Yes, and someone also has the right to tell the person their opinion of why they believe that person is wrong...
By not tolerating intolerance could mean I do not read the individual responses, put them in iggy, or explain to them that in my opinion they are wrong, and just leave it at that.
Did I write that someone freedom of speech should be denied or regulated?
I simply stated a fact, don't get butt hurt so easily, it's a freaking obscure message board not a national debate
Dear
SassyIrishLass Yes and no
1. Whatever we resolve locally as here between individuals
is a similar process our party leaders need to go through to solve problems as a team.
The local affects the global and vice versa. Because human beings are involved,
and we are socially interconnected (or spiritually if you will) we affect each other collectively too. These are two different levels, private vs public, but we are connected by conscience,
so whatever battles we overcome locally, then collectively when all people do that,
we change society globally, one relationship at a time.
2. Yes we should allow when someone has a bias or intolerance since we all have limits.
None of us is a machine that treats all situations as neutral factors.
We all have biases that are going to set someone else off and vice versa.
But no, there is nothing wrong with being sensitive and admitting we are angry or hurt or offended
and can't take something.
This is actually a gift to be sensitive and want to resolve a conflict that bothers our conscience.
it is not a problem, or doesn't have to be treated as one.
It is a sensor that things can be better, so why not strive for better.
It doesn't mean to censor the source of upset, it means to study the conflict on BOTH sides
and figure out how to work around the biases that are clashing. this is healthy and good.
If we teach all people to manage diversity and resolve conflicts,
we will be better off as a nation. We can only ask our party and political leaders
to be bigger people if we ourselves strive for that in our own local relations.
We set the stage, set the examples, and we can use that as LEVERAGE
to compel church and state leaders to open up and work through differences instead of shutting them out.
Sorry but intolerance is simply freedom of speech and or expression. Anyone needing "protection" and "safe places" needs to man up. Nobody should ever be forced to tolerate something they truly not believe in, this is America, land of freedom
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
No, intolerance isn't freedom of speech. It is:
in·tol·er·ance
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun:
intolerance; plural noun:
intolerances
- unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
"a struggle against religious intolerance"
synonyms: bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, illiberality, parochialism, provincialism;More
prejudice, bias, partisanship, partiality, discrimination;
injustice, inequality
"clearly she had not inherited her parents' racial intolerance"
My OP is not about you. No one wants to take your freedom away.
Dear
OldLady Thanks again for being here and sharing openly with the best intent.
I am sure you will succeed. Because I see you are sensitive, I trust you to see the other
person is just as sensitive to hot button issues that mean something personal to them.
RE
No one wants to take your freedom away.
I am going to respond to this "in general" and point out this is a hot button issue.
Trying to deny or downplay this very real fear, is more likely going to set someone off worse, just like you admit certain statements rub you wrong.
If you can understand this, and why it matters so personally to someone, then you can see
the fearful reaction is mutual. Perhaps you won't feel as helpless, when you understand the other person is just as fearful you are out to discriminate, exclude and oppress what they need to represent themselves. They feel just as at risk of oppression as you feel threatened by "collective" phobic influences manifested in race baiting remarks.
This "fear that someone wants to take their freedom away" is real.
Trying to downplay that makes the defensiveness worse.
So I am asking you to try to be as sensitive as you are asking others to be,
when they don't think the other opinion is founded either!
Examples of taking freedom away in general (that conservatives get outraged
about but liberals don't think is any big deal, which makes it even worse):
1. Let's look at lawsuits over crosses and prayers in schools or on public grounds vs. other issues.
This issue was brought up on numerous threads comparing it with
a. why are "gay parades" allowed on public streets when this is pushing agenda and values
b. why is "health care" pushed as a right and requirement through govt but not "right to life" as a belief
if atheists can sue to remove a cross when nothing was being imposed, but the SYMBOL was offensive
and excluded their beliefs, why not REMOVE the insurance mandates that SYMBOLIZES the belief
that health care is a right through govt that EXCLUDES and penalized creeds that are against federal controls
as against Constitutional beliefs in states rights and amendments voted on before giving feds that authority
c. why are schools supposed to be tolerant of gays and transgender "to show respect and inclusion of diversity" but this is NOT applied to Christian culture, that is pushed out and shut down because "not all people believe that". well, not all people believe that gay and transgender is natural, that is "faith based" and not proven, one way or another, so why push this agenda that is faith based but Christianity is lobbied against (even references to Christmas trees).
This adds to the fear that the liberal agenda is aimed at shutting down beliefs in opposition while spouting their own, thus "taking away religious freedom and equality" by only enforcing a one sided bias by liberal agenda and secular standards, a very real fear.
2. In general, liberal backlash over public comments and criticisms as "racist"
where this "race card" is used to attack candidates for office "so they can't win" and the other side gains points.
Instead of correcting the statement, the PERSON is attacked to censor or obstruct them politically
If the race card is only used politically to undercut and DESTROY opponents, and get other elected by bashing
each other, it is not really addressing or correcting the problem, but tends to make it worse.
So this is "taking away" from freedom of both sides to work together on solutions by instead,
"rewarding bullying", by reinforcing barriers, even fueling the same cycle of racial distrust and division between groups.
We all lose freedom this way when we obstruct and destroy our own relations with each other.
This fear is real and mutual on both sides.
When this is understood, we can address the fear instead of telling ourselves the other side is unfounded.
