The hypocrisy of liberal tolerance?

[Beet]

Some people feel that liberals are intolerant when they claim to be tolerant and open-minded yet seem to oppose those who oppose their views. Where's the tolerance for the other side? Where's the tolerance for my religious beliefs, for example, or the belief that marriage can only be between man and woman? This is a common refrain stemming from an understandable sentiment: liberals' opponents do not feel the benefits of liberals' self-proclaimed tolerance or open-mindedness.

My argument is that this view is only sometimes justified. It is justified when liberals show intolerance toward something or someone that is not in turn being intolerant to someone else: for example, if a liberal skewers Republicans' opinions as unworthy because they are "ignorant rednecks". Being a Republican does not necessarily make one a redneck, and being a redneck, even an igorant one, does not make one's opinion unworthy.

On the other hand, this view is unjustified when liberals show intolerance toward something or something that is exhibiting intolerance themselves. Let me draw an analogy. Think about punishment.

Is punishment hypocritical? Kidnapping someone and locking them up as a prisoner for years would be considered a crime, they send you to jail, effectively doing the same thing to the perpetrator. Murder is a crime, for which some people are executed, effectively murdering them. Thus, society does the same thing which it prohibits: like the liberal who shows intolerance toward the intolerant, it is being "hypocritical." Yet would one really deprive the criminal justice system of a means of enforcement? Clearly virtually no one would argue such a position. Is the criminal justice system somehow inherently contradictory and inconsistent? Again, very few people have argued such a position. Yet, when a person argues in favor of tolerance, they are in precisely the same position. It is neither hypocritical nor inconsistent for them to be intolerant of intolerance, or any of the forms intolerance takes.

Otherwise, no one could ever argue for tolerance-- supporting tolerance itself would be impossible. For if the consistency of supporting tolerance included absolute tolerance for intolerance, then the support for tolerance in the first place disappears. Obviously this is a silly and very extreme position to take.

My reason for posting this thread is many people I've seen who, when confronted with someone who says they are tolerant and take a strong position-- any position-- often rejoin that the person cannot claim to be a supporter of tolerance because the person is being intolerant of their own view, and when people make this claim, specifically when what they want tolerance for is itself somehow intolerant, they are often being silly. In this case, their rejoinder is unjustified and invalid.

[opebo]

Great post, thefactor!  As I always say, in order to be a tolerant, one must be intolerant of intolerance.

[MODU]

Nicely written

[CheeseWhiz]

My problem with the Democratic Parties tolerence:  It's only tolerent towards those who the Republicans are intolerent towards, and vice-versa.  I haven't seen many Democratic Politicians be very tolerent of homeschoolers, and more so unschoolers.  I also see a lot of Democrats who are intolerent of anybody raising their children in way they don't think is conventional.  They also are very intolerent of stay at home moms.  I see your point, but the Democrats are far from being tolerent, and I really don't see how they can claim to be so.

[opebo]

I also see a lot of Democrats who are intolerent of anybody raising their children in way they don't think is conventional. 

I see your point, but I think their concern is motivated by fear that the helpless child will be abused and disadvantaged throughout life.

[John Dibble]

I also see a lot of Democrats who are intolerent of anybody raising their children in way they don't think is conventional. 

I see your point, but I think their concern is motivated by fear that the helpless child will be abused and disadvantaged throughout life.

True, but fear can often cloud rational judgement. It happens on all sides, really.

[Beet]

My problem with the Democratic Parties tolerence:  It's only tolerent towards those who the Republicans are intolerent towards, and vice-versa.

The main point is just that complaints that Dems are not truly tolerant because they don't tolerate bigotry, etc. are invalid. It's not saying that Democrats are necessarily tolerant toward everything. A true libertarian (there are many conservatives who claim to be libertarians) for example is probably more tolerant than either libs or cons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unschoolers I'll admit Dems aren't very tolerant of, because we generally see lack of high school education as a bad thing. Homeschoolers though I haven't seen criticism of except from myself-- I used to think homeschooling should be banned, but I was pretty much alone on this and changed my mind later on. I've never heard anyone else say homeschooling was wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean don't think conventional? If you mean teaching them the Bible and religion etc. at homeschool, I haven't seen any Dems say this was wrong (as long as they were still able to meet high school level standards of biology), though if they didn't I'd certainly disagree and I think the vast majority of Dems would agree that this is a perogative of the parents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I've seen a lot more accusations like this than actual Dems saying that it's wrong to be a stay at home mom. It's possible to celebrate women with successful careers as opening doors or breaking the mold without denigrating stay at home moms (or dads).

[opebo]

I also see a lot of Democrats who are intolerent of anybody raising their children in way they don't think is conventional. 

I see your point, but I think their concern is motivated by fear that the helpless child will be abused and disadvantaged throughout life.

True, but fear can often cloud rational judgement. It happens on all sides, really.

The fear is absolutely reasonable, Dibble, as parents are highly prone to child-abuse, particulary by indocrination into cults.

[John Dibble]

I also see a lot of Democrats who are intolerent of anybody raising their children in way they don't think is conventional. 

I see your point, but I think their concern is motivated by fear that the helpless child will be abused and disadvantaged throughout life.

True, but fear can often cloud rational judgement. It happens on all sides, really.

The fear is absolutely reasonable, Dibble, as parents are highly prone to child-abuse, particulary by indocrination into cults.

I said fear clouds judgement, not whether or not the fear was reasonable. In the case you're talking about, both the fear and the judgements are irrational. Hell, if we followed your logic through we should just let kids run amok doing anything they wanted.

[CheeseWhiz]

My problem with the Democratic Parties tolerence:  It's only tolerent towards those who the Republicans are intolerent towards, and vice-versa.

The main point is just that complaints that Dems are not truly tolerant because they don't tolerate bigotry, etc. are invalid. It's not saying that Democrats are necessarily tolerant toward everything. A true libertarian (there are many conservatives who claim to be libertarians) for example is probably more tolerant than either libs or cons.

Oh, I see.  I didn't really understand that before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unschoolers I'll admit Dems aren't very tolerant of, because we generally see lack of high school education as a bad thing. Homeschoolers though I haven't seen criticism of except from myself-- I used to think homeschooling should be banned, but I was pretty much alone on this and changed my mind later on. I've never heard anyone else say homeschooling was wrong.[/quote]

Not wrong, but they don't trust the parents to take responsibility for their children, with many of the politicians pushing for standard tests and such.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean don't think conventional? If you mean teaching them the Bible and religion etc. at homeschool, I haven't seen any Dems say this was wrong (as long as they were still able to meet high school level standards of biology), though if they didn't I'd certainly disagree and I think the vast majority of Dems would agree that this is a perogative of the parents.[/quote]

There are lots of thing some wouldn't see as conventional.  Examples:  Having a big family, not going to school, not going to the doctor, being vegans, etc. etc. etc.  How many of these do you see as wrong?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I've seen a lot more accusations like this than actual Dems saying that it's wrong to be a stay at home mom. It's possible to celebrate women with successful careers as opening doors or breaking the mold without denigrating stay at home moms (or dads).
[/quote]

I'm not talking about all of them, mind you, but look at some of the thing MissCatholic and I think Flyers (I sincerely apologize if it wasn't you that I'm thinking about) have said on the subject.

[Everett]

According to opebo, parents shouldn't raise their children - just think of Orwell's 1984. Big Brother performs all the schooling, all the caring-for, and in the end the spoiled rotten little brats get to throw their parents into forced-labour camps or wherever Big Brother wanted. Poor little cultist opebo - he must have suffered so greatly at the hands of Big Brother that he's a raging zealot for BB now.

[Everett]

Unschoolers I'll admit Dems aren't very tolerant of, because we generally see lack of high school education as a bad thing. Homeschoolers though I haven't seen criticism of except from myself-- I used to think homeschooling should be banned, but I was pretty much alone on this and changed my mind later on. I've never heard anyone else say homeschooling was wrong.

If I recall correctly, California has attempted to ban homeschooling under some other devious guise, maybe about three years ago; some idiot wanted to start imposing heavier restrictions upon parents who homeschool for whatever bigoted little reason she had. I don't consider that "tolerant", particularly when there is plenty of evidence to show that the majority of homeschoolers routinely outperform students in public (government-run) schools. Thankfully the attempt went down in flames.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Where's the tolerance for my religious beliefs, for example, or the belief that marriage can only be between man and woman?

Yeah where is those dirty liberals tolerance for bigotry?  Damn dirty liberals.

[Beet]

Not wrong, but they don't trust the parents to take responsibility for their children, with many of the politicians pushing for standard tests and such.

If that's the charge then it's true, while I don't see many people opposing home education itself, I can see why people would oppose it if it didn't comply with at least the minimal level of standards that they would get in a public school.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true, with the exception of having a big family and being a vegan, not going to the doctor and not going to school can potentially present dilemmas in my view.

In the former case, the dilemma is not with adults but children, who themselves are unable to seek medical treatment without parental support, or may not be considered autonomous enough to make such decisions. If a child is seriously ill, and the parents' beliefs prevent the child from seeking medical attention, risking the child's life, then this presents, in my view, a legitimate ethical clash between the parents' perogative and society's perogative to take care of the child. A similiar type of clash can be found in abusive households.

In the latter case, it is once again a matter of a young child not being able to understand the consequences of the decision themselves, and as a society we have no reason to expect a 6-year old, for example to appreciate why they should get an education. And even if they wanted, they could not necessarily seek it out themselves in the face of parental disapproval. If the parent chose not to have their child educated at any level, that presents a legitimate ethnical clash between the parents' perogative and society's perogative to take care of the child, once again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true, I can't speak for them. But I think Flyers is speaking from personal frustration, as he often does. MissCatholic is a strange character who is eerily similiar to a previous poster named nomorelies, who claimed that "he/she" was an Englishman working on a book that was supposed to be imminently published last summer, regarding conservatism in the US. :rolleyes: Opebo... well... just look at the various quotes from him in early 2004 that people have put in their signatures.

[CheeseWhiz]

Not wrong, but they don't trust the parents to take responsibility for their children, with many of the politicians pushing for standard tests and such.

If that's the charge then it's true, while I don't see many people opposing home education itself, I can see why people would oppose it if it didn't comply with at least the minimal level of standards that they would get in a public school.

Sometimes, it just doesn’t work like that.  In unschooling, people learn as they wish to, so while they learn to read and write latter than a lot of children, I was learning about politics far before the average student.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true, with the exception of having a big family and being a vegan, not going to the doctor and not going to school can potentially present dilemmas in my view.

In the former case, the dilemma is not with adults but children, who themselves are unable to seek medical treatment without parental support, or may not be considered autonomous enough to make such decisions. If a child is seriously ill, and the parents' beliefs prevent the child from seeking medical attention, risking the child's life, then this presents, in my view, a legitimate ethical clash between the parents' perogative and society's perogative to take care of the child. A similiar type of clash can be found in abusive households.[/quote]

Well, I’m not sure how it would work if the parents made the decision, but I myself have made a decision not to go to Doctors.   If I ever said I needed to go, I’m sure they’d take me, but I’m not going to do that.  I think that if they thought it would help, they’d take them to a doctor, because, as so many seem to forget, parents love their children, far more than society ever will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who gave society the right to raise the child?  My families all been homeschooled, and none of them would have it any other way.  Also, if you’re worried about my family not schooling us properly:  My sister just went to a Realist Art School, where she is becoming one of the very best of her class, and she keeps getting to skip some of the beginning stuff because in homeschool, she didn’t know she wasn’t suppose to learn that yet

[Beet]

Not wrong, but they don't trust the parents to take responsibility for their children, with many of the politicians pushing for standard tests and such.

If that's the charge then it's true, while I don't see many people opposing home education itself, I can see why people would oppose it if it didn't comply with at least the minimal level of standards that they would get in a public school.

Sometimes, it just doesn’t work like that.  In unschooling, people learn as they wish to, so while they learn to read and write latter than a lot of children, I was learning about politics far before the average student.

So was I, abeit in an age of different standards than today, but when you said unschooling, I had just assumed that what you were talking about was the lack of education and learning. In general, I now realize I am unaware of what you mean by the term unschooling as you're using it now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well "society" is incapable of love because it is not a singular being, though I believe it is true that there have been instances historically where the parents' beliefs and scientific inference about what would save a child's life have been conflicting, from the point of view of those not inside the family. All I am saying is that this may at times bring up ethical complications.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe you're entirely misinterpreting what I typed. I typed a paragraph about the lack of any kind of school, and I posed no propositions about natural rights, whether held by society or any individuals. Furthermore I posed no propositions about your own family or personal experiences, or the performances thereof. So I don't see how I can reply to that as it wasn't a reply to my own statements.

Except to say, I'm happy for your siter

[CheeseWhiz]

So was I, abeit in an age of different standards than today, but when you said unschooling, I had just assumed that what you were talking about was the lack of education and learning. In general, I now realize I am unaware of what you mean by the term unschooling as you're using it now.

Sorry, didn’t think about you thinking about it that way

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course society is incapable of love, that’s my point.  When things are on a personal level, and you actually know the person that you’re taking care of, everything’s far better.  Society cannot learn each and every person they’re paying taxes to protect, so, while I can see the justification of having these programs, I cannot see them justifying “society” having any say in how that person raises their child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I did, and I apologize.  Unschooling is the lack of any kind of “school.”  Unschooling understands that all children have a want and a need for information, and will seek it out on their own.  So the parents don’t push them, but rather guide their learning.

And thank you

[Beet]

Of course society is incapable of love, that’s my point.  When things are on a personal level, and you actually know the person that you’re taking care of, everything’s far better.  Society cannot learn each and every person they’re paying taxes to protect, so, while I can see the justification of having these programs, I cannot see them justifying “society” having any say in how that person raises their child.

I'm not sure what you mean by "society cannot learn each and every person"? Also, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think an argument can be made in particular instances. For example, if the parents' believe in a religion that prohibits the child from being treated for a life threatening disease, for they believe that a higher power will intecede through the power of prayer to cure the child. Now suppose from historical experience with this religious treatment, the success is not higher than children with no treatment and there is a very high death rate, suppose something like two-thirds. Then someone could argue that there are univeral values contained in society about the care of children, not deriving from societal love but from civic values, that justified intercession.

It is a much stronger case, and generally accepted, that if a parent were to want to kill their child, civic authorities would be obligated to intervene to save the life of the child if they could. Now I concede these authorities do not love the child, they are merely intervening out of fulfillment of their assigned civic role. However, their actions are not without utility.

But in the case of a mere life-threatening illness where the parents oppose medical treatment, the case against intervention is stronger, I concede as well. But a strong case in favor of intervention in this instance could still be made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then perhaps I was mistaken about believing you'd misinterpreted me, for that' just the definition of unschooling I inferred originally. Yet in your last response you spoke heavily about homeschooling, not unschooling, so I guess I thought you might have been mixing the two. I'm not adverse to unschooling, I don't think it's wrong, in fact I'm very tolerant of the idea because I've some inkling of what it would be like. There are some children however, who if not given any educational expectations might choose not to educate themselves at all, or to educate themselves at a much lower standard, without the understanding that this would have negative consequences for them as they don't have a high school diploma. There are also some children who perhaps just aren't smart enough to teach themselves how to read and write by themselves, even if they did have the initiative to do so. And it's not always easy to see which children are better at educating themselves than others, for the requirements of education at one age is very different from that at another. That said, there are clearly those children who are smart enough to benefit from a completely independent, unguided lifestyle, where they will of their own volition choose a highly rewarding course of study. Since these children are not all children however, to abolish all school programs I think might put other children at a disadvantage.

[dazzleman]

My problem with the Democratic Parties tolerence:  It's only tolerent towards those who the Republicans are intolerent towards, and vice-versa.

The main point is just that complaints that Dems are not truly tolerant because they don't tolerate bigotry, etc. are invalid. It's not saying that Democrats are necessarily tolerant toward everything. A true libertarian (there are many conservatives who claim to be libertarians) for example is probably more tolerant than either libs or cons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unschoolers I'll admit Dems aren't very tolerant of, because we generally see lack of high school education as a bad thing. Homeschoolers though I haven't seen criticism of except from myself-- I used to think homeschooling should be banned, but I was pretty much alone on this and changed my mind later on. I've never heard anyone else say homeschooling was wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean don't think conventional? If you mean teaching them the Bible and religion etc. at homeschool, I haven't seen any Dems say this was wrong (as long as they were still able to meet high school level standards of biology), though if they didn't I'd certainly disagree and I think the vast majority of Dems would agree that this is a perogative of the parents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I've seen a lot more accusations like this than actual Dems saying that it's wrong to be a stay at home mom. It's possible to celebrate women with successful careers as opening doors or breaking the mold without denigrating stay at home moms (or dads).

The problem is not that liberals/Democrats are intolerant of bigotry.  The problem is that they largely ignore objective definitions of bigotry, and twist the definition to mean anything that they don't agree with, while dismissing their own bigotry as justified.  That is what is hypocritical.

[Beet]

My problem with the Democratic Parties tolerence:  It's only tolerent towards those who the Republicans are intolerent towards, and vice-versa.

The main point is just that complaints that Dems are not truly tolerant because they don't tolerate bigotry, etc. are invalid. It's not saying that Democrats are necessarily tolerant toward everything. A true libertarian (there are many conservatives who claim to be libertarians) for example is probably more tolerant than either libs or cons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unschoolers I'll admit Dems aren't very tolerant of, because we generally see lack of high school education as a bad thing. Homeschoolers though I haven't seen criticism of except from myself-- I used to think homeschooling should be banned, but I was pretty much alone on this and changed my mind later on. I've never heard anyone else say homeschooling was wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean don't think conventional? If you mean teaching them the Bible and religion etc. at homeschool, I haven't seen any Dems say this was wrong (as long as they were still able to meet high school level standards of biology), though if they didn't I'd certainly disagree and I think the vast majority of Dems would agree that this is a perogative of the parents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I've seen a lot more accusations like this than actual Dems saying that it's wrong to be a stay at home mom. It's possible to celebrate women with successful careers as opening doors or breaking the mold without denigrating stay at home moms (or dads).

The problem is not that liberals/Democrats are intolerant of bigotry.

Which was my only point; that someone who is intolerant of intolerance can still support tolerance, and further that to support the idea of tolerance in society practically requires some intolerance of intolerance. Its just a general point independent of any individuals' behaviors or even of labels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are some examples of this?

[CheeseWhiz]

If they believe that a higher power will intercede through the power of prayer and cure their child, who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to say they’re wrong?  I don’t care what the statistics say, and I’d like to know how much higher of a chance it would be if the child did get “treatment” for their illness.  Sometimes, things go beyond human understanding of scientific statistics.

Wanting to kill somebody and just not wanting to save them through medicine are totally different things.

I see your point, but in my mind, the parents usually know what’s best, even if it might not seem that way to some, they know far better than anyone else how to raise their children.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would be where you and I disagree.  I find that anyone not wanting to educate themselves aren’t gonna want to get a job, either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That’s what the parents are for, to guide them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never argued to abolish all school programs and I certainly did not do so here.  But I think all children are capable of learning by themselves, since all unschooling dictates is to learn in the way the child best sees fit.  Some would be lazy bums, but I don’t think they’re gonna do much with their life when they become 20 or even 30 if they’re to lazy to learn basic skills when they’re 16.  Still, this is all besides the point.

[Beet]

If they believe that a higher power will intercede through the power of prayer and cure their child, who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to say they’re wrong?  I don’t care what the statistics say, and I’d like to know how much higher of a chance it would be if the child did get “treatment” for their illness.  Sometimes, things go beyond human understanding of scientific statistics.

Well no one has a right to say that they're wrong, that's not what I was saying at all.

There are certain diseases, such as acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), which commonly affect young children, is a cancer of blood cells which is fatal if left untreated for it quickly spreads to the vital organs. Of course the fatal assignment of this disease is both statistical and directly flows from the medical observation. Various kinds of chemotherapy/radiation can improve the survival rate from zero to about three-quarters, according to statistics.

Now, science does not make normative judgements: it can't be used to prove there is no spiritual force, and it can't be used to prove that one position is right and another is wrong; that someone is justified and another is unjustified. That is up to people to decide. However, a person who believes that protection of childrens' lives is a civic as well as familial responsibility can utilize medical knowledge, with the assumption of their belief system, to make an argument that civic authorities would intervene and force the treatment. I'm not saying they are necessarily right or wrong, I'm just saying it's a logically consistent argument to make: (1) sanctity of life, (2) some civic responsibility over these lives, and (3) reason derived from scientific experience. Logically consistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, as it involves a difference in intentions. But in the case where the parent did want to kill their child, I would argue that one could take a logically consistent position that civic authorities have a 'right' to intervene to save the child's life. Once again, I'm not necessarily stating that civic authorities would be justified in doing so, only that it would be a logically consistent action, given the assumptions regarding the sanctity of life and civic responsibility laid out above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not disputing this much!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm, perhaps you have found an area where we aren't in exact agreement. But I would argue this is a difference in the way we judge human nature and not in an intolerance on my part. When I see people, even illiterate people, who have never shown an interest in education, nevertheless working, presumably out of a desire to buy food, I cannot help but believe one can be interested in work yet not in education.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true, but once you introduce parental guidance, I would argue that's kind of like homeschooling, and no longer pure unschooling. As I said I have no problem with homeschooling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well school extends often back to as early as ages 5 or 6. From personally experience I think there are children who aren't interested in any learning at ages 5 or 6 yet by the time they're 16 they're regularly industrious. But yeah, it's besides the point.

[dazzleman]

The problem is not that liberals/Democrats are intolerant of bigotry.

Which was my only point; that someone who is intolerant of intolerance can still support tolerance, and further that to support the idea of tolerance in society practically requires some intolerance of intolerance. Its just a general point independent of any individuals' behaviors or even of labels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are some examples of this?

Well, as an example, some liberals claim that those who don't support racial quotas, or other liberal positions on race, are racist.  This is not necessarily the case.  It could be that they believe there are better ways than the largely failed ways the liberals have suggested to achieve a better measure of racial equality.

Ditto for those who don't like feminism, and are called anti-woman.  Liberals have a habit of tarring those who don't agree with their positions with ugly names, even if they are not bigoted.

On the other hand, many liberals are very comfortable talking in general about the stupidity of southerners and Christians.  That's OK, because these are people who don't support their ideas, mostly, so they're an appropriate target.

[Beet]

The problem is not that liberals/Democrats are intolerant of bigotry.

Which was my only point; that someone who is intolerant of intolerance can still support tolerance, and further that to support the idea of tolerance in society practically requires some intolerance of intolerance. Its just a general point independent of any individuals' behaviors or even of labels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are some examples of this?

Well, as an example, some liberals claim that those who don't support racial quotas, or other liberal positions on race, are racist.  This is not necessarily the case.  It could be that they believe there are better ways than the largely failed ways the liberals have suggested to achieve a better measure of racial equality.

Ditto for those who don't like feminism, and are called anti-woman.  Liberals have a habit of tarring those who don't agree with their positions with ugly names, even if they are not bigoted.

Well I don't defend ad hominem attacks , I think they're wrong. Your example is particularly ironic because race-based affirmative action is itself racist.

In general, one way of looking at these statements is that the accuser knows that people who actually are bigoted most of the time will couch their arguments in more implicit terms. Thus their types of accusations are because people think the other person is being deceptive like that. But regardless, I don't think that is a justification or defense of ad hominem attacks-- one should always focus on the arguments.

[dazzleman]

Well I don't defend ad hominem attacks , I think they're wrong. Your example is particularly ironic because race-based affirmative action is itself racist.

In general, one way of looking at these statements is that the accuser knows that people who actually are bigoted most of the time will couch their arguments in more implicit terms. Thus their types of accusations are because people think the other person is being deceptive like that. But regardless, I don't think that is a justification or defense of ad hominem attacks-- one should always focus on the arguments.

So I guess we agree that neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on bigotry or tolerance.

Let me also add that I don't think tolerance is always a good thing.  Certain behaviors shouldn't receive tolerance.  I think that certain segments of our society are way too tolerant of destructive and irresponsible behavior, and that is a big part of what is keeping a lot of people in the crapper.