excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"
Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows differences in the brains of liberals vs. conservatives!
What do YOU think about Ms. Kohn's conclusions?
By Sally Kohn, Friday, April 15
...The real problem isn’t a liberal weakness. It’s something liberals have proudly seen as a strength — our deep-seated dedication to tolerance.
In any given fight, tolerance is benevolent, while intolerance gets in the good punches. Tolerance plays by the rules, while intolerance fights dirty. The result is round after round of knockouts against liberals who think they’re high and mighty for being open-minded but who, politically and ideologically, are simply suckers.
Social science research has long dissected the differences between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals supposedly have better sex, but conservatives are happier. [Really?They don't seem very happy to me!!!]
Liberals are more creative; conservatives more trustworthy. [Yes to the former. NO to the latter!]
And, since the 1930s, political psychologists have argued that liberals are more tolerant. Specifically, those who hold liberal political views are more likely to be open-minded, flexible and interested in new ideas and experiences, while those who hold conservative political views are more likely to be closed-minded, conformist and resistant to change.
As recently as 2008, New York University political psychologist John Jost and his colleagues confirmed statistically significant personality differences connected to political leanings. Brain-imaging studies have even suggested that conservative brains are hard-wired for fear, while the part of the brain that tolerates uncertainty is bigger in liberal heads.
... in his book “Signs of Struggle: The Rhetorical Politics of Cultural Difference,” Thomas R. West notes that tolerance is often used in a pejorative way to make excuses for inequalities in power.
West makes the same critique of negotiation: When fundamental rights and core values are on the table, just talking about negotiating means you’ve already lost.
It would be one thing if Republicans were negotiating in good faith, recognizing that reasonable minds can disagree on the matters at hand and that each will have to bend.
But the GOP has become so extremist that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) made clear after the 2010 elections that his party’s agenda for the next two years was not governing but ensuring Obama’s defeat in 2012.
There is a time for tolerance and compromise, but if the GOP is always dictating when that time is, Democrats have already lost. Suckers.
Mighty Mom... try reading some of the research on "Social Dominace Theory" - it is fascinating stuff. There is a questionaire, about 15 or so questions, that help to predict your political orientation. One of the major factors is "adversion to change." Those with the most adversion to change, the most distrust of anything outside the status quo, typically score conservative. Another question is whether you believe people are inherantly equal or some people are just "born" to have a lower station in life. Those who believe that people are not fundamentaly equal tended to have conservative polictical leanings, etc.
So it appears to be a case of nature and nurture. But there is a very distinct difference between liberals and conservatives in the way they view the world.
I don't think we even need scientific research to back that up. Five minutes in this forum and anyone knows liberals and conservatives view the world differently.
I'm pondering, however, whether rigidity and refusal to change are detrimental to adaptation in today's very fluid, evolving world. It seems to me the countries that aer willing to try and try on new ways of being are thriving more than those entrenched in "this is how we have always done it."
I think that an unfortunate psychological need to close every open question with an answer is at the root of much religious and political dogmatism and even extremism. I can't prove it, but suspect that this is more common in the far right than the far left, yet it is certainly present at both extremes. What we need in politics is a healthy dose of situational pragmatism. Britain's John Major was in that mold, and a great relief after the extremely dogmatic Margaret Thatcher.
I don't know enough about US politics to know if you have any of this type in prominent positions, but my impression is that it would simply be unfashionable over there to try to be reasonable and pragmatic. Pity.
I would say Obama is a pragmatist. It's called "bipartisanship" here.
That you see pragmatism/reasonableness as unfashionable in the US strikes me as bizarre given that you're British. Our political culture is much more similar to yours than you would probably like to admit or acknowledge.
I agree about Obama being essentially pragmatist.
I'm not holding up British politics as any kind of model, by the way. Of course the systems (US & UK) have more similarities than differences. However, our politicians are far less likely to invoke God as being on their side. Tony Blair was guilty of that; possibly from spending too much time in GWB's company.
Our nastiest extremists are to be found in the British National Party and the National Front, but fortunately these have marginal support. I get the impression that extremism is more fashionable in the US, no?
I don't know. I don't know enough about British politics to make a fair comparison.
Of course, I could look at the BNP and say that the KKK (which I assume is the closest analogue here) would never command 5% of the vote in New York City or Washington. So, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extremist."
Fair point about the BNP.
I'd say that invoking God on one's side and denouncing all opposition as anti-American is extremist.
Mainstream politicians don't actually do that, despite the caricatures to the contrary (not even Blair or Bush went that far).
And, besides, if those fringe ones that do were to be at the same level of extremism as the BNP, wouldn't have have to be explicitly arguing for citizens of all other religions to leave the country?
LOL, the epitome of extremism / dogmatic ideologoical loyalty / ideological blindness IS Obama.
That's only because Rush or "The Donald" told you to believe that.
You might not be so upset (at Obama, at least) once you realize the joke's on you.
Adapt or die. Writing for money on hubpages is a good example.
Nations who foster education and information make strides for bettering their quality of life, and effectiveness of government, while those who are entrenched in war and dissension are usually firmly rooted in traditions and values that are often faulty and grounded in superstition and ignorance. We find this in the US as faction fights faction, well as other places.
First great read, very informative. But I must say I have to disagree with many of the studies findings. Tolerence? Seriously, does the study group not see how Dems respond to issues. There is always a conspiracy, they always say no, thye never cooperate or look to negotiate solutions. Remember health care? It was done behind closed doors by Dems only. Does that sound like playing by the rules as tolerence dictates? Remember when the Tea Party was just becoming a force? The dems were nervous and went on the attack. Pelosi calling them Nazis quickly comes to mind. That does not sound like tolerance to me. But name calling is not exclusive to Dems, Repubs do it to, but not as well or often as Dems do.
Sorry to tell the study group( by the way I wish I was a subject for this study LOL) That Indepndents like me are better at sex than Dems or Repubs. They concentrate on arguing, we concentrate on what we are doing:)
Sorry MM had to do that plug. LOL. SO not to make this a book, I also disagree with the Liberals being creative, if they were we would have a balanced budget, they could fix SS and Medicare, and creats jobs among other issues. But by no mean id the Repubs innocent in this but at least they have ideas. They are questionable sometimes but they are not afraid to through something at the wall to see if it sticks. I disagree with Trustworthy. Acually both sides are not trustworthy. And lastly, negotiating in good faith does not apply to Dems or Repubs. Once more, if they could things would be much better. I am hopeful that someday these issues could be a thing of the past, but I know differently. You have raised my curiosity with this. I am going to look for the research papers and read them Thanks for another thread that makes us think
Update: once more where is the tolarence, playing by the rules. Pelosi just said on CNN that she has instructed the Dems to never negotiate, give a plan or to vote on Medicare reforms. She believes that the Dems can use that issue to keep the White House. The White House is more important to Pelosi and the Dems than the elderly they claim they are protecting
"Seriously, does the study group not see how Dems respond to issues. There is always a conspiracy, they always say no, thye never cooperate or look to negotiate solutions. Remember health care?"
'Always a conspiracy" - Remember Republicans claiming death panels, that Democrats want to "kill your grandma?" What about the birth certificate? What about being a Muslim? What about FEMA camps? What about George Soros and the New World Order?
"To our seniors, I have a message for you: you're going to die sooner," if the health care bill passes, Sen. Tom Coburn (R- Okla.) said on the floor of the Senate in December.
Rep. Paul Broun (R- Ga.) took the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday to say: "If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that’s in people’s pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the war between the states — the Great War of Yankee Aggression."
"We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma." —Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Aug. 12, 2009
"You have three people in the White House that are in love with eugenics or whatever it is you would call it today. … Please dear God, read history. Please dear God read the truth of what these people have said in their own words, and ask yourself this one question: Do you trust these people enough to give them control over who lives and who dies? Because that's what health care is when you have no other choice but to go to the state." —Glenn Beck, comparing health care reform to Nazi eugenics
"...always say no."
Republicans were even rejecting THEIR OWN IDEAS!
Do you really think you can take pass this along? We all remember the countless articles and stories of Republicans being the party of NO.
"thye never cooperate or look to negotiate solutions."
Top Republican rules out compromise on budget
http://video.ft.com/v/878295224001/Top- … -on-budget
CNN: GOP's Mike Pence: 'No compromise'
Republicans: We won't compromise on healthcare, spending
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/05/1 … omise.html
GOP Senator Pens Obstruction Manual For Health Care
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 … 77386.html
""There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it.""
I can do this all day. What you are doing, intentionally, is taking EXACTLY what your party is doing and is known for, and projecting it onto the other party. It is childish. It is a lie, and it is shameful. Over and over you do this.
Do not compare me to that loser Beck. That would be like me comapring you to that loser Pelosi. Wait, that was an insult to Pelosi, sorry Nancy. And what do you call Pelosis statement on CNN yesterday telling Dems to not negotiate on Medicare, do not offer a plan, do not vote on the issue. Oh. I guess I made that up to. I must have called CNN and doctored tape to make it look like Pelosi said that. Just trying to stay ahead of your spin Tex. Miami Herald, Huffington Post, You tube, ABC news, Video.ft, wow all factual and reliable. Are you kidding me, this is your credible research. Just once it would be refreshing if you just used a fact to back you up instead of opinions. And enough of the Dem talking point to just deny, twist, misquote and misinform. It is getting old. I think I can speak for the rest of us hubbers, we are tired of correcting you.
Actual statements by the very people involved, proving that you are full of it. Everyone here can read, can open the links and SEE the Republicans doing the very thing you claim the Dems are guilty of, and you....ignore it, like the a little kid. Pathetic sir. What makes you think you can speak for other hubbers...you can't even represent the basic facts about yourself honestly. I cite the exact CBO report you cite, and you dismiss it. I give you actual quotes by Republicans; you deny them. I give you actual footage of the Republicans saying the things you claim they aren't, and you deny it. What more do you want? Do you want me to bring them to your house? Is that the only source you believe in? Oh....was it not on Fox? Are all other sources on the entire planet, including the actual people on camera false? You are a joke dude.
"Oh man, liberals are so tolerant!!... TAX THE WEALTHY!!! DEATH TO THE RICH!!! NO CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS!!! KEEP BOMBING IRAQ JUST BECAUSE OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!! RACISTS SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL!!! REPUBLICANS ARE IDIOTS!!!!"
... I could easily find a quote from these forums to support each one of those arguments.
Creationism in school???
I don't see why it's intolerant to keep a Bible-based worldview out of public schools.
But what do I know.
I'm too busy yelling "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iraq!!"
(sorry Evan but I honestly do not know your frame of reference on that one? What Dems want to bomb Iraq?)
1) It can't be said that you're tolerant if you OUTLAW a religion in schools. That's called "intolerant".
2) Many liberals have lost their anti-war credentials since Obama has become president. I've seen it here on these forums. "But it's Obama, he's doing good things".
I'll look through some forums and post the results when I find some.
Also, let me point something out to you that you seem to be making a mistake about: Democrat and Liberal are NOT synonymous.
The Repubs never used the race card. Obama and the Dems accuse the Repubs of being racist everytime they disagree. Disagreeing does not equal racism.
"Southern strategy refers to the late-20th century Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism among Southern white voters and appealing to states' rights. Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats left the party following the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation."
Oh, I could EASILY (very easily, indeed) find NUMEROUS intolerant statements on the Republican side of the debate.
I was merely pointing out that Democrats/Liberals tend to think that they're above intolerance........ then they outlaw smoking.
Well, mostly true. Liberals are INDEED more creative and open to new experiences. They also think outside the box and are open to different cultures. They also do not believe that one size does not fit all. They are also more forgiving. Conservatives are LESS creative and believe in doing things the way IT ALWAYS HAS BE DONE( DID A HUB ON CONSERVATIVES). They are more conventional and traditional; they exist in the security mode and are more risk averse.
However, the extreme elements of Liberals believe in tolerance to the point where it is detrimental to the social fabric. Extreme Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in intolerance to the point where it is detrimental to the social fabric. One can describe extreme Conservatives as quite jingoistic! Extreme Liberals and extreme conservatives have something in common-both are intolerant of those who express divergent opinions. They are fanatical in terms of their beliefs, believing that THEIR BELIEFS are the only, legitimate ones. Both extreme Liberals or Leftists and extreme Conservatives or Rightists are DANGEROUS people! Thankfully, most Liberals and Conservatives are intelligent, reasonable people who only want THE BEST for their particular society!
Where you ever got the idea that liberals are tolerant of others who disagree is beyond me. Or even that "tolerance plays by the rules" where libs are concerned. So far, it's most definitely NOT the libs who play by good rules at all.
And sure they're suckers! But not for common sense. They're suckers for anyone who's audacious enough to twist truth into unrecognizable chaos. Their leader(s) are experts at that, and they follow like good little robots.
Yes, why are we debating their ideas? Why is cutting the debt and deficit all of a sudden the "in" thing to be for?
And really--what did happen to ALL the screaming about jobs? No one even mentions it anymore!
It's cut cut cut cut. Morons.
How about grow grow grow grow...and NOT Russhhhh's bank account. He has MORE than enuff.
It's just stupid how the GOP press rules. Screw them! They are fine...
Cut from them--there's a novel idea. Oh wait--Obama just suggested that!!
Scream iT! Just like Boehner always used to scream. And cry if you have to...like Beckles.
Apparently, the only thing that works for Americans is HYSTERIA!
Sounds like you are really tolerant!
"The only thing that works for Americans is HYSTERIA"
Well, if anyone would know.......
And the dems are the best at hysteria. Before you say they do not how abut the add in NY where they push an old lady off a cliff. Could it be to instill fear? We do need growth but growth alone will not cure our financial problem. We also need cuts. If you listen everyday there is a sound byte from a Repub asking the question"Mr. President where are the jobs?" And funny you pick on Beckels, he is a Dem, an aide to President Clinton
I got everything in the OP from the article by Ms. Kohn which was published in the Washington Post on Friday, April 15th.
There was a thread here not long ago about what can each "side" learn from the other?
What I get from this article is that Dems should be less willing to negotiate. Stand tall and stand your ground.
New Congressional mantra: We don't negotiate with terrorists from the right side of the aisle...
It's not that liberals are super tolerant and benevolent, it's that the Right has become so completely hysterical that it seems that way sometimes. There were unnecessary and silly attacks against Bush, but the hatred and vitriol directed at Obama and anyone who isn't ultra-far to the Right is unprecedented. The Right has taken the poor state of the economy that Bush left us with used it to radicalize their base.
I bet I could make a Liberal intolerant of me just as easily as I could make a Conservative intolerant of me.
That really depends on how you're defining intolerant.
And that assumes that I can't be a crazy jerk whenever I want to!
PS - I'm having a debate about these "relative definition words". Liberals use them quite a bit to outlaw things. I fight against the usage. And this is another example.
I could EASILY make ANYONE intolerant of me. But you guys can just change the definition.
God Bless Orwell's 1984 novel!
he can be a liberal and socialist all he wanted to: he pointed out that the shifting definitions of words has a damning effect on logic.
More than just the shifting definitions of words... we know that happens over time anyway... But the restatement of reality by deliberate misconstruing truth.
Example... An officer stops a drunk driver, who is weaving wildly all over the road. The man gets out of the car, pulls a gun and shoots it at the officer, but misses and the officer shoots him stone cold dead on the spot. The next morning, the newspaper headline is "Officer murders driver".
This is not a redefinition of words, as a deliberate betrayal of truth and reality, for the purpose of advancing an agenda. I believe Orwell would agree that would be his most important message, rather than just focusing on the trivia about the redefinition of words and the invention of new ones. Yes, that happened, but the purpose was the evil to be concerned about, not the action itself.
My only real problem is that people come on here and basically want to outlaw something that can't be quantifiably defined.
The extreme fringes (far left and far right) always want to shut up the opposition.
I personally enjoy your posts, even if they usually don't make a whole lot of sense in the real world.
But you may as well try to stop the tides as stop the definition of words changing.
I know it's inconvenient that not everything can be defined in absolute terms with precise lines of demarcation. Requires a lot of thinking about the where one's own ethics and values lie within the large spectrum of possibilities, eh?
Evan describe good sex to me (no don't really) in absolute terms and I guarantee that virtually every poster on here will disagree with your absolute definition.
It isn't a political thing, it's called living in a relative world.
Poverty is relative, wages are relative, food is relative, that's why we have so many relative words in our vocabulary.
Well said, John Holden.
We live in an increasingly relative world.
Only extremists see things as black or white, all good or completely evil. (think jihadists)
But I can see why conservatism is attractive to some people.
You don't have to think. All the decisions have been ordained already. All you have to do is believe and defend.
Oh, and reject any evidence that conflicts with your B/W, right/wrong worldview.
Which, in 2011, is a lot of evidence on a lot of issue.
Oh well, there's always guns and religion to cling to.
They believe they'll be rewarded for steadfast fealty.
Usually because they were brought up that way.
Fealty is a great word, ll.
Reminds me of fallacy, folly, and frailty combined
Who needs education when you can be brought up to blindly believe what your ancestors believed?
There are people out there who actually and avidly want America dumbed down.
I find that very destructive. Don't you?
Greed can't be defined well enough to outlaw / tax out of existence.
Neither can "good" or "bad".
You surely agree, and thus, you agree with me, not John.
I don't have to describe good sex to anyone because I'm not trying to make it illegal.
Don't twist this! YOU are the one trying to outlaw Greed (or tax greedy people into "normal"ness), so by YOUR example, YOU would be the one to outlaw "good sex", but YOU would first have to define it.
Which is impossible because it's entirely relative. My good sex is different than your good sex is different from mighty mom's good sex is different than a catholic nun's good sex. THAT'S MY POINT!!
Don't twist this - you're trying to have me prove your point for you. But, in doing so, you proved my point for me.
I'm glad we agree: it's impossible to outlaw things that have completely relative values associated with them.
Who's talking about outlawing anything?
The fact that I think somebody is greedy and excessive does not mean that I want to outlaw them, that's just crazy!
That doesn't mean I have to pretend that the are wonderful though.
God...I sure hope that my mind is different from that of a "Liberals" ! Please Lord, Yes!
This guy says it well:
"So is Obama losing because he’s “too tolerant”? Because he didn’t turn his mandate into political results?
I think Kohn, Krugman and Klein would have you forget Obama’s “the election is over, John” jape during the Obamacare debate. Or the certitude with which Obama’s majority in Congress jammed down Obamacare.
So is Obama “too tolerant”< Or has he just turned out to be a weak, wishy-washy leader who squandered an epic mandate?
As Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, those who might wish to dissolve the newly established union should be left “undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
But some errors, by their nature, undermine reason.
Writing in 1945, philosopher Karl Popper called this the “paradox of tolerance” – that unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance altogether.
To put the current political climate in Popper’s terms, if liberals are not willing to defend against the rigid demands of their political opponents, who are emboldened by their own unwavering opinions, their full range of open-minded positions will be destroyed.
Liberals are neutered by their own tolerance.
Liberals, as we saw in Wisconsin over the winter and on campuses every spring, are not “overtolerant”, to be kind.
They are on the political decline. They lost in 2010; national reapportionment will weaken them more this year, and demographics don’t favor them in ten years either. Things are touch-and-go for 2012, but there is a decent chance they lose the Senate.
Liberals aren’t weak because they’re “tolerant”; they’re not, but that’s irrelevant. Liberals are weak because they are selling a bill of goods that fewer people are buying."
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 … -survival/
Neither of the extremes are tolerant AT ALL. We are currently being held hostage by both. The hard Left and Right are tearing us apart. We elected them, we are getting what we asked for apparently.
People don't pay attention until it hits them in the wallet or effects them directly in some other way. The problem is that because we are being led by the two polar opposite extremes MORE of us are actually feeling the effects.
If Obama looses the Presidential Election in 2012, it will not be because the people believe he did a bad job. It will be because the economy sucks and it's effecting them. The President, who ever they are takes the majority of blame for problems that congress, wallstreet and mainstreet create.
To be a liberal means being tolerant of everyone, no matter what their views. Unfortunately this often results in being tolerant of bigots and fundamentalists of all kinds. Bigots will take advantage of the tolerance of liberals. Liberals fail to notice that they are sometimes being used, because of their desire to be inclusive. So, the paradox is that liberalism often leads to some very intolerant extremists being allowed a platform for their aggresive views.
Liberals are only tolerant of those who agree with their liberal views. They have no tolerance for anyone else, as seen on the national news every evening.
Right/Left Conservative/Liberal Rich/Poor Light/Dark
All tools of division used by power brokers to divide the populace to maintain control. If we all treated each other as individuals we just might find that the American People agree on more things then disagree.
It is just that if we all realize that we are individuals and not some kind of label, we would Unite!
They are scared of that!
I ain't uniting with the likes of YOU!
You are the enemy!!
You don't think correctly!
You believe ridiculous lies about things I know to be true!
No way, Jose (and you, too, Arthur Fontes*)
I am a tolerant LIBERAL !!!
*(you do know I'm joshin you, right?)
Grap ya Gun Maw!
Dem Libs are gettin off da busses in town!!!!!!!!!
to funny guys, good thread, enjoyed...
by mega1 8 years ago
Or does it just seem that way because the Democrats/liberals are less vocal about it? Lately it seems to me there are many many more conservatives and their agendas being pushed at us. I usually keep away from politics entirely, but if it is true that most of the forum posters are...
by email@example.com 3 years ago
Why don't Hollywood liberals and liberal billionaires give their fortunes to the government ?With all the talk about paying your fair share, you'd think that the countries wealthiest and most influential liberals would at least give their fortunes to the government as an example since...
by Ralph Schwartz 17 months ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting rights, and national defense; just off the top of my head. About half of...
by Scott Belford 7 days ago
Many people who call themselves Conservatives, IMO, aren't. Many people who Conservatives call Socialists, aren't. In studying politics, I ran across a couple of lectures which identified what the professor called minimal-state liberals (Libertarians) and active-state liberals (modern...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for unethical behaviour wants more of the tax payers money! Given how she's abused it in...
by crankalicious 9 months ago
Has President Trump been compromised? Does Russia have something on President Trump that would cause him to say things and create policy that favor Russia?After Helsinki, it's hard not to wonder if something is terribly wrong. Real Americans everywhere, regardless of party affiliation, should be...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|