In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Foxfyre, Dec 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,377
    Thanks Received:
    12,324
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,947
    It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

    It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

    It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

    . . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

    For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

    Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

    NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 6
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013
  2. Delta4Embassy
    Offline

    Delta4Embassy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    25,745
    Thanks Received:
    3,025
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +8,224
    "Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher

    In the case of the Ducks guy (I don't watch the show) he absolutely got a raw deal. But then, as a Fox News person said last night (and I said in other posts about this issue previously) he signed a contract to get the show. If he then did or said something that borke the contract, then whatever punishment was instituted in the contract was appropriate.

    Absent a contract, he would have been free to say whatever he likes. Of course, no one would then know who he is. So the matter's not a straight foward 1st Amendment issue. It's a contract law issue if anything.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013
  3. Mac1958
    Offline

    Mac1958 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    39,707
    Thanks Received:
    8,176
    Trophy Points:
    1,360
    Location:
    Independent Ave.
    Ratings:
    +30,883
    .

    Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. It's about speech you don't like, not the speech you do like.

    Unfortunately, our culture is now polluted with those who are all too willing to see people destroyed because they dared to speak their minds. Perhaps if these people were more confident in their OWN opinions, they would be more willing to engage with people with whom they disagree, rather than punish them.

    It's sad to see.

    .
     
  4. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,377
    Thanks Received:
    12,324
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,947
    Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. Geaux4it
    Offline

    Geaux4it Intensity Factor 4-Fold

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    18,138
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +10,549
    Um, Freedom of Speech is Politically Incorrect ....... Dig it

    -Geaux
     
  6. OKTexas
    Offline

    OKTexas Platinum Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    31,240
    Thanks Received:
    4,764
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Near Magnolia, TX
    Ratings:
    +16,509
    I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Delta4Embassy
    Offline

    Delta4Embassy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    25,745
    Thanks Received:
    3,025
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +8,224
    Minority or majority is not a legal consideration. Law is law and non-partisan (in theory anyway heh.)
     
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,377
    Thanks Received:
    12,324
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,947
    But I didn't intend this as a 'freedom of speech' issue. It isn't a freedom of speech issue. It is a cultural trend that has made its way into our political system and it is one of those things, in my opinion, that is slowly destroying our culture and our liberties. When one faction of society, however small, is able to control the national 'conscience' with threats of violence, punishment, or diminishment of all who do not share a particular point of view, we are in trouble. I think we are in trouble.

    Nor was this a contractual issue. It has nothing to do with a contract. It has everything to do with a group like GLAD who demands all manner of tolerance for anything to do with gays, lesbians, bi's or whatever, demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because he expressed an opinion that GLAD didn't like. Again this is ONE example only and I don't want this to become another Duck Dynasty thread. Or one focused on gay issues for that matter.

    I remember a William Raspberry, one of my most favorite liberals ever, writing a column during one of the Ann Coulter bru ha ha's. He admonished his colleagues who were absolutely blasting her for a particular un-PC statement, that if he and his colleagues wished to be heard and understood in their opinions and demanded fair play and tolerance, then the same must be extended to Ann no matter how much they disagree with her. She has every much right to her opinion as any liberal idol has right to his/her opinion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Delta4Embassy
    Offline

    Delta4Embassy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    25,745
    Thanks Received:
    3,025
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +8,224
    I think it's all tactics. If you're involved with politics, even as some kind of advocacy group like GLAAD, when these kinds of things happen you have to say something in rebuttal. If you don't you loose followers and thus political clout. So it's just a game ultimately. One side says something and those on that side flock in support of it, the other side rebutts. As with Palin (if she quit do we really still refer to her as 'Governor?') and others on Fox supporting him, and others on the other side supporting GLAAD and A&E.

    Politics is all a game. To wield power you need followers. To get followers you have to be vocal and in the news every day more than your opposition. Whoever controls the message controls the world.
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,377
    Thanks Received:
    12,324
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,947
    Should we tolerate injustice? Of course not.

    But this is not a case of tolerating injustice either. Or at least it wasn't until Phil Robertson was suspended at A&E. It was a case of a demand that he be fired for expressing a personal belief. Not for calling for action from anybody. Not suggesting that anybody be attacked or discriminated against or harmed in any way. It was purely for expressing a personal belief.

    When did that become an unforgivable sin in this country? Is expressing one's personal belief in itself an injustice? A punishable offense?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page