Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don't like?

[SYTFE]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

 

[forkup]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

Fascism is mostly a right wing phenomenon: jingoistic, nationalistic, racialistic, xeonophobic, culturally immature, anti-democracy, anti-educational, anti-intellectualism.

Was there anything in that masterpiece of an article that you dispute?

Liberals won’t – because they can’t – pause to reflect on how they should stop being such insufferable jerks and live with us normals in peace and mutual respect.
We must keep fighting. We must never give an inch, never back down, never give up. We must respond to every attack upon us, large or small, with overwhelming firepower.
Seems your article does a pretty good job of disputing itself. You can't both ask for peace and mutual respect and at the same time calling for the utter destruction of political beliefs you don't agree with.

From an OP a few hours ago. Perfectly illustrating how conservatives are unable to spot the glaring inconsistency that exist between how they see themselves and who they actually are. The highlighted stuff was copy pasted from the article provided.

 

[Fueri]

Might want to ask Van Jones what he thinks of this piece...

 

[Norman]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

Liberal views are views so good that they have to be made mandatory.

As for the OP, not sure if he is serious.

 

[forkup]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

Liberal views are views so good that they have to be made mandatory.

As for the OP, not sure if he is serious.

Marginalising by ridiculing IS a form of censorship in it's own right. By not accepting the premise of the OP, you are actually confirming it. Just saying Norman.

 

[SYTFE]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

Liberal views are views so good that they have to be made mandatory.

As for the OP, not sure if he is serious.

Marginalising by ridiculing IS a form of censorship in it's own right. By not accepting the premise of the OP, you are actually confirming it. Just saying Norman.

That is their MO. I've seen it over and over again on this forum. It's what they do. They really can't do anything else.

 

[Onyx]

Americans in general are huge snowflakes.

 

[forkup]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

Liberal views are views so good that they have to be made mandatory.

As for the OP, not sure if he is serious.

Marginalising by ridiculing IS a form of censorship in it's own right. By not accepting the premise of the OP, you are actually confirming it. Just saying Norman.

That is their MO. I've seen it over and over again on this forum. It's what they do.

Me to, I've found that calling them on it, while at the same time sticking on point has some, by no means complete success.

 

[SYTFE]

Americans in general are huge snowflakes.

LOL, you could say that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ideologues in both parties are special snowflakes when it comes to discourse they don't like.

Mod Edit: Don't call out other members of the board, please.

 

[Dragonlady]

Who's more tolerant of dissenting views: liberals or conservatives?

You hear it all the time from conservatives: The left must remember to tolerate dissenting opinions. But if you’ve followed the news cycle recently, you may have noticed that it hasn’t been the left imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions recently. It’s been the right.

Tomi Lahren formerly of The Blaze, who was once hailed as the second coming of Ann Coulter, is now fighting to retain control of her Facebook page after being unceremoniously dropped for daring to express a pro-choice opinion. Meanwhile Milo Yiannopoulos formerly of Breitbart — whom the right once claimed to venerate because of his willingness to flout the taboos of discourse — was toppled last month when it was discovered he had once seemingly condoned ephebophilia.

So what gives? Why are members of the left regularly denounced as “special snowflakes” when the right just took down two of its highest profile pundits for daring to stray from the ideological reservation?

“Both ends of the political spectrum can be vociferous defenders of speech with which they agree, but are sorely tested when speech offends them,” said Ken Paulson — president of the First Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s College of Mass Communication, as well as former editor-in-chief of USA Today. “America became a great country in large part because everyone could share an opinion, and over time, the best ideas forged our nation. Today everyone is free to speak, but where’s the value if no one is willing to listen?”

“The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful and deeply offensive speech,”Paulson added in an email. “There’s no cherry-picking the right to speak.”

David Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, echoed Paulson’s views.

“I call it the dissonance between the ideal and the real,” Hudson told Salon in an email. “The ideal is that we support free speech; we tolerate and even encourage opposing viewpoints. The real is that we despise contrary viewpoints and take measures to silence them; we fail to adhere to the essence of the First Amendment — our blueprint for personal liberty.”

“Liberals and conservatives both suppress speech,” Hudson concluded. “Neither side has a monopoly on it. Censorship is as common an impulse as sex. What we need is a greater commitment all across the political spectrum to accept and listen to speech that we don’t like.”

---------------

Rest of article here: Free speech vs. safe spaces: Are conservatives “special snowflakes” when it comes to discourse they don’t like?

Based on what I've seen on this forum since signing up, conservatives BY FAR are the ones who are the most likely to suppress discourse that they don't like. There isn't a safe space cozy enough for the conservatives on this forum, that's for sure.

I was dating a conservative Trump supporter, until recently. During the election, I couldn't mention Hillary Clinton's name, it upset him so badly. I also can't mention I like the New England Patriots either. Total snowflake.

 

[blackhawk]

Rather amusing commentary coming from the same left who tried to label anyone who disagreed with any Obama policy as racist. Trying to insult, demean, and label people who you don't agree with is not discourse is an attempt to silence it.

 

[Correll]

I have no problem with "discourse I don't like".

I have problem when people are fucking assholes.

 

[SYTFE]

I have no problem with "discourse I don't like".

I have problem when people are fucking assholes.

So, in other words, you don't like it when people have different opinions or express themselves in ways that offend your delicate sensibilities. Snowflake.

There's nothing wrong with being an asshole. Just ask me and I'll gladly tell ya!

 

[Correll]

I have no problem with "discourse I don't like".

I have problem when people are fucking assholes.

So, in other words, you don't like it when people have different opinions or express themselves in ways that offend your delicate sensibilities. Snowflake.

There's nothing wrong with being an asshole. Just ask me and I'll gladly tell ya!

I just stated that I have no problem when people express opinions that I don't like.

My problem is when they are fucking assholes.

Lying about what I said, is the type of thing a fucking asshole would do.

 

[bodecea]

Just look who starts more whiny threads here.

 

[IsaacNewton]

No question that conservatives are snowflakes, all you have to do is listen to conservative talk radio for 15 minutes and you will here whining like you've never heard before. They whine about EVERYTHING. To them all the world is miserable and its all someone else's fault. They have this constant insatiable need to have their beliefs validated by someone else. And they worship ignorance.

 

[whitehall]

Lefties smashed windows and burned cars during the inauguration. Every conservative speaker (including Ann Coulter) has been a victim of assault on a college campus some time or numerous times in their careers. Barry Hussein tried to silence Talk Radio with an ironically named "fairness doctrine bill". As a matter of fact Barry Hussein's political mentor was a domestic terrorist who bombed corporations and Military centers. Tell me again how does the left deal with dissenting views?

 

[Correll]

No question that conservatives are snowflakes, all you have to do is listen to conservative talk radio for 15 minutes and you will here whining like you've never heard before. They whine about EVERYTHING. To them all the world is miserable and its all someone else's fault. They have this constant insatiable need to have their beliefs validated by someone else. And they worship ignorance.

Everyone likes having their views validated.

You don't see the way your world view is constantly validated by msm and pop culture, as it strikes you as "of course that is what people would say or do, what else would they do".

 

[Billy000]

USMB Rightwingers only like their own freedom of speech. I mean these are people who whine about the very existence of gay people. They never matured past junior high is the problem.