Can one be both conservative *and* tolerant?

Post Reply New Topic

When was the last lynching? I admire I don't pay attention to the news, but they seem way down. Me personally I don't care what race someone is. I am more interested in population genetics and have always been fascinated by Polynesians. I was reading about how Samoa (definitely misspelled) have a super obesity gene. It is thought that helped them survive the months they spend on sea when migrating. I found it interesting how white people as we know it today didn't exist until about 8,000 years ago. I also learned how white people are one of the few groups capable of digesting lactose in adulthood. Some African populations have higher resistance to certain diseases such HIV or Malaria. Some northern populations put more of their calories towards staying warm. Africans melenin helps them survive sun. White peoples skin helps them absorb vitamin D better same for red or blonde hair. Tibetans hybridized with Denovisians and got a gene for high altitude survival. I just love studyingnevolutionary biology. One last one Europeans have a higher alcohol tolerance and this is thought to be because clean drinking water is more recent there.

I do know tolerant conservatives. I happen to have a dad who I don't a conservative and he always seems to want to help and respect other cultures. He was in the Navy for twenty years and traveled a lot. He had to learn to be tolerant. He drank with Russians to respect there culture. He once visited Saudi Arabia and learned the local customs. He is visiting China this month and learning as much mandarin as he can even though he is going go help the Chinese. I have seen plenty of liberals (I am a liberal myself) who shut down events that disagree with them. Milo had his event turned to a riot. Richard Pencer was assaulted. I remember seeing a video of a kid being assaulted for being white and wearing dreadlocks. I don't think either side owns tolerance.

The witnesses to lynchings and the people who carried them out are still alive in some cases. The woman who stood up in court and claimed that Emmett Till tried to force himself on her recently recanted.

Those times (1955) made a distinct impression on a lot of people now living who are grandparents. Don't dismiss lynching as ancient history. Our current death penalty rates, for that matter, indicate less concern for black lives.

I am against the death penalty and do agree it is racially motivated. I disagree though that it is similar to lynchings. The people at death row probably committed a crime that that state deems worthy of capital punishment.

The current system does a better job, statistically, than lynching. The underlying assumptions remain largely the same. A similar correlation exists between enslavement and imprisonment.

I disagree you have more choice in being in prison than a slave has. Slavery is hundreds of times worse than slavery. At least in prison there are basic outlines for the treatment of prisonsers, sure they are not always followed. Lynchings were clearly more effective keeping AAs down. Today we have many time more AAs willing to speak out and succeed than ever before.

Good one

Those questions beg several others. Tolerant of what? Who defines tolerance and bigotry? Or for that matter, who defines liberalism and conservatism? Most people identify with a political label and then let the media tell them what people under this or that label are supposed to believe. Usually when the power elites, working through the media, want to effect some sort of social change they'll declare that some subset of society are being denied their "rights". Then a mass of tiresome drones calling themselves "liberals" will rally to the cause, and delude themselves that anyone who does not rally to the same cause (i.e., anyone who continues to believe in things everyone believed in only two years ago) is their moral and intellectual inferior. "Liberals" won't admit they're just pushing their own agenda (or the power elite's agenda really); they'll claim they're representing concepts like "tolerance" itself. And conservative drones let them, which is why conservatives always end up caving in to liberal crusades within ten or twenty years.

I really tried avoid this thread and I'm posting this late.

No - the two are mutually exclusive. You're trying to meet a politically engineered/hacked/baked definition of 'tolerant' that's in direct violation of definition 1) in the Oxford dictionary. It's a word-war, you don't win by any other means than bringing a dictionary into battle and being willing to use it.

Sounds like a personal problem. I don't know anyone that aimless and empty. Unless you are projecting, in which case nice to meet you.

It doesn't always seem conservatives cave. Abortions been legal for a while and the religious right still hates it. I didn't see seem that way for segrgation and interracial marriage. I would say both parties are bought and paid for by powerful elites/corporations.

Well obviously! They bet on both sides so they win either way.

Politics is little more than theatre. Actually it's more like pro-wrestling.

I'm not saying the outcome is fixed like in pro-wrestling (because I'm not a conspiracy nut) but the drama and feuds and chest-beating are pretty similar.

Best to be as moderate as you can be. You got radical hypocritical liberals who preach of tolerance yet cannot fathom an opinion that differs from their own and this whole conservative rescue that will eventually collapse upon itself just like the left did after Bush.

Alright, let's go with oxforddictionaries.com:

Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.

We'll use the same source for "conservative":

1 Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

Not seeing the logical exclusion here.

I suggest that a: intolerance (as defined above) is not exclusive to any ideological or political position and b: aversion is not synonymous with intolerance. One can be averse to new ideas yet tolerate their existence, averse to same-sex marriage yet tolerant of those who choose to avail themselves of one.

We're all both progressive and conservative (in their practical senses) as it suits us. Where we differ is in those things we hold extreme views of, and those things about which we are more moderate.

I too was reluctant to respond here, but on the basis that the original question is rather a stupid one. "Conservatism" and "liberal" are not antithetical. Likewise, "tolerant" and "conservative" are entirely compatible, depending on the degree of conservatism. If we're going to pretend all ideologies trend to extremism in every case, then everyone is equally intolerant and we can give up on the democratic process.

I think you missed what I meant by that. Tolerance, in the Oxford dictionary, is very different from 'tolerance' as it's taught on the left.

Does that help at all?