When did the "tolerant left" stereotype start?

When did the "tolerant left" stereotype start?
They surely didn't look tolerant during the French or Russian revolutions.

At what point did the public opinion shift towards calling more collectivist ideological movements tolerant and peaceful, while the more individualistic ideological movements are presumed warlike and expansionist?

Protip: this isn't /pol/, I don't want your opinion on Trump or whatever, just the dates and reasons why this public view shifted.

Well from a historical perspective most of this change happened post Soviet collapse. And thus falls within the 'not technically history yet' catagory.

Basically the left was tolerant of "alternative" (aka degenerate) lifestyles like being promiscuous, being a faggot, being a tranny, etc, along with multiculturalism, feminism, etc.

Before the left gained power, they actually sort of were tolerant. But now it's clear they never intended to be tolerant in the long run, just crush western civilization.

When moderate left became anti war
So about 1850's

When people started mistaking political parties and platforms for ideologies.

When people started confusing liberalism for socialism/communism. Seriously, libs get the bullet too

Who ever made this meemee was fine with associating conservatives with a selfish and incorrigiblely evil old man who was behind a huge war conspiracy that allowed him to seize unbridled dictatorial powers and undermine a stable democracy.
>almonds
>activated

...

>le /pol/ boogieman
>>>/reddit/

The progressive left is entering a death spiral. There is really no reason for them to continue to exist as pretty much all major injustices have been solved in the west, meanwhile they refuse to criticize pee oh see, so now they're grabbing onto any moronic passing fad activism (pedeosexual, anti-free speech, etc), no matter how unpalatable it is to the mainstream population, in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

Ironically, all this has done is made them bleed supporters like crazy.

The left will either dump it's dying progressive ideals and evolve into a less retarded version of itself (maybe some kind socialism minus all the sociologist shite hating bs that seems to be infesting it) or simply become unelectable.

This has nothing to do with the thread. Why did you even post?

It's like the tolerant muslim stereotype. It just doesn't exist but is pandered by the media.

Oh dates
>1960s
Major injustices still exist, segregation, Jim Crow, etc
>1990s
Peak. Racial harmony is fairly good, no major upsets, gays generally become accepted and feminism is still considered a good thing.
>2010s
Gay marriage recognized, and with it, the progressive left has lost its last reasonable reason to fight. Instead of realising they're no longer needed or wanted, they instead elect to go full retard: demand open borders, people recognize made up genders, try to overturn free speech, become violent, force people to accept violent third Worlders and try to dress it up as 'diversity'. Progressiveness becomes thouroughly toxic and as a result
>2016
they recieve a gigantic fuck you from middle America for abandoning their original ideals.

Keeping discussion about modern politics is meant to stay in /pol/, not to make all other boards your safe space from ideas you don't like

>directing people to reddit
>>>reddit

>ehehe it's merely a coincidence I'm aligned with Reddit politically

Wow, we've got a fresh plebbitor here.

t. r*ddit

...

No u

Sorry I'm not some shitty r/the_donald poster

hi newfag here xD, how do I upvote on this site?

I love how this thread immediately got derailed.
Probably because it's such a shit thread. fuck you, OP.

>pretending Reddit is suddenly right wing
How disingenuous of you

>suddenly

True, we all know how right-wing libertarianism built upon a laissez-faire capitalist economy is totally leftwing.

U

Doves and hawks in American politics.

Historically speaking pretty much yeah.

R/the_donald has been raiding Veeky Forums for like two years
Get with the times

Why are you parodying yourself?

When America was largely right-wing, the left was the tolerant faction. Now that the left controls America, the right is the tolerant one.

>>>tumblr

Only /pol/, and even then it looks like they're slowly being driven out. the real reddit cancer in other boards is the newfag retards who think casual racism (existed on Veeky Forums from the start) = /pol/ and take the time to whine about it.

>Be left wing
>Support wars of global domination and censorship
>Somehow """"tolerant"""
wew

>2016 they recieve a gigantic fuck you from middle America for abandoning their original ideals

Shillary won the popular vote. No,that doesn't mean she should have become president, but the fact remains that more Americans wanted Hillary in office then the alternative.

Ironic casual racism has been on Veeky Forums since the start.

What we've seen over the past two few years is retards who actually sip the koolaid.

>Shillary won the popular vote.
Only because Russia hacked the election for her.

When the left realized that normal people would never join their causes, and so had to appeal to outcasts and losers in order to form a coalition.

>ironic

the election system is too decentralized for Russia to change that many ballots. the only thing they could have possibly done is put some repeats, fake names, dead voters, etc in a few districts in order to put doubt on the election results

You assuming every single vote for Hillary was a legitimate vote is just nauseating.

>Stalin
>Left

>yeah it's all rigged cause like Alex jones told me guise

>Ask a genuine history related question
>the entire thread is people arguing about Reddit
Huh so this is the power of /pol/..

I'm in California, faggot. I've reviewed voter rolls. They're full of Mexicans perjuring themselves, and NOBODY GIVES A FUCK.

You don't have to be a tin foil hatter to recognize the likely results of non-voter ID state + sanctuary city + immigration enforcement at stake entails.

It started with a baseless /pol/ accusation here: It isn't /pol/ shitting up discussion, it's Reddit

Lol do you actually think Reddit is right wing, and has been for a while?

>i wasn't the first one to take a shit on the carpet

Everyone who did it is guilty, and should fuck off.

it's like they don't possess the brainpower to comprehend irony

Sure, but don't peg /pol/ for ruining the thread for someone calling a shitty post shit.

>Dems rigged California despite being a blue state for decades

OK

That's why it's a fucking blue state for decades, you brain dead imbecile.

Have you been to California? Have you talked to anyone there?

What kind of ridiculous mind tricks do you have to pull to believe in your conspiracy. God forbid a large number of people disagree with your ideology

You mean neocon?

You mean a neomarxist?

This isn't a genuine history related question at all, it's making a clear claim about modern politics and using a vague 'history' question in a thinly disguised attempt lever it onto Veeky Forums

The entire thread will probably be deleted when the mods get their act together. The user that first pointed out it should be on /pol/ is correct and not for any ideological issues but because that is the board it should be on.

You know, it's almost invariably the left preaching pacifism, tolerance, non-violence, etc.
The fact that they are every little bit as intolerant and violent as the worst people they oppose doesn't change the fact that they always market themselves that way.

I'm in California too you retard

Yes, you inbred twat. We have 3/4 of the illegal aliens in the US right fucking here.

We have open illegal alien voter registration drives, and 2, and I mean 2, people in charge of LA County's voter fraud department.

2.

When Trump's study of how many illegals in California voted for Hillary, this entire bullshit narrative is going down the fucking toilet, where it belongs.

It starts in the 1960's when Democrats ran with the political capital that they accumulated in the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, leading to the modern Neoliberal movement, among Democrats called "the new left", whose platform is globalist capitalism, social liberalism, and a dovish, restrained foreign policy.

This is contrasted with the Neocon movement, whose platform is globalist capitalism, social conservatism, and hawkish foreign policy.

Leftists are opposed to intolerance but "Liberals being tolerant" is a conservative meme. Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance, it's the counterfeit of it. Asking somebody to be tolerant is asking them to excuse unethical behavior. That's why conservatives say shit like "WHELP SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANCE OF LIBERALS" every time one grows a spine and fights back.

Said no legitimate source ever

The reason Donald Trump won the white house was because of 80,000 baby boomers in rural counties of swing states, plus an archaic selection institution originally put in place to give slave states disproportionate say in government. Mitt Romney got more votes in 2012 than Donald Trump did in 2016.

And the reason Democrats have gotten destroyed at the local and state level was because in 2010 the Republicans controlled the house and specifically gerrymandered districts to give them even more grossly disproportionate influence relative to population size. California used to have this problem with Republicans infesting their government until they appointed a bipartisan redistricting committee to draw up voting districts in the most equitable manner possible. The result was Republicans getting utterly BTFO and California getting back in the fiscal black in barely less than a few years, and is currently on track to surpass the U.K as the world's 5th largest economy.

Were you on Sheriff Joe's team analyzing Barack Obama's birth certificate, too?

I disagree. Its a history question about how people perceived an idea (collectivism) first as something to achieve via a rebellion and violence, and later as something peaceful.
Its both history, and humanities.

>the new left

Interesting, I'm looking at the wiki article and some essay now, had no idea.
I can see how this mirrors today's "new right" also switching gear from conservative to reactionary.

Polls of california firmly put it in the blue you retard
Even without any illegals it'd still be a democrat stronghold, it's been like that for a lot longer than illegal immigration was a thing

It's weird when you realize that the 2016 presidential election was 25 years ago.

Time flies.

>from conservative to reactionary.
You don't know what these terms mean in a historical context. The conservatives have been conceding to liberal and left progressive social policies for 200 years. Today you are a reactionary for holding the same beliefs people had before the baby boomers generation. This is fairly unique and has been happening since the 60's. The liberals may have won the economic battle, but the social progressives have been winning the cultural battle consistently for decades.

>It's weird when you realize that the 2016 presidential election was 29 weeks ago.

How does your post prove mine wrong?
If conservative means "last generation's liberal", and reactionary means "fighting against all liberal views", then it is entirely possible to move from conservative to reactionary.
Further, on issues like gay rights, feminism or racism for example, there is this exact movement in the "new right".

The main topic of conversation is the rise of the New Left in the 1960's, well before the 25 year mark, and how it's influencing contemporary politics

What I was refuting was this belief that the New Left is causing progressivism to die in the United States. Actually, it's more popular than ever, it just so happens that a war-mongering wall street sell-out hypocritical cheater wasn't going to be the woman to get us there. And 2020 is the critical election, not 2016. Whoever controls congress that year will be able to do something (or not) about all those gerrymandered districts.

As someone who will never vote for another Republican after George W. Bush, I actually feared that Hillary would win in 2016 and get destroyed in 2020 when the Republicans pull their head out of their ass and actually run somebody competent, just in time to make sure that the Republicans unfairly dominate the legislative arm of the government for another 10 years.

I was relieved when Trump won, figuring that all he's going to do is make a ton of news and not actually get that much accomplished due to having no experience in government. And considering that he's only 4 months into his presidency and already cratering among independents (after already going into his presidency with the lowest approval rating of any incoming president), I'm feeling good about 2020 being the blow-out victory that the New Left was waiting for.

The whole tolerance bullshit has become mainstream because the only other thing for the left, socialism, has been completely discredited. Leftists by and large have stopped giving a damn about structural issues of economy and just collect brownie points from utterly fringe social issues.

>If conservative means "last generation's liberal", and reactionary means "fighting against all liberal views", then it is entirely possible to move from conservative to reactionary.
It does in the sense that these things shouldn't happen in a single generation. It hasn't before, ever. What happened in the sixties was a cultural revolution, a more silent one, mostly spearheaded by french intellectuals and other student activists that shifted societies values way to the left, while putting the economic discussion on the sidelines. To me it was a marxist slight of hand more than anything else.

The result is that now you accept fairly radical societal changes as normal and progressive and the oppostion is simply labeled reactionary, and often dismissed as "fascist", as the use of political language to politicize every aspect of civil society is currently normal.

2016 is pretty humiliating any way you cut it.

>Democrats now out of power in all three branches of government and most of the governors mansions on the state level
>the Democrat candidate lost to the most widely reviled man ever to win a major party nomination for president (at least after polling started)
>states that stumped straight Democrat every election for generations flipped because of how tone deaf and egocentric the Democrat leadership was
>the DNC does not appear to have learned any lesson from any of this

It's because the Democrat party traded unions for college campuses, and social issues for economic issues.

If the Democrats core principle was still "make it possible for a man to support his family" they'd be an unstoppable wrecking ball at this point.

>just the dates and reasons why this public view shifted.

Read Herbert Marcuse' essay "Repressive Tolerance".

TL;DR, The Left has never been tolerant.

>It's because the Democrat party traded unions for college campuses, and social issues for economic issues.
It is brilliant in retrospect. This isn't unique to the Democrat party, as the left all over the world shifted focus to the cultural long game rather than the fleeting economic present. But their theory is solid. Demographically, the urban youth has been converted to the left for the most part, and immigration assures that progressive leaning positions become more prevalent and slowly eliminate everything else over time.

Trump was an unforseen irregularity that should be corrected shortly.

>They surely didn't look tolerant during the French or Russian revolutions
at that point in time being tolerant meant tolerating non-nobles

>it's another a-new-board-starts-so-we-better-troll-the-shit-out-of-it-to-keep-everyone-with-rational-opinions-out episode

See, the Democrats can say

>Demographics will fix it in another ten years

Until the sun burns out.

It won't do them any good if they keep alienating existing voters at the same rate they bus in new ones.

It's embarrassing for Democrats because the party put all its eggs in the Hillary basket and she proved to be the worst possible choice for them to make because she ran a campaign that was arrogant and out-of-touch. If the ticket had been Biden/Sanders Trump would have gotten BTFO because conservatives would not have had all that anti-Clinton ammunition to counter all of the anti-Trump ammunition.

>allowing every kind of nigger,spic in is good
So this... is how an average californian thinks...

Historically speaking, it seems that the Left has lost its way like many left wing movements before and when you look at their most of their beliefs its not really surprising why. Some of you may disagree but a lot of the beliefs held by leftists are on an emotional level, they tend to be really empathetic and as such their motives are based something thats more subjective than objective. There's nothing wrong with having some empathy guys but it's easy to manipulate a belief that is grounded on empathy and its the same for right wing movements too.

Also I guess you could say that a belief like the leftist ideology we see today that isn't as pragmatic doesn't hold up very well in the face of adversity, it would probably explain why most of the "Tolerant Leftists" you're referring to come of as hysterical or insane

The obvious question is how the Democrats can break their addiction to lobbyist dough and patronage networks long enough to run anyone who people actually want to vote for.

>Romney got more votes in 2012 than Donald Trump did in 2016.
romney=60m
trump=62m

The problem is not ideological.

The problem was that Hillary Clinton just didn't inspire people. It didn't matter that she had "like, the most progressive policy platform ever!", it's that nobody trusted her to actually follow through with it, especially with Republicans dominating congress.

She didn't fire up the base, the base didn't come out to vote for her, allowing Donald Trump to squeak by a win on a technicality, while still winning the popular vote.

>it's that nobody trusted her to actually follow through with it

This is an ideological problem

>somebody votes for the Iraq War Resolution
>somebody supports the repeal of Glass-Steagall, directly leading to a global economic downturn
>somebody supports mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenders
>somebody supports Most Favored Nation trading status for China and NAFTA
>I know, why don't we run that person during the aftermath of the Great Recession and the Global War on Terror

You can't talk about "the left" you must specify. During the spanish civil war, the anarchist syndicates accepted people from any origin in their numbers while marxist syndicates would make A LOT of questions about your past and could even get you executed if they saw something sispicious. At the same time the fascist side (Falangists or national catholics) would execute or at least get into jail anyone who was accused of being or having been close to leftist politics

But collectivism is much more pragmatic than individualism.

It hasn't worked in practice.

And even then the popular votes she got were from already blue states with a massive population like California and New York, unless you advocate California and New York deciding who our leader is going to be every 4 years, the popular vote here really doesn't matter here.

Collectivism was almost everything before the 17th century user

It works in almost every aspect of your life.
The whole "patriarchy" system, where men are expected to work hard and suffer, and women to be kept safe, is a collectivist system.
For the good of the whole, not the good of the individual.

He thinks "collectivism" means some no-government anarchy communism, and opposes it to his view of "authoritarian individualism". I've seen his kind on the board that should not be named.

Yeah, but it's the 21st century.

Individualism, for whatever reason, seems to function very well in industrialized societies.

That's the same mistake the general left always makes. The marxists were absolutely CERTAIN that the international working class would lead the revolution. Then it turns out that the common people hold nationalistic values more tightly than they predicted, and that people are fairly tribal and hold loyalty to traditions. Then it turned out that bourgeois capitalism provided a better quality of life to the working class in industrialized countries than socialist economic theory did in the Soviet Union.

Now the left threw the towel on full socialism and are hoping for gradual changes, yet became so absolutely pragmatic with economics that they managed to forget about nationalism and tribalism again.

If I were to guess, if this whole right wing populist movement sticks, the left will throw the towel again and start promoting national bolshevism or some other psychopathy. I'll bet money that the Democratic party will go back to being the party of the KKK in two generations if this happens.

Where the fuck have you ever seen individualism? Some sci-fi book maybe.

but modern leftists are against the whole Patriarchy thing, what they're trying to accomplish will simply not work because of the 3rd Wave feminist and progressive element in it. has a point in which a collectivist system could and has worked prior to the 17th Century but in the current form we see it today its unsustainable, it would eventually cannibalize itself

The Democrats had the sweet spot of nationalism, economic issues and ideology before the new left hit.

Compare Truman, Kennedy and Johnson to Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and tell me we haven't screwed the pooch.

There are so many systems in place today that prioritize the common good over the individual good that I find it laughable you'd insist we are living in an individualist society and not a collectivist one.

Healthcare is an obvious one. Its healthy people paying for the treatment of ill people, more or less. Ecology is another, you are helping the next generation by suffering in your individual life. The whole family structure and taking care of others.

Give the idea of individualism 2 minutes of thought and see if it leads to anything sustainable.

>leading to the modern Neoliberal movement, among Democrats called "the new left", whose platform is globalist capitalism, social liberalism, and a dovish, restrained foreign policy.


you have compacted so much fuck in so little words, that I can clearly say to you that your mind is all over the place.

Neliberalism is a completely different thing than you make it out to be. In fact, it's the complete opposite thing of political liberalism. It's a specifically, clearly defined historical term.

The "New Left" is a specific historic current in left philosophy, which has absolutely nothing to do with the american Democratic party.

What never seizes to boggle me, is that people like you, who haven't got but the slightest clue (if even that) of what they 're talking about, present their opinions with such solid conviction.

>Compare Truman, Kennedy and Johnson to Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and tell me we haven't screwed the pooch.

What else were they supposed to do? US industrial lhegemony desintegrated and the union movement became a joke. Take a good look at Reagan's popularity and you understand why the Clintonians dragged the party kicking and screaming to where they are today.