Alternative theory: the further left a school is, the more everyone but the true believers has been so cowed and demoralized by the Maoists in charge that they just don't care any more and want to leave.
The concept of tolerance is predicated on a lot of different variables; sometimes I find myself tolerant of things that may be bothersome, but really hurt no one in the long term. However, when it comes to subjects like politics, the environment, health care, immigration, education, gunsense, civil rights, law and order (judicial system) and other flammable subjects, I find I have little tolerance for the perpetrators of hate and control over others. The primary reasons are that the powers-that-be -- the pols, bureaucrats and the wealthy elite -- have usurped the system and now are above the law. Secondly, I'm not tolerant of Democrats who have not only withered away, but have enabled the MAGAts and their ilk. Thirdly, nothing has really changed since the late 1960s with respect to reform. The Conservaturds have played the long game to confiscate the wealth, the rights that were adjudicated decades ago, and to establish a White Christian society.
"However, when it comes to subjects like politics, the environment, health care, immigration, education, gunsense, civil rights, law and order (judicial system) and other flammable subjects, I find I have little tolerance for the perpetrators of hate and control over others."
So, you would find someone who disagrees with you on the environment, health care, immigration (as a practical matter/execution and not the principle of it), education, guns, and possibly other topics to be "hateful" and "controlling"? What if they want less government regulation on these topics? What if they agree with you on the objectives but not the tactics? What would be your approach with someone who disagrees with you?
"The Conservaturds have played the long game to ... the rights that were adjudicated decades ago, and to establish a White Christian society."
While I will certainly concede that the road to greater freedoms has not always been one of steady, linear progress, the overall trend has been one of greater freedom, and it's been quite dramatic and obvious. Of course, there are those on both sides who would like to curtail these freedoms in pursuit of their own goals, and have had some but limited success in this country (and more success elsewhere), but by and large the trend has been toward more freedoms for more people, at least in the USA.
How have we become more of a "White Christian" society? I'd like some examples.
Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.
But since you've decided to enter into this, and given that Maximus would rather spew his hatred than answer my questions, perhaps you'd care to answer for him,
READ my questions, and then answer them. Put up or shut up.
I was responding to Maximus, who spewed a hate-filled diatribe against anyone who isn't him.
His idea of clever repartee is to use terms like 'MAGAts' and 'conservaturds'. I challenged him to name ten actual conservatives who were racists as he claimed. I also challenged him to name ten liberals who do NOT spew hatred and intolerance of MAGA.
All you have to do is scroll up, to see it. You will also see that Maximus has failed to respond. And you might begin to notice that your statements are, indeed, non sequiturs.
I'm well aware and what I am telling YOU is that your request née DEMAND that you get a list of 10 racist MAGA's AND justify why you chose them vs. putting 10 liberals up who don't "spew intolerance and hatred of MAGA" is a ridiculous cop out.
A racist hates someone for the lottery of birth. It's completely indefensible whereas hatred of MAGA is a hatred which is at the very least defined by hating people for choices they made.
Nothing I've said is a "non sequitur" and the fact that you keep retreating to this signals to me that you heard the phrase, thought it sounded impressively intellectual BUT you failed to understand what it actually means bc if you did you wouldn't be saying it. Why? Bc I am literally addressing YOUR points. Idc about what this other person said or didn't say (although I read it and it seems like you're way too bothered by it) I am directly addressing the words YOU said.
Non Sequitur comes from the Latin "does not follow" meaning that to employ a non sequitur would be to use an argument that doesn't have anything to do with the points made. Seems like the only person who "who does follow" is you not being able to follow this very simple line of reasoning.
If you are a conservative who chose to attend a hyper-left wing college, it may be because you were curious about and wanted to meet and come to understand these people whose beliefs are so unlike yours. If you can test these people for the psychological trait "Open to Experience" it might show something interesting about this self-selected set.
Hilldale College is absolutely an "extreme conservative school" so the idea that these schools simply "don't exist" is false.
I find it highly unlikely that political conservatives are applying in any significant numbers to Smith College, or any of the most politically extreme liberal colleges except for maybe USC.
Alternative theory: the further left a school is, the more everyone but the true believers has been so cowed and demoralized by the Maoists in charge that they just don't care any more and want to leave.
The concept of tolerance is predicated on a lot of different variables; sometimes I find myself tolerant of things that may be bothersome, but really hurt no one in the long term. However, when it comes to subjects like politics, the environment, health care, immigration, education, gunsense, civil rights, law and order (judicial system) and other flammable subjects, I find I have little tolerance for the perpetrators of hate and control over others. The primary reasons are that the powers-that-be -- the pols, bureaucrats and the wealthy elite -- have usurped the system and now are above the law. Secondly, I'm not tolerant of Democrats who have not only withered away, but have enabled the MAGAts and their ilk. Thirdly, nothing has really changed since the late 1960s with respect to reform. The Conservaturds have played the long game to confiscate the wealth, the rights that were adjudicated decades ago, and to establish a White Christian society.
"However, when it comes to subjects like politics, the environment, health care, immigration, education, gunsense, civil rights, law and order (judicial system) and other flammable subjects, I find I have little tolerance for the perpetrators of hate and control over others."
So, you would find someone who disagrees with you on the environment, health care, immigration (as a practical matter/execution and not the principle of it), education, guns, and possibly other topics to be "hateful" and "controlling"? What if they want less government regulation on these topics? What if they agree with you on the objectives but not the tactics? What would be your approach with someone who disagrees with you?
"The Conservaturds have played the long game to ... the rights that were adjudicated decades ago, and to establish a White Christian society."
While I will certainly concede that the road to greater freedoms has not always been one of steady, linear progress, the overall trend has been one of greater freedom, and it's been quite dramatic and obvious. Of course, there are those on both sides who would like to curtail these freedoms in pursuit of their own goals, and have had some but limited success in this country (and more success elsewhere), but by and large the trend has been toward more freedoms for more people, at least in the USA.
How have we become more of a "White Christian" society? I'd like some examples.
I'd like you to give me a list of ten racist, totalitarian conservatives, and your justification for putting them on the list.
Then, a list of ten liberals who do NOT spew hatred and intolerance of MAGA, and who do NOT want full control of government (totalitarianism).
You don't have to do this, of course. But you might want to.
being MAGA isn't an immutable characteristic lol.
Nobody chooses their race. Everyone who is MAGA made a conscious decision to embrace that particular ideology.
Your proposal is ludicrous on those grounds alone.
Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"? Your response has nothing to do with what I said.
But since you've decided to enter into this, and given that Maximus would rather spew his hatred than answer my questions, perhaps you'd care to answer for him,
READ my questions, and then answer them. Put up or shut up.
"Your response has nothing to do with what I said."
I believe the same can be said regarding your request.
You're comparing things like race and sex (characteristics one does not get to choose) to a person's CHOSEN political ideology.
These things are not the same.
Would you please follow the thread.
I was responding to Maximus, who spewed a hate-filled diatribe against anyone who isn't him.
His idea of clever repartee is to use terms like 'MAGAts' and 'conservaturds'. I challenged him to name ten actual conservatives who were racists as he claimed. I also challenged him to name ten liberals who do NOT spew hatred and intolerance of MAGA.
All you have to do is scroll up, to see it. You will also see that Maximus has failed to respond. And you might begin to notice that your statements are, indeed, non sequiturs.
I'm well aware and what I am telling YOU is that your request née DEMAND that you get a list of 10 racist MAGA's AND justify why you chose them vs. putting 10 liberals up who don't "spew intolerance and hatred of MAGA" is a ridiculous cop out.
A racist hates someone for the lottery of birth. It's completely indefensible whereas hatred of MAGA is a hatred which is at the very least defined by hating people for choices they made.
Nothing I've said is a "non sequitur" and the fact that you keep retreating to this signals to me that you heard the phrase, thought it sounded impressively intellectual BUT you failed to understand what it actually means bc if you did you wouldn't be saying it. Why? Bc I am literally addressing YOUR points. Idc about what this other person said or didn't say (although I read it and it seems like you're way too bothered by it) I am directly addressing the words YOU said.
Non Sequitur comes from the Latin "does not follow" meaning that to employ a non sequitur would be to use an argument that doesn't have anything to do with the points made. Seems like the only person who "who does follow" is you not being able to follow this very simple line of reasoning.
If you are a conservative who chose to attend a hyper-left wing college, it may be because you were curious about and wanted to meet and come to understand these people whose beliefs are so unlike yours. If you can test these people for the psychological trait "Open to Experience" it might show something interesting about this self-selected set.
Hilldale College is absolutely an "extreme conservative school" so the idea that these schools simply "don't exist" is false.
I find it highly unlikely that political conservatives are applying in any significant numbers to Smith College, or any of the most politically extreme liberal colleges except for maybe USC.
So if a right-wing student is willing to go to a left-wing school, they must be tolerant, right? Seems like common sense.