I sincerely don't think either of the two sides is advocating for those things (ignoring a very few extremists - on both sides - with malicious intent, who don't represent the majority).
I do see those issues mentioned a lot in the public debate, but mostly in the context of straw man arguments repeated as a sort of battle cry, and to denigrate "the other side".
It was a whole lot easier to push McCarthyism than it ever was to convincingly prove you weren't a communist.
QAnon representatives are calling for the murder of Democrats. The same group advocates for brutal treatment of migrants, restrictions of freedom of choice for women, direct violence against muslims.
I don't see any of this on the left side of the political spectrum. Also, when someone in a group voices radical opinions and calls for violence it represents the groups view when said group is not distancing itself from these views. Because if the group doesn't, the one person is just the group trying to find out how far they can go.
> when someone in a group voices radical opinions and calls for violence it represents the groups view when said group is not distancing itself from these views
When "the other side" has an interest in associating you with extremists and refuses to listen to you repeatedly denounce the actions of those extremists, there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. Again, the demagoguery and parallels to the McCarthy era are troubling.
So, like, when someone tweets "kill all men", no one on the left says: relax, it was obviously just a joke!
Also, Valerie Solanas and Donna Hylton never existed, or at least were never considered heroes by the left.
To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I don’t understand the view of the free-speech-absolutists because it is so obvious that it doesn’t work.
In Europe - or least in The Netherlands - saying discriminatory thing can get you fined or in jail and that is how it should be if you care about your society.
I agree; in the name of preserving social order, SJWs should all be thrown in jails.
Just kidding... but that's what the article is talking about. You can make strict laws (or social norms) against "intolerance", and someone else will be happy you handed them a powerful weapon they can use against you.
Do your political opponents seem intolerant to you? Let me tell you a secret: the feeling is probably mutual. You prefer to focus on those parts where they are less tolerant than you, and ignore the ones where it is the other way round. They do the same.
And no, denying people service, jobs and social security based on color, religion sex or whatnot is not the same as fighting for people to have these rights. Because the former takes away rights, while the latter grants rights without anybody else loosing anything.
Do you honestly believe this is a truthful description of reality?
Do you believe your opponents would also agree with this description (that is, if they only could abstain from lying for a moment, e.g. if you would give them a truth serum)?
Let me tell you also a secret. It is not about political opponents disagreeing over their views. That is not the intolerance I refer to. You make it a sad word game.
It's the intolerance of discrimination, of hatred of (groups) of people. We in The Netherlands have laws against discriminatory speech and hate speech.
Last time I checked, SJW mostly are against stuff like discrimination. They are no threat. This is not a 'both sides' situation.