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

[turbobloke]

Ome more go at Crawford. From the methodology/results section and with my emphasis:

"Liberalism predicted intolerance of all other right-wing targets"

"Conservatism significantly predicted intolerance of four left-wing targets: pro-gay, pro-choice, church-state separation, and Democratic Party activists."

It would have been helpful and revealing, but not academespeak, to say "only four".

As the authorship then points out, the relationship between Conservatism and intolerance over other issues did not approach statistical significance.

Clearly, being intolerant of all issues is more intolerant than when only four issues are involved. Such is academe! The result is still clear.

[Bill]

turbobloke said:

Bill said:

The conclusion of the paper you cite is neutral on the subject...

No it's not - your extract, assuming it's from the same paper, is too restricted and may be discussing previous research that the Crawford publication I cited updates. Try the Abstract:

Research recently published in 'Political Psychology' suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion.

So the paper's findings oppose the conclusion that Conservatism predicra intolerance more strongly. In other words it supports Conservatism as more tolerant in general.

I quoted the whole conclusion of the paper, which it appears you haven't actually read. Previous research suggests conservatives are more intolerant of opposing political ideologies, this challenges that conclusion by suggesting that both left and right are equally intolerant of the other.

And since when was quoting the abstract acceptable?

[turbobloke]

Bill said:

turbobloke said:

Bill said:

The conclusion of the paper you cite is neutral on the subject...

No it's not - your extract, assuming it's from the same paper, is too restricted and may be discussing previous research that the Crawford publication I cited updates. Try the Abstract:

Research recently published in 'Political Psychology' suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion.

So the paper's findings oppose the conclusion that Conservatism predicra intolerance more strongly. In other words it supports Conservatism as more tolerant in general.

I quoted the whole conclusion of the paper, which it appears you haven't actually read. Previous research suggests conservatives are more intolerant of opposing political ideologies, this challenges that conclusion by suggesting that both left and right are equally intolerant of the other.

And since when was quoting the abstract acceptable?

See my earlier post a few minutes ago. The actual evidence showed statistically significant Liberal intolerance across all indicators, whereas Conservative intolerance at a significant level was restricted to four indicators.

It's not uncommon across academe for a bit of fudge to appear in conclusions...more research needed blah blah...so more grant funding please...then we can get more publications and citations which help our careers...

Look at methodology to see if the approach stacks up, and the evidence/data in the results to see what was found. In this case, what I posted originally is clearly backed up by the paper itself.

Anyone on PH can find what I posted above in the link provided, may as well use it after you kept asking for it!

[0000]

durbster said:

0000 said:

I didn't claim I had the answers, or that anyone on the right does so I've no idea where you think the hypocrisy is.

You berate "the left" as being stupid because they:
... are utterly certain they have it all figured out ...

Before stating:
I feel for anyone with half a brain and a leftward inclination. It must be agony.

Which sounds to me like you're utterly certain they are wrong.

I didn't say the left are stupid.

I'm utterly certain they're not always right. Do tell me you're suggesting they are.

[Joey Ramone]

I don't dismiss right wing views as long as they're argued reasonably and intelligently. Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Murray are good examples in that regard. Indeed I find the latter incredibly persuasive.

What I loathe however is seeing the sentiment of 'immigrants and Muslims are scum/terrorists' cack-handedly disguised as something else (deep concern over the number of available school places, for example).

As long as points are made well, fair enough.

[TTwiggy]

Bill said:

turbobloke said:

Bill said:

The conclusion of the paper you cite is neutral on the subject...

No it's not - your extract, assuming it's from the same paper, is too restricted and may be discussing previous research that the Crawford publication I cited updates. Try the Abstract:

Research recently published in 'Political Psychology' suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion.

So the paper's findings oppose the conclusion that Conservatism predicra intolerance more strongly. In other words it supports Conservatism as more tolerant in general.

I quoted the whole conclusion of the paper, which it appears you haven't actually read. Previous research suggests conservatives are more intolerant of opposing political ideologies, this challenges that conclusion by suggesting that both left and right are equally intolerant of the other.

And since when was quoting the abstract acceptable?

Prescisely how I read it too. This paper challenges the notion that conservatives are more intolerant. It shows that intolerance exists across the political spectrum. That's not the same as showing that intolerance is higher among liberals/the left.

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

Bill said:

turbobloke said:

Bill said:

The conclusion of the paper you cite is neutral on the subject...

No it's not - your extract, assuming it's from the same paper, is too restricted and may be discussing previous research that the Crawford publication I cited updates. Try the Abstract:

Research recently published in 'Political Psychology' suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion.

So the paper's findings oppose the conclusion that Conservatism predicra intolerance more strongly. In other words it supports Conservatism as more tolerant in general.

I quoted the whole conclusion of the paper, which it appears you haven't actually read. Previous research suggests conservatives are more intolerant of opposing political ideologies, this challenges that conclusion by suggesting that both left and right are equally intolerant of the other.

And since when was quoting the abstract acceptable?

Prescisely how I read it too. This paper challenges the notion that conservatives are more intolerant. It shows that intolerance exists across the political spectrum. That's not the same as showing that intolerance is higher among liberals/the left.

If you read the whole paper and I assume you did, how did you miss this?

"Liberalism predicted intolerance of all other right-wing targets"

"Conservatism significantly predicted intolerance of four left-wing targets: pro-gay, pro-choice, church-state separation, and Democratic Party activists."

ALL > FOUR

See also the comment I made earlier about authors' strategic fudge in conclusions.

[TTwiggy]

turbobloke said:

If you read the whole paper and I assume you did, how did you miss this?

"Liberalism predicted intolerance of all other right-wing targets"

"Conservatism significantly predicted intolerance of four left-wing targets: pro-gay, pro-choice, church-state separation, and Democratic Party activists."

ALL > FOUR

See also the comment I made earlier about authors' strategic fudge in conclusions.

Does it make any comment with regards to the level of intolerance?

mild intolerance of many things = vehement intolerance of a few things

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

turbobloke said:

If you read the whole paper and I assume you did, how did you miss this?

"Liberalism predicted intolerance of all other right-wing targets"

"Conservatism significantly predicted intolerance of four left-wing targets: pro-gay, pro-choice, church-state separation, and Democratic Party activists."

ALL > FOUR

See also the comment I made earlier about authors' strategic fudge in conclusions.

Does it make any comment with regards to the level of intolerance?

mild intolerance of many things = vehement intolerance of a few things

Research on PH: statistically significant intolerance matters.

[turbobloke]

BTW has anyone decided as yet whether it's ok to tolerate intolerance?

I'd say yes but only to tolerable levels

[TTwiggy]

turbobloke said:

BTW has anyone decided as yet whether it's ok to tolerate intolerance?

I'd say yes but only to tolerable levels

Surely a failure to tolerate intolerance would be a logical fallicy, as it would be indicative of intolerance in those claiming to be tolerant?

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

turbobloke said:

BTW has anyone decided as yet whether it's ok to tolerate intolerance?

I'd say yes but only to tolerable levels

Surely a failure to tolerate intolerance would be a logical fallicy, as it would be indicative of intolerance in those claiming to be tolerant?

I can tolerate that post quite easily!

[XM5ER]

turbobloke said:

A couple of home truth comments on the Left from the Left by Labour's Lord Donoughue:

"...most leftish British people get politically involved because they genuinely believe they wish to contribute to the common good in our society. They tend to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the right wing wishes to contribute to their own individual or class good..."

Wrongly, but anachronistic class war slogans are still attractive to many on the Left.

"...a feeling of moral superiority, which is a characteristic of many middle and professional types on the left..."

Feeling, not fact, also typical.

C.S. Lewis said:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[jimmybobby]

Definitely. I have never met a leftie who can se things from a non lefties perspective.

My brother is a good example. He posted an article from a newspaper about the American elections which was slating Trump and praising Sanders and asked my opinion. I gave it and he promptly went off on one and described me as talking st.

I responded that his view was as st as mine and he didnt take kindly to that perspective.

[WinkleHoff]

Here is some quality left wing progressive nonsense at work.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sjlzx7sImHQ


Fortunately dealt with at the end. Left wing progressive train of thought;"I'm too scared to address your logical and rational thoughts in case I can find no answer against them that adequately supports my pre-ordained socialist indoctrination. Arrgghhh meltdown! I know. Your are a racist! You are a fascist and you should silenced! Your views are not acceptable to me or to anybody else! You racist!"

Or something like that.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Finding and reading the source(s) for yourself is surely preferable to taking somebody's word for it, even when it's somebody on your side, indeed especially when they're on your side.

I don't have a side.

I thought I'd been pretty clear about that in this thread.

[turbobloke]

XM5ER said:

C S Lewis quote.

A very apt quotation if I may say so.

jimmybobby said:

Definitely. I have never met a leftie who can se things from a non lefties perspective.

My brother is a good example. He posted an article from a newspaper about the American elections which was slating Trump and praising Sanders and asked my opinion. I gave it and he promptly went off on one and described me as talking st.

I responded that his view was as st as mine and he didnt take kindly to that perspective.

I have a brother who swaps sides between Labour and the LibDems. He doesn't take kindly to any alternative view from anyone.

These are merely our own family experiences but I find it applies in a wider sense including on PH where aggressive left-wingers appear to be on a mission and when evidenced counter-arguments are presented, resort to mild and unoriginal abuse. Sometimes not so mild but always unoriginal.

Irony and tolerance definitely aren't their strong points.

[Bill]

turbobloke said:

If you read the whole paper and I assume you did, how did you miss this?

"Liberalism predicted intolerance of all other right-wing targets"

"Conservatism significantly predicted intolerance of four left-wing targets: pro-gay, pro-choice, church-state separation, and Democratic Party activists."

ALL > FOUR

See also the comment I made earlier about authors' strategic fudge in conclusions.

Well, their research disagrees with some of the previous research but was, as they acknowledge, a small sample. So you'll understand if I take the conclusion of the people who did the actual work.

[bitchstewie]

Joey Ramone said:

What I loathe however is seeing the sentiment of 'immigrants and Muslims are scum/terrorists' cack-handedly disguised as something else (deep concern over the number of available school places, for example).

So do I, but I often see it in reverse where if you express concerns about school places (I don't have children but YKWIM) often the left jump upon it as "racism" etc.

It was rather funny post election to see the protests from the left, the gist of which seemed to be that we live in an undemocratic fascist state and the government should be overthrown because more people voted Conservative than Labour - whilst "the right" seemed to just shut up and get on with it as they did under 13 years of Labour.

It's easy to trot out examples that argue either way on either side, but I do think that generally the sentiment in the original post is true.

[Randy Winkman]

TTwiggy said:

turbobloke said:

BTW has anyone decided as yet whether it's ok to tolerate intolerance?

I'd say yes but only to tolerable levels

Surely a failure to tolerate intolerance would be a logical fallicy, as it would be indicative of intolerance in those claiming to be tolerant?

A mate of mine who studied philosophy at uni (waits for groans to subside .....) gave me an answer to this one. If I remember correctly one should be intolerant of intolerance because by doing that we are being supportive of tolerance. Something like that anyway.