Tolerance and why it will never happen

[Plasmaball]

The most intolerance I have seen on this board is from one side. Think like me, act like me say what I say. And then they have the gall to claim they are tolerant.

Uhhh, which side?

the left, Retired is a partisan rightie to the max.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

you have a better chance of flying to mars in a blimp

 

[westwall]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

you have a better chance of flying to mars in a blimp

 

[Statistikhengst]

The most intolerance I have seen on this board is from one side. Think like me, act like me say what I say. And then they have the gall to claim they are tolerant.

Uhhh, which side?

the left, Retired is a partisan rightie to the max.

I do not know him yet.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

you have a better chance of flying to mars in a blimp

 

[Plasmaball]

Uhhh, which side?

the left, Retired is a partisan rightie to the max.

I do not know him yet.

well thats about it,, he defends everything to the right.

 

[martybegan]

This in reality should be a very short thread. The idea is basically that one should tolerate unpopular opinions from people because they have the right to those opinions. Well yes they do, but we as society have the right to react to those opinions in a manner of ways we so see fit. We can send in letters, emails for the more hip, Call, Boycott and even demand someone if fired.

The company ( we will use Phil from ducks as the leading example.) has the right to ignore such demands from the public. They also have the right to watch their bottom line and if they feel such words will result in them loosing money. They can remove said person from their business.

Now some think ( well one really) that such ACTIONS as calling for a firing should be made criminal. Now to any logical person that should be a red flag. You can not claim someone has the unalienable right to voice their opinion, and then in the next breath say that a group voicing there opinion/actions as a criminal offense.

Speaking out against the crown at one point was also illegal, and yet i highly doubt that would be seen as "evil" by some people. In fact i assume those types would have supported such Evil actions.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you need to take the good with the bad. Sometimes that bad has consequences such as boycotts and the call to fire someone.

I'm not going to get into the partisan left vs right and who doesn't like consequences, because the reality is nobody likes them. Nobody wants to be personally accountable for their actions and always wants to pass the buck to whomever than can. The reality is this is a dumb partisan trick in order to play victim/divert the subject.



I guess there isnt really much to debate, because there really isnt anything to debate on this subject to logical people. Granted who cares where this subject goes, freedom of speech and the flow of conversation is the greatest thing in this world to have.

The issue is twofold. 1) the defining down of what is an unacceptable opinion and 2) the fact that some people's offense is more equal than other people's offense.

Problem 1: Lets use the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle as an example. Phil's statements imply he does not condone homosexual acts, he sees it as sinful, same as bestiality and promiscuity among straights. To some his statement is offensive, however he has made no actions against anyone homosexual (or into dogs, or even slutty), he showed no support to groups that want to make such things illegal (if he did thats another topic). He doesnt go around saying gays should be hanged, or jailed, or scorned, or whatever. he said it is sinful.

So without any action, is his opinion SO unacceptable that the only solution is to expel him from polite society, ruin his and his families economic livelyhood, and make him and those who think like him pariahs?

Problem 2: A&E reacted to GLAAD's statement almost reflexively. GLAAD sent out a crankygram, and BOOM Phil's suspended. This wasn't a backlash over time, as with the Dixie Chicks and thier statements in London, and the gradual revelation about more of thier political leanings, this was "offensive statement, GLAAD snark, Suspsension." Only as time went on did the acutal opinion of DD's audience/customer base come out, and it was the opposite of how A&E reacted.

What it boils down to is how many people need to be offended before punative actions need to be taken against the offender? If we piss off 2% of the population (with words, mind you, not action) does that mean that 2% now sets the bar for what is offensive?

 

[Darkwind]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

Spiteful and deliberately hateful. Categorized as a 'cheap shot'.

Now, what should be the accountability of your actions. I know how I intend to hold you accountable. I'll leave the rest of it up to the others.

Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[westwall]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

Spiteful and deliberately hateful. Categorized as a 'cheap shot'.

Now, what should be the accountability of your actions. I know how I intend to hold you accountable. I'll leave the rest of it up to the others.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Indeed. I wonder if they understand..................

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

Spiteful and deliberately hateful. Categorized as a 'cheap shot'.

Now, what should be the accountability of your actions. I know how I intend to hold you accountable. I'll leave the rest of it up to the others.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Whadevvuh!!!

it was neither spiteful nor hateful. Looks like you hate the 1st amendment too. Ok.

 

[Plasmaball]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

Spiteful and deliberately hateful. Categorized as a 'cheap shot'.

Now, what should be the accountability of your actions. I know how I intend to hold you accountable. I'll leave the rest of it up to the others.

Welcome to the ignore list.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Darkwind]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

Spiteful and deliberately hateful. Categorized as a 'cheap shot'.

Now, what should be the accountability of your actions. I know how I intend to hold you accountable. I'll leave the rest of it up to the others.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Indeed. I wonder if they understand..................

Well, it would require them to have an objective stance.

Either way, I see nothing more than the usual forum tactics being employed here. In other words, nothing to see.....thanks btw....

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, we could always invite our esteemed colleague FoxFyre over here to dissect some important video clips on intolerance for us. That could be exciting.

Spiteful and deliberately hateful. Categorized as a 'cheap shot'.

Now, what should be the accountability of your actions. I know how I intend to hold you accountable. I'll leave the rest of it up to the others.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Indeed. I wonder if they understand..................

Well, apparently some do not.

 

[Plasmaball]

This in reality should be a very short thread. The idea is basically that one should tolerate unpopular opinions from people because they have the right to those opinions. Well yes they do, but we as society have the right to react to those opinions in a manner of ways we so see fit. We can send in letters, emails for the more hip, Call, Boycott and even demand someone if fired.

The company ( we will use Phil from ducks as the leading example.) has the right to ignore such demands from the public. They also have the right to watch their bottom line and if they feel such words will result in them loosing money. They can remove said person from their business.

Now some think ( well one really) that such ACTIONS as calling for a firing should be made criminal. Now to any logical person that should be a red flag. You can not claim someone has the unalienable right to voice their opinion, and then in the next breath say that a group voicing there opinion/actions as a criminal offense.

Speaking out against the crown at one point was also illegal, and yet i highly doubt that would be seen as "evil" by some people. In fact i assume those types would have supported such Evil actions.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you need to take the good with the bad. Sometimes that bad has consequences such as boycotts and the call to fire someone.

I'm not going to get into the partisan left vs right and who doesn't like consequences, because the reality is nobody likes them. Nobody wants to be personally accountable for their actions and always wants to pass the buck to whomever than can. The reality is this is a dumb partisan trick in order to play victim/divert the subject.



I guess there isnt really much to debate, because there really isnt anything to debate on this subject to logical people. Granted who cares where this subject goes, freedom of speech and the flow of conversation is the greatest thing in this world to have.

The issue is twofold. 1) the defining down of what is an unacceptable opinion and 2) the fact that some people's offense is more equal than other people's offense.

Problem 1: Lets use the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle as an example. Phil's statements imply he does not condone homosexual acts, he sees it as sinful, same as bestiality and promiscuity among straights. To some his statement is offensive, however he has made no actions against anyone homosexual (or into dogs, or even slutty), he showed no support to groups that want to make such things illegal (if he did thats another topic). He doesnt go around saying gays should be hanged, or jailed, or scorned, or whatever. he said it is sinful.

So without any action, is his opinion SO unacceptable that the only solution is to expel him from polite society, ruin his and his families economic livelyhood, and make him and those who think like him pariahs?

Problem 2: A&E reacted to GLAAD's statement almost reflexively. GLAAD sent out a crankygram, and BOOM Phil's suspended. This wasn't a backlash over time, as with the Dixie Chicks and thier statements in London, and the gradual revelation about more of thier political leanings, this was "offensive statement, GLAAD snark, Suspsension." Only as time went on did the acutal opinion of DD's audience/customer base come out, and it was the opposite of how A&E reacted.

What it boils down to is how many people need to be offended before punative actions need to be taken against the offender? If we piss off 2% of the population (with words, mind you, not action) does that mean that 2% now sets the bar for what is offensive?

What is unacceptable is always up to the person who the opinion is being directed too.

Well first off, removing duck from the schedule would not realy impact their business at all. They all have more than enough money to weather out any storm. So in this case thats a poor argument.
secondly if society deems that he should be expelled then that is their choice. again this comes down to certain people not liking that their are consequences to actions they may agree with. Phil stated something which his his right. The reaction is our right. We have the right to protest, email, send letters, call, boycott, and ask for him to be removed. A&E or any other Private company has the right to ignore those requests all they like.

Most companies these days react this way instead of waiting it out. This is what you get when everyone sues for everything.

actually Yes martin, you actually nailed the problem. Its the minority that creates these problems. Whether it be with Phil, Ellen, dixie chicks etc. The companies instead of waiting it out cater to these groups because i assume money or something.

there is a special interest group for everything these days and instead of just letting things blow over and putting these groups in their places. Its easier to just remove the issue and start fresh.

 

[martybegan]

This in reality should be a very short thread. The idea is basically that one should tolerate unpopular opinions from people because they have the right to those opinions. Well yes they do, but we as society have the right to react to those opinions in a manner of ways we so see fit. We can send in letters, emails for the more hip, Call, Boycott and even demand someone if fired.

The company ( we will use Phil from ducks as the leading example.) has the right to ignore such demands from the public. They also have the right to watch their bottom line and if they feel such words will result in them loosing money. They can remove said person from their business.

Now some think ( well one really) that such ACTIONS as calling for a firing should be made criminal. Now to any logical person that should be a red flag. You can not claim someone has the unalienable right to voice their opinion, and then in the next breath say that a group voicing there opinion/actions as a criminal offense.

Speaking out against the crown at one point was also illegal, and yet i highly doubt that would be seen as "evil" by some people. In fact i assume those types would have supported such Evil actions.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and you need to take the good with the bad. Sometimes that bad has consequences such as boycotts and the call to fire someone.

I'm not going to get into the partisan left vs right and who doesn't like consequences, because the reality is nobody likes them. Nobody wants to be personally accountable for their actions and always wants to pass the buck to whomever than can. The reality is this is a dumb partisan trick in order to play victim/divert the subject.



I guess there isnt really much to debate, because there really isnt anything to debate on this subject to logical people. Granted who cares where this subject goes, freedom of speech and the flow of conversation is the greatest thing in this world to have.

The issue is twofold. 1) the defining down of what is an unacceptable opinion and 2) the fact that some people's offense is more equal than other people's offense.

Problem 1: Lets use the Duck Dynasty kerfluffle as an example. Phil's statements imply he does not condone homosexual acts, he sees it as sinful, same as bestiality and promiscuity among straights. To some his statement is offensive, however he has made no actions against anyone homosexual (or into dogs, or even slutty), he showed no support to groups that want to make such things illegal (if he did thats another topic). He doesnt go around saying gays should be hanged, or jailed, or scorned, or whatever. he said it is sinful.

So without any action, is his opinion SO unacceptable that the only solution is to expel him from polite society, ruin his and his families economic livelyhood, and make him and those who think like him pariahs?

Problem 2: A&E reacted to GLAAD's statement almost reflexively. GLAAD sent out a crankygram, and BOOM Phil's suspended. This wasn't a backlash over time, as with the Dixie Chicks and thier statements in London, and the gradual revelation about more of thier political leanings, this was "offensive statement, GLAAD snark, Suspsension." Only as time went on did the acutal opinion of DD's audience/customer base come out, and it was the opposite of how A&E reacted.

What it boils down to is how many people need to be offended before punative actions need to be taken against the offender? If we piss off 2% of the population (with words, mind you, not action) does that mean that 2% now sets the bar for what is offensive?

What is unacceptable is always up to the person who the opinion is being directed too.

Well first off, removing duck from the schedule would not realy impact their business at all. They all have more than enough money to weather out any storm. So in this case thats a poor argument.
secondly if society deems that he should be expelled then that is their choice. again this comes down to certain people not liking that their are consequences to actions they may agree with. Phil stated something which his his right. The reaction is our right. We have the right to protest, email, send letters, call, boycott, and ask for him to be removed. A&E or any other Private company has the right to ignore those requests all they like.

Most companies these days react this way instead of waiting it out. This is what you get when everyone sues for everything.

actually Yes martin, you actually nailed the problem. Its the minority that creates these problems. Whether it be with Phil, Ellen, dixie chicks etc. The companies instead of waiting it out cater to these groups because i assume money or something.

there is a special interest group for everything these days and instead of just letting things blow over and putting these groups in their places. Its easier to just remove the issue and start fresh.

Just because the DD people can afford to weather the storm doesnt make the situation any better. The fact still remains that GLAAD was looking for blood, and A&E caved in a heartbeat.

I also don't see how lawsuits would apply here. We are talking about the court of public opinion, the worst that could happen to A&E would be pulling of sponsors and loss of revenue. If that happened I would be more understanding of them pulling the plug on phil or the entire show, because at that point "the people would have spoken" not just a small part of the people (i.e. GLAAD).

What is happening is people have lost the ability to tell certain groups to "go to hell" when they jump on to the offended bandwagon. And at this point the media favors whiners on the left side of the Aisle.

 

[Plasmaball]

Just because the DD people can afford to weather the storm doesnt make the situation any better. The fact still remains that GLAAD was looking for blood, and A&E caved in a heartbeat.

I also don't see how lawsuits would apply here. We are talking about the court of public opinion, the worst that could happen to A&E would be pulling of sponsors and loss of revenue. If that happened I would be more understanding of them pulling the plug on phil or the entire show, because at that point "the people would have spoken" not just a small part of the people (i.e. GLAAD).

What is happening is people have lost the ability to tell certain groups to "go to hell" when they jump on to the offended bandwagon. And at this point the media favors whiners on the left side of the Aisle.
__________________

Everyone is out for blood these days. Thats what you get when everything becomes about winning for your side.

Lawsuits s why we have gotten to this point was my point. People suing over everything so the companies just cut that out be removing the problem totally.

But you are correct about the sponsors, Glaad would pressure them and they would remove themselves from the bad press. Its a very simple tactic they all use.

No you are wrong about it just being on the left. Sigh...the problem is larger than that and the fact you made it partisan like that doesnt make things better. Really you can't see groups like the catholic league who call for boycotts as well as a problem? they are not on the left. How about people who called for the banning of harry potter because its witchcraft? those are not leftists either.

 

[martybegan]

Just because the DD people can afford to weather the storm doesnt make the situation any better. The fact still remains that GLAAD was looking for blood, and A&E caved in a heartbeat.

I also don't see how lawsuits would apply here. We are talking about the court of public opinion, the worst that could happen to A&E would be pulling of sponsors and loss of revenue. If that happened I would be more understanding of them pulling the plug on phil or the entire show, because at that point "the people would have spoken" not just a small part of the people (i.e. GLAAD).

What is happening is people have lost the ability to tell certain groups to "go to hell" when they jump on to the offended bandwagon. And at this point the media favors whiners on the left side of the Aisle.
__________________

Everyone is out for blood these days. Thats what you get when everything becomes about winning for your side.

Lawsuits s why we have gotten to this point was my point. People suing over everything so the companies just cut that out be removing the problem totally.

But you are correct about the sponsors, Glaad would pressure them and they would remove themselves from the bad press. Its a very simple tactic they all use.

No you are wrong about it just being on the left. Sigh...the problem is larger than that and the fact you made it partisan like that doesnt make things better. Really you can't see groups like the catholic league who call for boycotts as well as a problem? they are not on the left. How about people who called for the banning of harry potter because its witchcraft? those are not leftists either.

But how often is the Catholic League taken seriously by the MSM, and has the Catholic League ever gotten someone suspended as quick as GLAAD did?

The anti-Harry Potter people are mostly laughed at and ignored. How many of thier boycotts and ban calls have been successful?

Most of the Catholic League stuff was centered around the fringe modern art world, and most Catholics could give a rats ass about it. Donohue would whine and seethe, and 2 days later it was forgotten. The DD crap is still going on, although the MSM is trying to keep it under the rug now, because they didnt expect the backlash that happened.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just because the DD people can afford to weather the storm doesnt make the situation any better. The fact still remains that GLAAD was looking for blood, and A&E caved in a heartbeat.

I also don't see how lawsuits would apply here. We are talking about the court of public opinion, the worst that could happen to A&E would be pulling of sponsors and loss of revenue. If that happened I would be more understanding of them pulling the plug on phil or the entire show, because at that point "the people would have spoken" not just a small part of the people (i.e. GLAAD).

What is happening is people have lost the ability to tell certain groups to "go to hell" when they jump on to the offended bandwagon. And at this point the media favors whiners on the left side of the Aisle.
__________________

Everyone is out for blood these days. Thats what you get when everything becomes about winning for your side.

Lawsuits s why we have gotten to this point was my point. People suing over everything so the companies just cut that out be removing the problem totally.

But you are correct about the sponsors, Glaad would pressure them and they would remove themselves from the bad press. Its a very simple tactic they all use.

No you are wrong about it just being on the left. Sigh...the problem is larger than that and the fact you made it partisan like that doesnt make things better. Really you can't see groups like the catholic league who call for boycotts as well as a problem? they are not on the left. How about people who called for the banning of harry potter because its witchcraft? those are not leftists either.

But how often is the Catholic League taken seriously by the MSM, and has the Catholic League ever gotten someone suspended as quick as GLAAD did?

The anti-Harry Potter people are mostly laughed at and ignored. How many of thier boycotts and ban calls have been successful?

Most of the Catholic League stuff was centered around the fringe modern art world, and most Catholics could give a rats ass about it. Donohue would whine and seethe, and 2 days later it was forgotten. The DD crap is still going on, although the MSM is trying to keep it under the rug now, because they didnt expect the backlash that happened.

#

Oh, that's easy to answer:

if the Catholic League or anti-Harry Potter people aren't as well organized as GLAAD, then it's their own fault. You know, personal initiative, bootstraps and hard-work. That kind of stuff.

I find it a cheap cop-out to blame the "MSM" everytime something doesn't go the way people want.

 

[martybegan]

Everyone is out for blood these days. Thats what you get when everything becomes about winning for your side.

Lawsuits s why we have gotten to this point was my point. People suing over everything so the companies just cut that out be removing the problem totally.

But you are correct about the sponsors, Glaad would pressure them and they would remove themselves from the bad press. Its a very simple tactic they all use.

No you are wrong about it just being on the left. Sigh...the problem is larger than that and the fact you made it partisan like that doesnt make things better. Really you can't see groups like the catholic league who call for boycotts as well as a problem? they are not on the left. How about people who called for the banning of harry potter because its witchcraft? those are not leftists either.

But how often is the Catholic League taken seriously by the MSM, and has the Catholic League ever gotten someone suspended as quick as GLAAD did?

The anti-Harry Potter people are mostly laughed at and ignored. How many of thier boycotts and ban calls have been successful?

Most of the Catholic League stuff was centered around the fringe modern art world, and most Catholics could give a rats ass about it. Donohue would whine and seethe, and 2 days later it was forgotten. The DD crap is still going on, although the MSM is trying to keep it under the rug now, because they didnt expect the backlash that happened.

#

Oh, that's easy to answer:

if the Catholic League or anti-Harry Potter people aren't as well organized as GLAAD, then it's their own fault. You know, personal initiative, bootstraps and hard-work. That kind of stuff.

I find it a cheap cop-out to blame the "MSM" everytime something doesn't go the way people want.

It has nothing to do with organization, and everything to do with, that according to our political elites, its OK to ignore the Catholic League but once GLAAD says JUMP!! the only acceptable response is to say "how high, and how long do you want to stay in the air for?"

It isnt hard to issue a press release, its harder to make people care about it. How "boots on the ground is GLAAD anyway" And how much do they have to work at convinving people that already agree with them?

The MSM has a liberal bias, because it is mostly comprised of Liberals. That is a fact, and not some opinion.