Who here speaks up against political bigotry no matter what party you belong to?

Question

I fought political bigotry against democrats and President Clinton when he was in office.
I have ethics. I do the same now with republicans and President Bush.

Why do we tolerate it?
"Because the other party does it?"
"Because someone did it to me?"
"Because they are wrong, because they disagree with me?"
"Because it is free speech and therefore anything I say should be treated respectfully and accepted regardless of content?"
"Because I am right and that gives me the right to treat others as 'guilty until proved innocent', call them names, or spread unfounded rumors about them?"

Would we tolerate it in any other aspect of our lives, or worse, associate with such people?

In a children's playground, yes, but in politics? Why? I understand that it would happen. Of course. So does murder.

But to tolerate it? To join in? Have you? Will you, tomorrow? Or will you fight it?

Is it the last great prejudice of our great country to be identified and shunned?

Is it part of you?

That Guy Over There, are you saying you don't understand or care to understand the difference between taking sides and being politically bigoted?

I believe you. You also just convinced a lot of other people.

Dragon, there are no monsters. They are imaginary, but some still cling to the idea. There are people who do monstrous things and those efforts must be opposed. That does not require political bigotry.

Goodness, I didn't expect people to not understand bigotry! Or worse, go off on tangents and not even understand the question just to tilt at their own windmills!

Food for thought, and only one person who had nothing better to contribute but the very behavior I was referring to in the question.
Sounds like Yahoo! Answers has a lot of thought going into it.
I'll still speak up if you do these things, posting against it, and I hope to see some of you do it as well, but I'd REALLY rather you post it than be silent.
I'm a democrat. I didn't fight for free speech just to lose it to a different form of political correctness.
Keep speaking up, everyone.

Answer 1

It is not bigotry to be intolerant of monsters. Bigotry is to assign guilt to a group when only a few members are guilty.

It was not Muslims who attacked New York and the Pentagon, but Right Wing fundamentalists who might easily have been made criminals in any Muslim country, had the Right Wing Fundamentalists in America not used the attacks to give themselves power they never earned.

I speak against Dominionists, but do not include all Christians as among them. But it is these monsters, like their Islamist images, who hide among those of the religion they claim (even as they blaspheme it), in Faux outrage at the "Extremism" of those who know the monster's nature.

I generally refer to the Gang Of Pirates, rather than Republicans, though that is the best description of both behavior and attitude of most of the current Republican leadership, including Bush. There are a few Democrats, like Lieberman, I would also include in the description.

: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."- Barry Goldwater- A man of the extreme political right before the goalposts were moved so much further to the right that he looks like a Liberal today.

Answer 2

This world is full of bigots, everyone on the left thinks that everyone on the right are idiots, everyone on the right think that everyone on the left are idiots and those in the middle think that both sides are idiots, this is why I am an Independent, conservative. I see problems on both sides of the political fence, as an example I disagreed with Bush and McCain's support of the immigration reform bill, I agreed with Senator Schumer's stance against having Dubai being in charge of our port security. I would vote for Lieberman.

Name calling, well I will admit that I do call people names, especially the radical left, I call Hillary Hiltery, Jack Murtha, Jack Murthafu*er, Dennis Kucinich Dennis Kusonofabit*h
John McCain, John McLame and I often refer to the Democrats mascot as a JACKASS.

So I suppose that I am one of the political bigots that you speak of. The question is why do I resort to that type of talk, the answer is really simple. I do not mind a debate where facts are stated but when you have someone that posts either blatant lies or opinion and then you answer and provide links to backup your position that are then ignored, not just by the asker but by every other person that answers, you just can not sit idly by while the truth is being trampled. At least I can not and I will not

Ideally this forum would be a debate where each opposing side would state facts and ask questions that did not bait the opposition by immediatly start bashing the opposite party.

Take a look at the question that was just posted recently,

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Av4GX07g12gWua4aXyUImSXQ7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20070915105729AAy9mqa
It starts off with "How can Repubilican's", if that is not bait for all of the Republicans on this forum, I don't know what is. Believe me, I have seen several that start out "Hey Liberals"
It is WWIII where the bullets are fired from your keyboard.

EDIT: Of course you see the same bigotry from those that run for office, look at what the left says about the right and vice versa

Answer 3

1. We should NEVER tolerate bigotry.
2. Not a valid excuse.
3. Not a valid excuse.
4. If they think they are right I give them the opportunity to do so. If they can't, it is NOT bigotry to disagree.
5.Why treat STUPID remarks respectfully!. They have a right to make a fool of themselves, I am NOT obligated to respect foolishness!
6. Good point I agree. Be polite unless the opposing view proves themselves not deserving of politeness. Never spread unfounded rumors.
7. NO!
8.Politicians play to their base. The BASES tend to be extreme. The Parties in general are not extreme. The whole situation becomes distorted as a result. The biggest problems occur when an elected official actually buys into their own campaign propaganda.
9. I treat this forum seriously as a whole, but I must confess, if the questioner asks a question that is 'LOADED", I'll occasionally answer in kind. On a couple of occasions I've felt a bit impish and ask a loaded question myself. - I hope no harm resulted.
10. It is a prejudice. No doubt about it. It is human nature and mental laziness, but it is easier to lump people into categories. Often, those categories are justified by the actions of those associated with the group, but each "member" of the group is still an individual and probably doesn't exactly fit the assumed profile.
11. Not sure I understand what you are getting at with this question. Please restate it. (See #9.)

Answer 4

Dragon has it right,

We all must oppose the sorts of monsters he notes. There are some monsters also who profess to be on the political Left the he, I, and most liberals oppose just as vigorously as those on the political right.

Of most recent vintage is the "Loose Change", "Bombs in the Towers" folk, with wild fantasies that steel is perfectly strong till it actually melts, in defiance of easy debunking by any blacksmith. The event was most convenient to the hopes of the PNAC and in need of serious investigation, but the craziness of that crowd has made such an investigation all but impossible. I think it likely that "Loose Change" is the actual false flag operation, deliberately muddying the waters.

Also among "liberal" extremists are the likes of Lyndon LaRouche, and Louis Farrakhan who often support policies that are Authoritarian and are also shunned by most on the Left for that, even as the GOP would have you believe they led all other liberals in popularity.

I have often been accused of holding policy views of such Authoritarians, simply because I was aware of the nature of Dragon's "Monsters", or many stories censored by the Media that simple awareness of elicits such accusations, when I had expressed no policy views at all.

John Dean first pointed out the work of Bob Altemeyer about Right Wing Authoritarians and about how they and the SDO's who pander to them provide the basis of bigotry you note.

It is these Authoritarians that must be vigorously opposed and for the most part are opposed by the political left

Answer 5

the two factors are accountable yet extremely maximum comes from the appropriate, authentic? Todays voices of political hatred have a venomous fervor, the extremity of which we've not seen because of the fact the McCarthyism of the Nineteen Fifties. that's even worse at present in that political bigotry now extends in distinctive guidelines: in direction of socialists and capitalists, in direction of environmentalists and corporation expansionists, in direction of conservatives and liberals, in direction of globalists and nationalists, etc. those ideologically addicted columnists, communicate tutor, and "information" tutor pundits, on the political authentic and the political left, and their the two venomous adherents, proportion the recent IQ IntegrityWatch weblog's Integrity shame Award for at present, would a million, 2008.

Answer 6

I like to think that I'm even-handed. But the fact is that I don't think it's worth the effort to directly confront such things. It's like trying to hold back the tide. I do try, though, to make my arguments properly thought out (within my abilities) and lacking in rancor. I hope to subtly influence others by doing so.

slightly off-topic: one of the reasons that I respect the ACLU in particular is their devotion to even-handedness and avoidance of political bigotry. These are the folks who defend the right of, for instance, nazis to hold rallies. I don't think for a minute that they actually approve of nazi politics. But they believe in freedom of speech for all and will defend some pretty unsavory people in that spirit.

Answer 7

What exactly is political bigotry? I just spent time researching the "rule of thumb" that feminists complain about, and it's nothing but a gender hate myth. There was never such a law, but at least three centuries of the phrase being used for estimating things based on experience. Is that an example?

Answer 8

To be against hatred in both parties is not sitting on the fence, as one stated, but stating what is missing/wrong in/with our system. If you can't look at far left blog's and not see hatred you are blind. There may be some on the far right but they do not have the power the far left has. Peace

Answer 9

I fully agree.

Those that can't make rational arguements just force the issue to become more partisan. The one thing that every American should have is an open mind.

Answer 10

You need to ask yourself why you're so cowardly or apathetic that you can't stand on one side of the fence or another,instead of pretending that sitting on it is some sort of intellectual superiority.

Middle roaders are like agnostics,too wishy-washy and cowardly to make a stand.