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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,210
Reaction score
19,558
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
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.
 
Last edited:

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
"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:

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
72,125
Reaction score
17,073
Points
2,210
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
.

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.

.
 

Geaux4it

Intensity Factor 4-Fold
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
22,874
Reaction score
4,284
Points
290
Location
Tennessee
Um, Freedom of Speech is Politically Incorrect ....... Dig it

-Geaux
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Minority or majority is not a legal consideration. Law is law and non-partisan (in theory anyway heh.)
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,210
Reaction score
19,558
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
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.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
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.
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,210
Reaction score
19,558
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher
I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.
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:

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
It isn't about justice. It's about politics. They say "Duck Dynasty" is the most popular reality show ever. So all those people watching represent a huge population both political sides will go after to get votes from. If it wasn't a tv show, or as popular it never woulda even gotten on the news.

As a matter of justice, there is no controversy. He signed a contract, broke it, got punished. Over and done with. But because of the show's popularity, both politic sides are making political hay out of it.
 
OP
Foxfyre

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
56,210
Reaction score
19,558
Points
2,290
Location
Desert Southwest USA
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.
That may indeed be a reason. But it does not address whether intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance.

Intolerance in any form that is not acted out but is expressed purely as a belief or conviction--was that not intended to be one of our unalienable rights? How can we say we hate intolerance if we are intolerant of an unpopular or un-PC opinion held by another?

Intolerance that is acted out in a material way is something quite different from what I am focused on here.
 
Last edited:

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
43,810
Reaction score
8,393
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
I see it this way.

I was taught to be tolerant of anyone and anything. Does that require me to sacrifice my core values to do so? No. Can I still have an opinion regarding it? Of course. Mind you, tolerance works both ways. But as I see it, this issue of tolerance has become a one sided affair. Multiple cases of Christian entrepreneurs being forced to act against their faith to serve gays are already on the books.

In my mind, the left and certain gay rights groups have taken their activism too far. They are now using their Constitutionally guaranteed rights to advocacy to infringe on the religiously held beliefs of others. The law says don't discriminate, but it also says people are guaranteed their right to express their faith.

This isn't a Constitutional issue, but as you said an issue of tolerance.
 
Last edited:

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
"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.
But do WE know every nuance of that contract?
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher
I got a better one. Don't become so tolerant you tolerate the injustice of minority bullies.
To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.
 

Vox

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2013
Messages
10,937
Reaction score
867
Points
138
we have a classic example of those who are claiming intolerance towards them and also to be very tolerant themselves to be actually the most vile and militant intolerant bigots under the sun - LGBT and the left overall.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
we have a classic example of those who are claiming intolerance towards them and also to be very tolerant themselves to be actually the most vile and militant intolerant bigots under the sun - LGBT and the left overall.
So they live in a 'my way or the highway' existence? I say they do. They do NOT practice what they preach. Perfect hypocrisy.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
49,336
Reaction score
8,713
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Minority or majority is not a legal consideration. Law is law and non-partisan (in theory anyway heh.)
Right, they don't worry about law, minority bullies try their cases in public, loud and obnoxious just as any bully would. It's time they get slapped in the mouth, figuratively of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top