The juxtaposition between “Conservatives make the same argument” and “Your in group is in power” seems to imply that you think liberals are in power. I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US. They are currently in power in name only, and structurally even that will be an unlikely outcome for the foreseeable future.
> Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.
That you’re able to feel comfortable staying your opinions in public is evidence your group has won.
> Would you care to expand on those?
Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah. Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now. It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished.
This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have. The current social environment is might makes right.
I was asking “which opinions should society learn to tolerate.” Would you care to expand on those?
> Freedom of speech within the rules of the law should not lead to one becoming a pariah.
I’m not sure how you’d square that with the idea of “freedom of association.”
> Morals are relative and change overtime which causes culture wars like the one we’re in now.
Indeed. Your proposal would halt that process. Is that healthy? Who would that benefit, and who would that harm?
> It benefits all to reduce the impact of these wars - ie, when people are operating within the law they should not be punished.
And the law does not punish them. I don’t think it ethical or moral to enshrine such viewpoint protection in the law. No group should be able to legally force someone to like them.
And frankly, that’s not what’s happening today. Nobody is being legally forced to accept LGBTQ people.
> This means that we need laws we can all agree on…but that is a much more solvable problem than the mob rule we currently have.
I don’t know how you’d solve that problem, short of coercion.
> I can assure you that they are not, at least not in the US.
That's not really the case, and I assume that's probably good news for you since you seem to be a liberal.
The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception.
It might not remain like this forever though, because they are alienating a good chunk of the population.
> The vast majority of non-democratic institutions in the US lean heavily liberal: media, academia, and tech companies are all very liberal. The current SCOTUS is the only major exception.
Mixing democratic and non-democratic institutions hardly seems fair, especially since only one of those has the direct power to govern.
You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly. You also left out state governments, which are overwhelmingly controlled in totality by the Conservative party. Not to mention the federal judiciary.
The idea that conservatives aren’t in control is simply false; they are in control of vast swaths of government, and will almost certainly consolidate that power shortly. Even the nominally liberal-controlled elements of government are stymied by the conservative element, a defacto loss of control.
If you want to stick to soft power, we could talk more about that. But if you want to include hard power, then your argument holds no water.
> You left out the Senate, which is split 50/50 and likely won’t be shortly.
While you are correct in that the Republicans have a good chance of flipping the Senate, my claim was about non-democratic institutions.
I think it's fair to count the Senate as a democratic one. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment [1], Senators are directly elected.
> Not to mention the federal judiciary.
I'm not sure about that. According to Ballotpedia [2], 403 of the current Article III federal judges were appointed by a Democrat president, while 391 were appointed by a Republican.
> If you want to stick to soft power, we could talk more about that. But if you want to include hard power, then your argument holds no water.
That's probably the root of our disagreement. Soft power is still political power. Tocqueville had warned us about soft despotism. [3]
One test to determine who's in power is to see whose values are more dangerous to make fun of.
Point well taken; I mixed up “democratic” and “governmental” in my reply.
In any case: I think my broader point of “conservatives have plenty of power” is pretty reasonable. I’m not sure I agree with your implication that it’s more dangerous to make fun of liberals.
If by that you mean “I wish to make fun of liberals and their values but then still remained gainfully employed by a company that claims to adhere to those values”, then sure I guess you have a point.
But in the same fashion I highly doubt I could get a job at the Heritage Foundation, you know? Tribalism doesn’t necessarily have a direct relationship to power.
> Society needs to learn how to tolerate differing opinions.
Would you care to expand on those?