you told someone all his mates were BNP because he had a different view to you on some kind of poster. Or something very similar.

Apologies if that wasn't you

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

You are right, I might be. No, there is no way to be certain.

I'll walk you through it, so that even you can see why there is no equivalence. Ok? Are you ready?

KK said himself on this very forum that he wants to join Pegida. Taking into account the interview of their leader, they are not exactly mensa material, are they? (If I'm going to fast, just tell me, m'kay?)
Now, If I was to start a thread asking for an advice/opinion to join internet forum 'paedophiles-r-us' while asking for an advice of how to upload images completely anonymously, then you would have a point. As it is, you really don't.

Still with me? It's not hard to understand unless you are exceptionally slow. Or it could be that I just don't type Engleesh very goodly.

So apart from when you've called someone racist and when you've said they/their mates are BNP members, apart from that, when have you called/insinuated that someone is racist? (insert life of Brian_Romans scene here.. )

[anonymous-user]

jjlynn27 said:

I'll try to be kind. A lot of people don't post their garage. It's meaningless. People that I'm in contact through PH know what I'm driving, for the rest, not sure it's any of their business. I don't see the point of '5 series' and then stream of tired, overused platitudes. But when I decide to 'pull the trigger' (I almost feel very important now) on something interesting I'll start a thread. Deal?

Tesla S P100D I hope...;)

[anonymous-user]

AW111 said:

I enjoy the irony of posters abusing "lefties" on a thread about left-wing intolerance.

Im glad there are some leftists on here, otherwise every thread would end up like this or the climate threads, dominated by the same right wingers agreeing with each other and taking the lack of opposition as evidence of their views.

interesting also that it's virtually always right wingers that get banned from the NPandE threads.

[anonymous-user]

Interesting survey run by a university newspaper in the US, where politics is more polarised, which showed democrats to be less tolerant of having room mates with different views.


http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/04/a-surv...

In some ways it seems to also support the increasing echo chamber of student politics(certainly in the US), in that democrats are free to loudly voice their opinion whilst republicans feel more vary of doing so. This leads to those with democrat leanings being less used to hearing, and dealing with, contrasting opinions.

I'm sure it's been raised on this thread already, but once again, it may also be linked to the feeling that 'the left' take their views to be driven by morals/caring, hence those that disagree must, by definition, be immoral/uncaring.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And as with any subject that is relatively complex, the answers are rarely simple. The UK birth is currently strongly linked to immigration, as 25%+ of births in 2015/16 were to mothers not born in the UK. This was relatively stable at c 12% for about 20-25 years, then from the mid 1990s rose to c 25% now. The rate of increase was highest in the first c 15 years when it doubled, much slower rate of increase in the recent years.

Partly linked to increase in numbers of foreign born number and also to their higher levels of fertility vs UK born mothers.

It's hugely different depending where you are in the country c50%+ in Luton, Leicester, London and under 10% in Devon, Dorset, Derbyshire

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

.
I wouldn't wish to share a flat with Dianne Abbot.

I would be up for sharing a bed with Dianne Abbot

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

More evidence of your own intolerance

You’re totally blinded by your dislike of lefties.

You constantly highlight bad things lefties do and down play bad things right wingers do.

A political spectrum has extremists at each end.

The left and the right (at the fringes where you appear to be) are equally intolerant.

If you honestly think one side is more intolerant than the other then it’s clearly you that’s intolerant.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

The thread has already been down the road of matching extremism to the point of so-and-so was killed by right-wing intolerance while so-and-so was killed by left-wing intolerance, that level of extremism can provide counter-examples anywhichway but doesn't address the main issue...which is the ordinariness, the mundane nature of everyday left-wing intolerance experienced in real life and seen on TV, in other MSM and on social media. The Left are way ahead; as and when the ordinary Right catches up, it will not only be a sad day but some time off as there's a long way to go.

Don’t worry the ‘ordinary ‘ right can never catch up (in your mind) as you’re only searching for “everyday left wing intolerance”

Your life would be infinitely more enjoyable if you simply opened your eyes and stop looking for bad things lefties are doing.

[anonymous-user]

There is actually a party that fits both of you perfectly, it’s the libertarian party.

As ever though, in the USA and the UK, it’s hard for new or smaller parties to gather support and momentum as they lack funding and people think they won’t win so vote for the big 2 all the time,

The US libertarian party is growing, and gains much publicity through having an interesting leader and focusing on key states like Vermont. They’re the third largest party in the USA.

https://www.lp.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_...

There is also a UK libertarian party which is enjoying perhaps less success

https://libertarianpartyuk.com

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

Randy Winkman said:

The event is aimed at certain groups that might have particular concerns

Is equality not for everyone?

I think the idea is that the group excluded (white blokes) apparently already have it.

So this equality group is for people in groups that aparently don’t have it. This group is for helping those disadvantaged groups reach the same levels of equality/opportunity/whatever as white blokes.

So filling it with white blokes won’t help, they want to hear from the people they’re trying to help.

It’s a bit like forming a group to help people with mental health issues and saying only mental heal sufferers can attend. Yes you’re excluding people but you’re trying to help people suffering from something,

This case it’s about groups suffering from a lack of equality. That’s apparently not white blokes.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th February 09:55

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

Thanks for the info regarding the Libertarian party.

El stovey said:

Rovinghawk said:

Is equality not for everyone?

I think the idea is that the group excluded (white blokes) apparently already have it.

This case it’s about groups suffering from a lack of equality. That’s apparently not white blokes.

So white blokes are equal but others aren't.

In which case, to whom are the white blokes equal?

Each other, That’s the gold standard of opportunity,chance’s in life, whatever you call it, that’s what the other disadvantaged groups aspire to.

If you’re a white bloke you’re not obviously disadvantaged by racism or sexism or other societal biases. Apparently.

Again, I’m just pointing out what I think they’re trying to do by saying who they want to attend.

I couldn’t give a toss about whether I’m allowed to attend a meeting or talk about equality or not.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

El stovey said:

If you’re a white bloke you’re not disadvantaged racism or sexism or other societal biases. Apparently.

Apparently is right. White blokes are in reality a safe target for prejudice.

El stovey said:

Again, I’m just pointing out what I think they’re trying to do by saying who they want to attend.

Discriminate in the name of equality. It's a concept similar to shagging in the name of virginity.

El stovey said:

I couldn’t give a toss about whether I’m allowed to attend a meeting or talk about equality or not.

I couldn't give a toss about going but would demand the equal right to do so.

They preach equality but practise discrimination. Anyone pointing this out will be derided by them.

This is like any “positive action”(lawful in the uk) or “positive discrimination” (unlawful I think) policy. it’s about bring up people who are disadvantaged to the level of those that aren’t so much.

Obviously it’s debatable whether it’s fair or not.

[anonymous-user]

Funkycoldribena said:

All I'm reading is waffley bks,is Mr R. Hawk allowed in or not?
Yes or no?

No, not unless he fits one of the criteria in the leaflet or whatever it is.

The waffley bks is the explanation as to why.

[anonymous-user]

Tycho said:

Ok know what you are saying but wouldn't it be good for those they see as advantages to see the other side?

Probably but maybe places are limited or something.

Like the example above of a group to help people with mental health issues. You might want to limit it to people suffering mental health issues. Sure it might help other people who don’t have mental health issues if they have a better understanding of the issues etc but they might want to concentrate on the sufferers themselves or have limited finances or places.

[anonymous-user]

Funkycoldribena said:

El stovey said:

Funkycoldribena said:

All I'm reading is waffley bks,is Mr R. Hawk allowed in or not?
Yes or no?

No, not unless he fits one of the criteria in the leaflet or whatever it is.

The waffley bks is the explanation as to why.

Thanks.
Sounds like discrimination to me though however its dressed up.

Yes it is but does it disadvantage Mr R Hawk? He doesn’t need it,

If a hospital only gives treatment to sick people, are they discriminating? Why can’t healthy people have the same medicines and treatments as sick people? It’s because they don’t need it, of course.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th February 13:00