jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (25 posts)

Why is the political right always associated with boorish intolerance?

  1. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    This is a case of an embattled minister holding a prominant government post in Italy and the racist attacks against her, could these descendents of Mussolini's Black Shirts be distant cousins of our tea-party and rightwing political ideology here, you read and decide?

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 … n#comments

    These are the same rightwingers that try to tell us that National Socialism as practiced in Germany was a progressive movement, hardly!!!

    1. 0
      TXSasquatchposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Intolerance leads to bigotry, bigotry to hatred, hatred to violence, and violence to death.  These are NOT "family values"!

      I realize, of course, that this doesn't answer your question of "why," but it does illustrate where intolerance will ultimately lead us and why it's so crucial that we fight like heck against it whenever we see it.  It's the main reason why I moved from right to left on the political continuum and why I won't be returning to the right anytime soon.  Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi, TX, thanks for your comment. We welcome you to the "light side" with open arms.

        It is a difficult question to annswer, conservatives would rather not answer as it would possibly incriminate them. I just don't see these sorts of assaults from the left. They attack the Italian woman's ehtnicity instead of her politics. I have been to Europe many years ago, but the pressure from rising immigration concerns are bringing out aspects of their societies that were concealed for the longest time. Look into Germany and the rise of these Aryan groups who already have been linked to the murder of Turks living there.

        So why does the right always respond like this?

      2. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What is the right?

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That would require an indepth philosophical evaluation, perhaps a hub. It is one of those things, like smut, you know it when you see it.....

      3. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Evil abodes where it abodes, it cares not for titles.

      4. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Evil abodes where it abodes, it cares not for titles.

    2. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You seem to be stretching it a bit to come to these conclusions.  The links between Mussolini and the tea party are beyond thin.

      Still, it's nice to hear from you.  Best wishes.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, EA, maybe I exaggerate just a bit for effect, I admit it. Much of the attacks on Obama have been race based. The GOP's senior ambassador, Newt Gingrich, has some ridiculous theories about the president and his relationship colonial Kenya?  Same sort of logic that says that the Black electorate voted for Obama because he was black. What type of thinking lies behind that sort of reasoning? Whites go on the defensive believing that anything that Obama proposes is designed to benifit minorities at their expense, a zero sum game. No consideration on their part that as President there is a possibility that he is looking at a bigger picture?  On the most innocent stories about Obama's dog, this resentment comes through loud in clear in the vast majority of comments. Check out yahoo comments and see how many race based attacks you can count. But can you tell me why intolerance seems to be a modus operandi for right wing groups, regardless of where you find them?. We both know that there is not tit for tat from the left...

        We will talk again.....

        1. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, racism is leveled at President Obama.  It's wrong.  Yes, some people who consider themselves conservative have been at fault for doing so.  I will not deny that, and I do not condone it.  It doesn't mean that many or even most conservatives agree with that kind of venomous hatred.  Most of us dislike President Obama's policies, not the color of his skin.

          To be totally fair, some liberals directed hatred at President Bush because of the money his family had.  How is it any different to hate a man, because he was born to a wealthy family?  President Obama was born black.  George Bush was born wealthy.  Bigoted hatred, based on uncontrollable factors, is wrong, and it has clearly occurred on both sides of the fence.  The difference is that everybody with sense knows it's wrong to hate based on skin color; it's trendy for liberals to "hate" wealthy people merely because they are wealthy.  Additionally, we consistently hear venomous attitudes directed at the Christian right and from liberal groups.  Let's be honest, how many times have you heard liberals talk, in nasty, hateful terms, about people, based solely on their religious beliefs.  There seems to be some pervasive tone in America that we can denigrate Christianity but must protect the sanctity of religion when it is not Christianity.  If you haven't heard any liberal attacks on Christianity, I'd be happy to provide some well known examples.  Yes, there is plenty of room, on both sides, for honest dialogue about why we find so much fault with each other.  Bigotry is bigotry, and it is not limited to skin color.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That may be true EA, but extremists at this time are on the right side of the political ledger, looks like that is the case in Italy as well. The birther, and Kenya stuff seems to have a life of its own among conservative circles for the longest time. If I asked the fascists making trouble for this minister in Italy do you think that they would have responded as you have? (Most of us dislike President Obama's policies, not the color of his skin.)

            To be totally fair, some liberals directed hatred at President Bush because of the money his family had.

            The Kennedy dynasty was a wealthy one, but they were not seen in that way. So, it is not about the money but do they advocate using wealth and the wealthy to exploit those having less? You earn the ire based on what you do rather than who you are. Our problem is with the GOP philosophy that GW Bush represented well.  The case in Italy is if some have problems with policies she promotes ,attack the policy stance and avoid racist banter.I can detest an philosophy without attacking a person for being something that he or she has no control over. That's the difference.

            Liberals attack the Christian right for attempting to legislate their values into society without regard for the fact that many do not subscribe to their beliefs. That is not hatred on its face, as a lib, most have nothing against religion and worship as long as the principle of 'establishment' is not violated or the rights of others to worship as they wish is not affected. Lets have an example or two of liberal attacks on the Christian right to support your premise here?

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There are plenty of extremists on the left too.

              John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy were not bashed for their wealth, because the republicans don't push for a redistribution of wealth and encourage class warfare.

              Of course Christians legislate their values.  Liberals do the same.  Everybody legislates their values.  How else would you legislate?

              1.  President Obama used his bully pulpit to bash religion by saying, "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."  This was an attack on Christianity.  Would President Obama ever say this about the Muslim religion?  You know the answer.  It's okay to bash Christianity but not other religions.

              2.  Old buildings throughout America and in Washington D.C. have had scripture verses removed that were engraved in the stone; they do this when they "repair" these older buildings.  This is done under the guise of a separation of church and state while refurbishing older buildings.

              3. I haven't fully researched this, and I don't know if I can say that this is correct, but some would say that the law is even written to favor faiths other than Christianity.  Here's what they say:  "In Senate testimony in 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made it clear there is no equality under the federal hate crimes law, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The hate law promises equal protection from violent hate crimes to all religious people. Yet Holder revealed it really only protects favored religions such as Judaism and Islam. Their adherents won’t be prosecuted under the law even if they commit acts which fulfill the government definition of a hate crime. Christians merit no such protection. Holder indicated that if a Christian commits a bias-motivated crime he will be prosecuted to the full extent of hate crimes law. This can include triple penalties."
              http://truthtellers.org/alerts/amisharr … wbias.html
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnziaXfYhc4

              Comparing Italian politics to American politics is about as worthwhile as comparing American football to European football.  They are so different that is pointless.

    3. 59
      Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are saying this with no apparent humour intended. Unbelievable.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So, BN, was it supposed to be funny?

      2. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Black, white what does that have to do with a a reasonable discussion? Obama is black and the worst president in modern times. Because he is black has nothing to do with anything. White people all several billion of them have several billion different opinions about any issue. A black jerk is a jerk, as is a white one. I truly wished that Obama would hold the fort after Tiger screwed up. Anyway I'm pulling for a decisive strike on Syria, You?

      3. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Black, white what does that have to do with a a reasonable discussion? Obama is black and the worst president in modern times. Because he is black has nothing to do with anything. White people all several billion of them have several billion different opinions about any issue. A black jerk is a jerk, as is a white one. I truly wished that Obama would hold the fort after Tiger screwed up. Anyway I'm pulling for a decisive strike on Syria, You?

  2. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Contrary to most of the people on this platform your learnt from history. The fact that you make the analogy with Mussolini's black shirts gives me hope as for our level of education.
    We always have to be on the lookout before the burning of the Reichstag!

    1. mio cid profile image62
      mio cidposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't understand your response can you clarify?,thanks.

    2. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Max, it is strong I admit, but their behavior takes much for Fascist Italy. We can see that many of the lessons of that period have not been learned

  3. 59
    Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago

    Odd question when in fact it is the left that usually reacts with xenophobic vitriol. Question one of their core issues ie.gay issues and climate change among others and watch logic and reason dissipate before you eyes. Present them with facts and and inevitably the name calling starts, bigot, facist. Boorish behaviour by the right is actually behaviour the left cannot reconcile in their attempts to control the rest of the worlds thinking.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How so? How does the left try to control the rest of the world's thinking and what does that have to do with racist pograms directed at ethnic or racial groups?

      1. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Everybody is an individual. Right or left equals right or wrong depending on perception. Because I believe that global warming is not anthropomorphic doesn't make me evil. Let's have a conversation without name calling.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm assuming your misuse of the word "anthropomorphic" implies "caused by humans." But no, it doesn't make you evil. Just hilariously out of touch.

          The question geologists face isn't, "Is global warming caused by humans?"
          The question they face is, "Exactly how much global warming did we cause (because it's probably most of it)?"

      2. 59
        Brent Nicholsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Everybody is an individual. Right or left equals right or wrong depending on perception. Because I believe that global warming is not anthropomorphic doesn't make me evil. Let's have a conversation without name calling.

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Perception? that is true, but the gridlock that we have seen in Congress and the existance of blue and red states indicate that we are well beyond mere perception. Ok, so lets have that conversation. There is a pretty clear line in American politics as to what is considered 'right' vs. left. It would be interesting to discuss and dissect these.

 
working