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

[Foxfyre]

Intelligent people know the difference between telling somebody off and hitting that person. Intelligent people know the difference between disciplining a child and spanking that child.
Intelligent people know the difference between public criticism and opinion and demanding that somebody be fired for nothing more than expressing an opinion that an organization didn't like.

Again, I ask: Who decides which people are intelligent, and which are not?

I don't think anybody decides that. I think it becomes obvious with experience. But I will amend my post to be prefaced with 'in my opinion'. But at the end of the day, I think diffferent people will define intelligence than those who presume to dictate what is acceptable for people to think, believe, and speak without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will physically or materially punish them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming" which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

I wonder if you have lost your mind when you invoke Godwin and associated GLAAD with Nazis. Do you have any idea in the world how unbelievably insulting and stupid that is, especially to Jews, Roma, Gays, political prisoners and handicapped people who DID suffer REAL physical harm and not just the bullshit you have been dreaming up here?

Wow, unbelievable. Wow.

Any time I see you criticize someone for invoking Godwin, I will certainly remind you of this moment.

Doing this kind of thing is just about as low as a person can stoop, in my book.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. You my friend, have grasped the concept of the OP so far as GLAAD and Phil Robertson are concerned. They demand total immunity from any negatives whatsoever re gays but will not extend even token tolerance to those who promote traditional marriage or certain Christian beliefs or families with a mom and dad providing role models for the kids.

And it isn't just the Gestapo and/or Inquisition tactics of GLAAD demanding not just tolerance, but endorsement, total non criticism, non negative inferences of any kind. There are also groups who target anybody who doesn't interpret women's rights as they interpret them, who refuse to promote the politically correct and often dishonest social dynamics or history of racial minorities, who object to militant Islam, who promote certain Christian beliefs unrelated to homosexuality. And, as I have tried my damndest to point out, there are some rightwing groups who are just as bad.

Is there anybody among us who condones or approves the tacitcs of the Westboro Baptists? What hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, intolerant, and cruel people they show themselves to be. The American Family Association was not so hateful, but still were very very wrong and unAmerican to go after Ellen Degeneres for no other reason than they judged her to be promoting homosexuality purely by appearing in a Christmas ad. That to me is indefensible, wrong, and is an embarrassment to all of us who promote traditional family values as well as the unalienable right to be who and what we are with impunity.

Is there anybody in this thread who supports the tactics of the Westboro Baptists? Is there anybody in this thread who supports that action of the AFA?

How can you condemn one and not also condemn the actions of GLAAD re Phil Robertson?

I wonder if you have lost your mind when you invoke Godwin and associated GLAAD with Nazis. Do you have any idea in the world how unbelievably insulting and stupid that is, especially to Jews, Roma, Gays, political prisoners and handicapped people who DID suffer REAL physical harm and not just the bullshit you have been dreaming up here?

Wow, unbelievable. Wow.

Any time I see you criticize someone for invoking Godwin, I will certainly remind you of this moment.

Doing this kind of thing is just about as low as a person can stoop, in my book.

#2, #3, and #4

 

[LoneLaugher]

......
Legally....they are all within their rights. Morally......not so much. The OP expresses a desire for adult, honest discussion and an end to GLAAD being intolerant. The path to that is to end the oppression and intolerance that illicits the response from GLAAD.

I wish I had a nickel for every time the word "they" or "their" was used in this thread.

Yes, me too

That "they" was referring to named entities. Try harder.

 

[Plasmaball]

I wonder if you have lost your mind when you invoke Godwin and associated GLAAD with Nazis. Do you have any idea in the world how unbelievably insulting and stupid that is, especially to Jews, Roma, Gays, political prisoners and handicapped people who DID suffer REAL physical harm and not just the bullshit you have been dreaming up here?

Wow, unbelievable. Wow.

Any time I see you criticize someone for invoking Godwin, I will certainly remind you of this moment.

Doing this kind of thing is just about as low as a person can stoop, in my book.

#2, #3, and #4

here we go again. Fox admits she lost her own debate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You have no problem with people being physically and/or materially punished for being who and what they are?

No, I don't.

I'm glad the Israelis caught up to Eichmann.

I'm happy sexual preditors must register their locations.

I'm thrilled when a bigot loses money because they expressed an unpopular opinion.

Either these people need to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

The act of petitioning?

YES

The bigoted, divisive, fucked up ideology that led them to petition.....no. It is fucked up. We agree on that point, I think.

If something is fucked up....it is not cool to let it slide.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

Yes, I do think its OK for the AFA to petition JC Penny. Retailors are constantly looking for customer feedback, plus, don't consumers have a right to voice their opinion? Of course they do.

Freedom of expression means EVERYONE, Queers that don't like the Robertsons, people that don't want Dolphins killed to fish for Tuna, and publications that report Kristallnacht, have the right to express themselves.

Okay. I thank you for expressing your opinion. I just hope there aren't a large number of people who agree with you. Or we will lose rest of the liberties that we have.

Bullshit.

 

[Foxfyre]

#2, #3, and #4

here we go again. Fox admits she lost her own debate.

#2

 

[NYcarbineer]

Intelligent people know the difference between telling somebody off and hitting that person. Intelligent people know the difference between disciplining a child and spanking that child.
Intelligent people know the difference between public criticism and opinion and demanding that somebody be fired for nothing more than expressing an opinion that an organization didn't like.

i can demand you be banned from this forum, and i have that right too. the mods have the right to tell me no.

you are anti freedom,but wont come out and own up to it.

If you go back to the OP you'll see that FF complains about people on this forum giving other people negative reps,

as if that is some sort of crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, I don't.

I'm glad the Israelis caught up to Eichmann.

I'm happy sexual preditors must register their locations.

I'm thrilled when a bigot loses money because they expressed an unpopular opinion.

Either these people need to take the heat, or get out of the kitchen.

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

The act of petitioning?

YES

The bigoted, divisive, fucked up ideology that led them to petition.....no. It is fucked up. We agree on that point, I think.

If something is fucked up....it is not cool to let it slide.

So finally you are willing to take a stand directly pertinent to the OP. You agree with Samson. It is okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to use its power to demand that somebody be fired for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like or is somebody they didn't like.

I just wonder how okay with that either one of you would be if it was some group coming after you to physically and/or materially hurt you for nothing more than exercising what the Founders intended to be your unalienable rights.

But you're both entitled to your opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me try once more:

You don't have the right to prevent people from criticizing you. And you don't acquire that right just because you've become a public figure in a job that depends on favorable public opinion of you for you to prosper.

And I'll try once more:

This isn't about preventing people from criticizing you. If it were, there would be no problem. It's about the PC Police's tactic of putting people on the defensive with threats of job loss or other significant punishment.

Criticize all you want -- I REPEAT, CRITICIZE ALL YOU WANT -- great, maybe that will lead to a conversation, to communication. But the PC Police don't appear to want that, they'd rather intimidate so that they can divert from the debate.

Just as you do when you toss out the straw man that we're trying to stop criticism.

And I'd love to know one thing: Are you FORCED to threaten people with retribution, job loss, etc.? Are you FORCED to use these straw man arguments? Let me answer that for you: No, you're NOT forced to behave like that. You do it because it puts your target on the defensive and it has worked so well for so long.

That's changing now, right before our eyes.



.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but 'PC Police' is a figure of speech. They aren't real police.

 

[Foxfyre]

let me try once more:

You don't have the right to prevent people from criticizing you. And you don't acquire that right just because you've become a public figure in a job that depends on favorable public opinion of you for you to prosper.

and i'll try once more:

This isn't about preventing people from criticizing you. If it were, there would be no problem. It's about the pc police's tactic of putting people on the defensive with threats of job loss or other significant punishment.

Criticize all you want -- i repeat, criticize all you want -- great, maybe that will lead to a conversation, to communication. But the pc police don't appear to want that, they'd rather intimidate so that they can divert from the debate.

Just as you do when you toss out the straw man that we're trying to stop criticism.

And i'd love to know one thing: Are you forced to threaten people with retribution, job loss, etc.? Are you forced to use these straw man arguments? Let me answer that for you: No, you're not forced to behave like that. You do it because it puts your target on the defensive and it has worked so well for so long.

That's changing now, right before our eyes.



.

i'm not sure if you're aware of this but 'pc police' is a figure of speech. They aren't real police.

#3

 

[Plasmaball]

Intelligent people know the difference between telling somebody off and hitting that person. Intelligent people know the difference between disciplining a child and spanking that child.
Intelligent people know the difference between public criticism and opinion and demanding that somebody be fired for nothing more than expressing an opinion that an organization didn't like.

i can demand you be banned from this forum, and i have that right too. the mods have the right to tell me no.

you are anti freedom,but wont come out and own up to it.

If you go back to the OP you'll see that FF complains about people on this forum giving other people negative reps,

as if that is some sort of crime.

she is a giant hypocrite and anyone who takes her seriously deserves the headache they get.

 

[Foxfyre]

i can demand you be banned from this forum, and i have that right too. the mods have the right to tell me no.

you are anti freedom,but wont come out and own up to it.

If you go back to the OP you'll see that FF complains about people on this forum giving other people negative reps,

as if that is some sort of crime.

she is a giant hypocrite and anyone who takes her seriously deserves the headache they get.

#1

(Apparently you take me seriously enough to comment on everything I post.)

 

[Statistikhengst]

The AFA ( American Family Association), which is an extreme Right-Wing, Christian Fundamentalist Organization with a large following, has called for, organized and carried-out boycotts of:

American Family Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Hardee's, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Paramount Pictures, Time Warner, Universal Studios, DreamWorks, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo...

I guess that means a helluva lot of physical harm, what?

 

[Plasmaball]

If you go back to the OP you'll see that FF complains about people on this forum giving other people negative reps,

as if that is some sort of crime.

she is a giant hypocrite and anyone who takes her seriously deserves the headache they get.

#1

(Apparently you take me seriously enough to comment on everything I post.)

Well no because NYcarb made that post not you. Wow more narcissistic than Obama.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well at least you expressed an honest opinion. I was with you re punishing people for the evil things they DO. I can't agree that we can have liberty when it is okay to punish people purely for being who and what they are. So you are also okay with the AFA petitioning J C Penney to dump Ellen Degeneres? You think that is something that a free people should accept as okay?

The act of petitioning?

YES

The bigoted, divisive, fucked up ideology that led them to petition.....no. It is fucked up. We agree on that point, I think.

If something is fucked up....it is not cool to let it slide.

So finally you are willing to take a stand directly pertinent to the OP. You agree with Samson. It is okay for an angry mob, group, or organization to use its power to demand that somebody be fired for no other reason than the person expressed an opinion that somebody didn't like or is somebody they didn't like.

I just wonder how okay with that either one of you would be if it was some group coming after you to physically and/or materially hurt you for nothing more than exercising what the Founders intended to be your unalienable rights.

But you're both entitled to your opinion.

If I were gay...or black.....or a woman seeking an abortion......I would get that shit on a daily basis.....for decades if not centuries now.

By the way.......you have consistently confused one's actual being: ( race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity).....with ones learned beliefs
( homosexuality is a sin, minorities are a drain on society, women should not have abortions ). You have identified all of these as "being who or what one is".

That is a bit off.

 

[Foxfyre]

The AFA ( American Family Association), which is an extreme Right-Wing, Christian Fundamentalist Organization with a large following, has called for, organized and carried-out boycotts of:

American Family Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Hardee's, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Paramount Pictures, Time Warner, Universal Studios, DreamWorks, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo...

I guess that means a helluva lot of physical harm, what?

I certainly have not been singing their praises on this thread and in the J C Penney/Ellen Degeneres matter, I rated them every bit as hateful and wrong as GLAAD.

As for those other matters, I have not researched them and don't know WHY the boycotts were organized or carried out. If they were for tnothing more than the beliefs or opinions of people, an organized boycott is not something I will ever defend. If they were for bad ACTS, then they might be justifiable. So you'll need to be more specific if you wish for me to comment on something more than the JC Penney/Degeneres bruhaha.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.

We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.

Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?

Maybe some of you noticed the story I posted about the Israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,

illegal. That's where it can go.

 

[Foxfyre]

we have the right in this country to vote, literally and figuratively. We can vote at the ballot box, with our wallets, with emails, with calls, with letters, we can vote by supporting interest groups that advocate for causes we support.

We can vote with the remote, with the dial on the radio. We can vote by making 'demands'. We can vote by making 'threats', provided they are within the law.

Start taking away people's right to vote, and where does it go? Where could it go?

Maybe some of you noticed the story i posted about the israeli parliament trying to make boycotts, or even calling for boycotts,

illegal. That's where it can go.

#3