Have you ever encountered democratic or liberal bigots?
Bigot by definetition means “ a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.” In my opinion I find that “liberals” or those who are politically left leaning tend to be closer to this definition than true conservatives who stand for individual independence and freedom. If liberals do not get their way often they shut down and use fallacious logic to avoid a legitimate logical argument, recently many liberals have expressed violent protests and suppression of free speech in public areas when it comes to people who have differing views. This includes mandating punishment for dissenting view in college campuses and riots in large cities, if you can point to a violent conservative protest id love to see your reference.In fact true constitutional conservstism and bigotry are nearly mutually exclusive because being free to express oneself to the furthest degree as long as it does not interfere with the lives of others is actually what conservatives are all about. Forced government mandates on “equality” naturally contradict this form of independent individual freedom which conservatives strive to achieve in America. Liberals are closed mind to anything other than their large government agenda (whether they know it or not they support large government programs in a addition to being against monopolies, but ignore the fact that government run monopolies are much large than private businesses) which forces people to rely on the very corrupt politicians and government systems which liberals claim to despise. Conservatives support individual freedom which is the maximum form of balanced equality and tolerance thus the ideal opposite of bigotry.
Bigotry: Why do people, particularly liberals, misuse the word "bigot" so often?
Because taboos are all-encompassing, greedy creatures that eat public debate surrounding everything they touch. Because discussions about sex, orientation, and race are uncomfortable for all participants, the easiest way to end the conversation, and end it in your favor, is to accuse someone of being bigoted. That's why you see conservatives occasionally try to fire back about "the soft bigotry of low expectations" when talking about, say, affirmative action, when the plight of the poor black students who get preferential treatment probably isn't what's actually bothering them. They pretend it is in order to gain credibility, when the honest thing to do would be to say "we reject your definition of bigotry. I know we're mostly white guys, I know we probably don't get your point of view, but here's where we're coming from, and we think this is the right way to handle things."But that would involve engaging with a topic that is difficult, easily offensive, and, in some cases, professionally harmful or literally illegal to discuss.
To what extent has Democrats labeling non-Leftists as bigots enabled actual bigots (such as the Alt-Right) to be accepted by mainstream conservatives?
I think you have to be very careful with labels. When you alienate the “good ones” with ignorant and untrue comments over and over, you lose credibility with them. THEY know what you are accusing them of is not true so therefore what else are you wrong about?It is hard to unite with Dems who are accusing you of being one of the alt right and therefore putting themselves automatically in the enemy camp with the accusations, against another enemy “alt right” . The enemy of my enemy is my friend….Having said that, I don’t believe that the alt right is accepted by mainstream conservatives. And that is the problem and where the Mainstream conservatives get caught between a rock and a hard place. They DON’T love the alt right and yet they are being lumped into the group by Dems wrongly and accused of something they don’t stand for. So they are neither accepted by the alt right (and don’t want to be) but they are also falsely accused and not accepted by the left which leaves them no where.
What is so "Liberal" about NPR?
this is primarily for those who actually regard NPR as being substantially biased to the left. I've been listening to NPR for a while now, and I find most of the reporting to be quite fair and reasonably unbiased. in the recent events, the Juan Williams thing, from what I've read, hes been pushing the limits of what he agreed to and what the network could tolerate from him, for a long time. and he finally went over the line in a way that would make NPR look bad, and that was against their policies. why is that unreasonable? and on the issue of not allowing employees who aren't reporting on it, to go to the Stewart/Colbert rally, that was an old policy that was in place to MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY. and it was only brought up because some people were unclear if THAT rally counted under that policy due to it being held by a comedian, not a political figure or primarily political commentator. the same policy applied to Glenn Beck's rally. its just that it was unquestionably applicable in that case, and not so much for the Stewart/Colbert one. and if you regard NPR as being left wing or whatever you want to describe it as, do you admit that Fox is certainly not *actually* "fair and balanced" but has an EXTREME right wing bias?