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

[NYcarbineer]

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

WHat Justifies YOUR intolerance of him/them?

YOU speak of arguments made of GLADD...but has ANYONE HERE stated they be silenced as GLADD has to be silenced?
NO.

WHOM is Intolerant?

Carbonated? YOU too need to THINK.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I have made it absolutely clear, I do not support outside groups making demands of a man to keep his mouth shut, simply to appease their worldview and hurting his reputation if he defies them. It is wrong for an outside group to make demands of anyone, other than their supporters. To make someone agree with you or submit to you via coercion is the highest form of intolerance one can ever imagine.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the extent this is about the Duck Dynasty faux scandal,

be reminded that GLAAD stands for Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

What they did is what they do, and they make no secret of their mission and their goals.

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay and advancement of gay rights as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

You might want to inform the rest of us what version of the definition of the word 'tolerant' you are using.

Consider the saying, or quote, whatever it is:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it.

Your implication is that the quote should be revised to say:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is a noble act of tolerance.

...and before you say it, yes we could replace the word 'injustice' with something more precisely reflective of the DD discussion.

I have not suggested anybody stay silent in the face of injustice. What injustice did Phil Robertson commit against anybody? He was pressured in an interview to state his beliefs and he stated them. He did not suggest anybody act on his beliefs. He has no power of any kind to enforce his beliefs nor did he suggest he would accept such power if he could get it. He wished no harm or ill will on anybody. He stated his belief when he was asked to do so.

I haven't even suggested those who disagree with Phil Robertson stay silent. I certainly haven't. I don't agree with what he said or how he said it. But he was being the quintissential Phil Robertson. He was being absolutely who he is.

Is not the very definition of tolerance allowing people to be who they are? To not attempt to punish or diminish or marginalize or hurt them because they don't share our point of view or beliefs? To disagree with them without demanding that they be hurt or destroyed?

GLAAD wants gays and lesbians to be accepted as they are, for who they are. To not be punished because they are gay or lesbian. They do not - did not - extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. The topic of this thread is how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

That was not GLAAD's original mission. You're going to have to accept irrefutable facts relevant to this argument if you want to have worthwhile argument. You cannot assign inaccurate attributes to a person, or persons, and a group, and then argue against your invention,

and call it a worthwhile argument.

They don't use the word 'tolerance' specifically in their self promotion. Their speakers have and do use the term as their mission to ensure access, acceptance, and accuracy in how they are portrayed all boils down to one thing: "tolerance". I know because I have scheduled GLAAD speakers and have attended functions at which GLAAD representatives have spoken. That is my point of view. You are welcome to your own point of view and I have not admonished anybody for disagreeing with me on the topic.

But the issue of tolerance and intolerance IS the topic of this thread.

I don't want to discuss who is and who is not a Christian because that is not relevant to the topic.

I don't want to discuss who is and who is not gay or how somebody becomes gay or gay rights issues because that is not relevant to the topic.

And I don't want to make this a Constitutional free speech thread as that also is not relevant to the topic.

All are worthy subjects and all are discussed elsewhere and no doubt new interesting threads on these topics will be offered elsewhere, but they are not relevant to this topic.

The only reason gay people even got involved in the topic is because it was GLAAD, who mostly likely has many more gay than straight members among its membership, who demanded that A&E fire Phil Robertson for his stated beliefs about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

So do you approve an outside group--one that has absolutely nothing to do with A&E or Duck Dynasty--making such a demand? Is not such a demand the very definition of intolerance?

This was my point. You're trying to shame certain people into unilateral silence. You're holding one side to a standard that you would not hold the other.

In what passes for clever, you're saying that liberals should leave conservatives alone as an exercise of that tolerance thing liberals preach about, but,

since conservatives are not burdened by the limitations of tolerance, for them,

it's full speed ahead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay and advancement of gay rights as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

You might want to inform the rest of us what version of the definition of the word 'tolerant' you are using.

Consider the saying, or quote, whatever it is:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it.

Your implication is that the quote should be revised to say:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is a noble act of tolerance.

...and before you say it, yes we could replace the word 'injustice' with something more precisely reflective of the DD discussion.

I have not suggested anybody stay silent in the face of injustice. What injustice did Phil Robertson commit against anybody? He was pressured in an interview to state his beliefs and he stated them. He did not suggest anybody act on his beliefs. He has no power of any kind to enforce his beliefs nor did he suggest he would accept such power if he could get it. He wished no harm or ill will on anybody. He stated his belief when he was asked to do so.

I haven't even suggested those who disagree with Phil Robertson stay silent. I certainly haven't. I don't agree with what he said or how he said it. But he was being the quintissential Phil Robertson. He was being absolutely who he is.

Is not the very definition of tolerance allowing people to be who they are? To not attempt to punish or diminish or marginalize or hurt them because they don't share our point of view or beliefs? To disagree with them without demanding that they be hurt or destroyed?

GLAAD wants gays and lesbians to be accepted as they are, for who they are. To not be punished because they are gay or lesbian. They do not - did not - extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson.

So conservatives can't be inconsistent in these matters because conservatives are proudly intolerant?

GLAAD is an activist group working against defamation. That's the D in GLAAD. If they perceive someone in the media being defamatory towards gays, they engage in activism against that;

quite a large amount of activism has broken out in defense of Phil Robertson. You object to one but not the other.

Why?

 

[Vox]

Once more folks, let's get off the who is a true Christian and how people get gay. This is not a thread about homosexuality. There are threads aplenty out there dealing with that. Nor is the this a Constitutional free speech issue. This is an issue of promoting tolerance and/or exposing intolerance. And how intolerance of intolerance can erode the very freedoms that some say they cherish above all. The freedom to be who we are.

GLAAD's mission was originally to promote tolerance. Now their mission seems to be to promote intolerance for anybody who doesn't embrace being gay as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be a lot of that going around and it isn't just GLAAD. Too many seem to promote the idea that we MUST be tolerant of certain points of view and then they turn right around and condone others being punished because of their point of view.

Quite a few of you here get that. Why doesn't everybody?

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

GLAAD did not make the argument. GLAAD demanded from A&E to fire him.
and that is BIG difference.

actually I even can agree that GLAAD has the right to bully A&E.
But then the other group has the right to overbully GLAAD and A&E for caving.
Which is happening.

the point is - you can't FORCE the acceptance.
and that is exactly what those so called "groups for tolerance" are doing - they are FORCING their acceptance even when it is criminal.

since they are leftards and that is a synonym of ignorance they don't know that ignorance of the Third Newton's law does not prevent it from still being applicable in all situations

 

[Katzndogz]

Maybe gays forgot what intolerance looks like and they need a refresher. Then they can have some perspective.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I have made it absolutely clear, I do not support outside groups making demands of a man to keep his mouth shut simply to appease their worldview and hurting his reputation if he defies them. It is wrong for an outside group to make demands of anyone, other than their supporters. To make someone agree with you or submit to you via coercion is the highest form of intolerance one can ever imagine.

Does that include politicians?

 

[Foxfyre]

You might want to inform the rest of us what version of the definition of the word 'tolerant' you are using.

Consider the saying, or quote, whatever it is:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it.

Your implication is that the quote should be revised to say:

Remaining silent in the face of injustice is a noble act of tolerance.

...and before you say it, yes we could replace the word 'injustice' with something more precisely reflective of the DD discussion.

I have not suggested anybody stay silent in the face of injustice. What injustice did Phil Robertson commit against anybody? He was pressured in an interview to state his beliefs and he stated them. He did not suggest anybody act on his beliefs. He has no power of any kind to enforce his beliefs nor did he suggest he would accept such power if he could get it. He wished no harm or ill will on anybody. He stated his belief when he was asked to do so.

I haven't even suggested those who disagree with Phil Robertson stay silent. I certainly haven't. I don't agree with what he said or how he said it. But he was being the quintissential Phil Robertson. He was being absolutely who he is.

Is not the very definition of tolerance allowing people to be who they are? To not attempt to punish or diminish or marginalize or hurt them because they don't share our point of view or beliefs? To disagree with them without demanding that they be hurt or destroyed?

GLAAD wants gays and lesbians to be accepted as they are, for who they are. To not be punished because they are gay or lesbian. They do not - did not - extend the same tolerance to Phil Robertson.

So conservatives can't be inconsistent in these matters because conservatives are proudly intolerant?

GLAAD is an activist group working against defamation. That's the D in GLAAD. If they perceive someone in the media being defamatory towards gays, they engage in activism against that;

quite a large amount of activism has broken out in defense of Phil Robertson. You object to one but not the other.

Why?

Who said anything about conservatives? This is not a thread about liberals or conservatives any more than it is a thread about what a Christian is or how people become homosexual or any other of a half dozen topics different people have tried to make it.

So I ask you again. How did Phil Robertson defame anybody? Do you defame me if you mischaracterize conservatives? Are you defamed if somebody thinks liberals suck?

What activism? Is somebody demanding that somebody who called Phil Robertson a bigot be fired?

Do you see the difference between allowing people to be who they are? Say who they are? Say what they believe? And in demanding that somebody be punished for who they are? What they believe?

There is a huge difference between protesting an unfair ACTION and protesting somebody's stated opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I have made it absolutely clear, I do not support outside groups making demands of a man to keep his mouth shut simply to appease their worldview and hurting his reputation if he defies them. It is wrong for an outside group to make demands of anyone, other than their supporters. To make someone agree with you or submit to you via coercion is the highest form of intolerance one can ever imagine.

Does that include politicians?

What do you think, carbine?

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe gays forgot what intolerance looks like and they need a refresher. Then they can have some perspective.

For sure there are some on this thread who seem to be deliberately trying to make it something other than a discussion on allowing people to be who they are. Most especially if they are expected to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is even as they would scream bloody murder if somebody tried to get somebody fired because they admitted they were gay or if they said something uncomplimentary about fundamentalist Christians.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again I am asking all member to be courteous and civil to one another. This is a topic that should be of importance to all of us. And surely we can treat each other nicely even if we don't all agree.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because people who are militantly intolerant of others speaking their opinions ( as Billy is, but not only him) are usually convinced THEY know what IS tolerant, accepted, and BETTER, including FOR YOU.
That is a mindset.

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

GLAAD did not make the argument. GLAAD demanded from A&E to fire him.
and that is BIG difference.

actually I even can agree that GLAAD has the right to bully A&E.
But then the other group has the right to overbully GLAAD and A&E for caving.
Which is happening.

the point is - you can't FORCE the acceptance.
and that is exactly what those so called "groups for tolerance" are doing - they are FORCING their acceptance even when it is criminal.

since they are leftards and that is a synonym of ignorance they don't know that ignorance of the Third Newton's law does not prevent it from still being applicable in all situations

You're an idiot. What is GLAAD criminally forcing A&E to do?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

GLAAD did not make the argument. GLAAD demanded from A&E to fire him.
and that is BIG difference.

actually I even can agree that GLAAD has the right to bully A&E.
But then the other group has the right to overbully GLAAD and A&E for caving.
Which is happening.

the point is - you can't FORCE the acceptance.
and that is exactly what those so called "groups for tolerance" are doing - they are FORCING their acceptance even when it is criminal.

since they are leftards and that is a synonym of ignorance they don't know that ignorance of the Third Newton's law does not prevent it from still being applicable in all situations

You're an idiot. What is GLAAD criminally forcing A&E to do?

Right off the bat. Surely we can debate each other without becoming hostile?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe gays forgot what intolerance looks like and they need a refresher. Then they can have some perspective.

For sure there are some on this thread who seem to be deliberately trying to make it something other than a discussion on allowing people to be who they are. Most especially if they are expected to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is even as they would scream bloody murder if somebody tried to get somebody fired because they admitted they were gay or if they said something uncomplimentary about fundamentalist Christians.

Who decided that tolerance and intolerance were either or absolutes?

If I am tolerant of gays as equals in our society, why would I have to tolerant of people who are believe otherwise?

Why do you expect me to hold two views, one contradictory to the other?

 

[candycorn]

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.

A&E has a business to run. What this guy said was offensive to a segment of their viewership so he had to go.

Slimfast has a business to run. What Whoopie Said said about Bush was offensive to a segment of their consumers. So she had to go.

Monday Night Football is a TV Show. What Hank Williams said was offensive to a number of their viewers. So he had to go.

I'm offended by a lot of what I see on MTV and Bravo! TV. I don't watch it. I find mainstream GOP platform planks to be offensive. I don't vote for many republicans as a result.

It would make a lot more sense to simply remember that this guy from DD, Goldberg, Williams, etc... are just people. What they say isn't representative of any one but themselves. Partisan whackjobs on both sides of the ideological specturm should stop attributing groupthink to the words of the dimmer lights of that group. It's not intolerance; it's hypersensitivity to pereceived injustices. You guys have started what, 5 threads on this dork's rant about his views of homosexuals and a great many on the left have drummed HIS words up to his speaking for the GOP.

Don't worry about actors who get fired for starting their views. They are employees and when their employer is hurt by their actions, they are repremanded.

Be worried when Political parties embody those beliefs and there are people who agree with that embodiment...such as the GOP. No law forces the GOP to be anti-woman; but they are. No law forces the GOP to be anti-LGBT; but they are. This is what you should be aware of; not the words of some guy who apparently has given up on bathing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

GLAAD did not make the argument. GLAAD demanded from A&E to fire him.
and that is BIG difference.

actually I even can agree that GLAAD has the right to bully A&E.
But then the other group has the right to overbully GLAAD and A&E for caving.
Which is happening.

the point is - you can't FORCE the acceptance.
and that is exactly what those so called "groups for tolerance" are doing - they are FORCING their acceptance even when it is criminal.

since they are leftards and that is a synonym of ignorance they don't know that ignorance of the Third Newton's law does not prevent it from still being applicable in all situations

You're an idiot. What is GLAAD criminally forcing A&E to do?

Right off the bat. Surely we can debate each other without becoming hostile?

I see. You're a group of one trying to coerce me into not expressing my honest opinion that someone who says GLAAD acted criminally is an idiot.

Fine. Give me the proper term to use for someone who says something that idiotic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's hear some rightwing outrage for these comparable actions:

Perkins: Boycott Betty Crocker For Baking Wedding Cakes For Gay Couples | Right Wing Watch

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're an idiot. What is GLAAD criminally forcing A&E to do?

Right off the bat. Surely we can debate each other without becoming hostile?

I see. You're a group of one trying to coerce me into not expressing my honest opinion that someone who says GLAAD acted criminally is an idiot.

Fine. Give me the proper term to use for someone who says something that idiotic.

American. What else is he? An American voicing himself.

Sigh. Perhaps Fox isn't getting through to you. She asks that you try to be civil, but right off the bat you are calling people idiots.

Now, give me a term for someone who seemingly advocates a third party group silencing an individual for holding a different opinion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's hear some rightwing outrage for these comparable actions:

Perkins: Boycott Betty Crocker For Baking Wedding Cakes For Gay Couples | Right Wing Watch

Perhaps you could stay on topic? You aren't allowed to post irrelevant material.