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

[NYcarbineer]

Folks are not reading your very well posted posts, Foxfyre. So...I will keep repeating it. Maybe it will eventually sink in. Probably not, though, so don't hold yer breath.

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

Are you kidding us? No one is attacking A&E for what they did? Are you insane?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

Sorry, my friend, what the NRA and what GLAAD did are two entirely different things. One strategy is political the other isn't. One is spiteful and destructive, the other isn't.The NRA does not interfere with the livelihoods of others to make their cases, namely getting people suspended from their own TV shows. They do so by boycotts, protests and electioneering. Those are three perfect and very tolerant things to do. Trying to silence someone for an opinion they have is in a whole 'nother ballpark.

I will be honest and say that this is a false equivalence strategy, simply because the NRA does not resort to militant tactics to silence someone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Folks are not reading your very well posted posts, Foxfyre. So...I will keep repeating it. Maybe it will eventually sink in. Probably not, though, so don't hold yer breath.

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

Are you kidding us? No one is attacking A&E for what they did? Are you insane?

No she's not. Their viewers are attacking them by not watching them. That's the best way to attack. Good defense=good offense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Misinformed in thinking? Differing view? Agree to not agree? She is far from an idiot. No need for name calling, dude. Chill.

If saying that what GLAAD did was criminal is not idiotic, then by all means, please give us an example of a statement about GLAAD that would be considered idiotic,

and explain the difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

Sigh. I think only a liberal could see making a choice between two political candidates as 'silencing' somebody. Or thinks that is no different than hurting somebody purely because that somebody expressed a personal opinion.

When I choose between political candidates, it is never based on what a candidate expresses as his or her personal opinion about an issue. It is based on what that person expresses that he or she intends to DO about it or the track record of what that person has done about it in the past.

If you think that is the same thing as punishing Phil Robertson, who is running for no political office and who suggested no action whatsoever be taken regarding anything or anybody, then I just don't know what to say. I simply do not comprehend a kind of disconnect that makes it impossible for some of you to distinguish the difference between expressing an opinion or belief and acting to do something to somebody or stating your intention to do something to somebody.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has faulted A&E for making whatever business decision. But the fact is, A&E wouldn't have even blinked over that interview if GLAAD had not put heavy pressure on them to dump Robertson..

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

Can you name a single instance where a conservative group acted inappropriately in the same manner you believe that GLAAD acted inappropriately,

or are you of the belief that no such thing ever occurs on the Right?

 

[Foxfyre]

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

Can you name a single instance where a conservative group acted inappropriately in the same manner you believe that GLAAD acted inappropriately,

or are you of the belief that no such thing ever occurs on the Right?

I don't know. I have asked any of you to post a link to a conservative group that has tried to get somebody fired or removed from their position or otherwise punished, just because that person expressed a personal opinion the group didn't like.

Conservative groups have protested what some teachers teach in the classroom.
Conservative groups have protested abortion clinics.
Somebody--was it you?--posted the NRA boycotting an expo that banned certain type weapons.
There are probably many other similar examples.

But all of those instances were protests against ACTIONS of somebody or some group and not due to anybody's opinion about something.

I don't know if there is an instance when any conservative group has demanded that somebody be fired just because they expressed an offensive opinion in an interview with somebody. If they did, they are just as wrong and just as hateful as GLAAD.

But then so far, some of you can't seem to understand that there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion and performing an action. Some of you seem to think these are one and the same. And to me, that is downright scary. I thought the Inquisition and Witch Burnings and putting people in the stocks and such for heresy had been pretty well eliminated by advanced societies. But some of you seem to think that anything you consider heresy must be physically punished. Yes, that is indeed scary.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

Sigh. I think only a liberal could see making a choice between two political candidates as 'silencing' somebody. Or thinks that is no different than hurting somebody purely because that somebody expressed a personal opinion.

When I choose between political candidates, it is never based on what a candidate expresses as his or her personal opinion about an issue. It is based on what that person expresses that he or she intends to DO about it or the track record of what that person has done about it in the past.

If you think that is the same thing as punishing Phil Robertson, who is running for no political office and who suggested no action whatsoever be taken regarding anything or anybody, then I just don't know what to say. I simply do not comprehend a kind of disconnect that makes it impossible for some of you to distinguish the difference between expressing an opinion or belief and acting to do something to somebody or stating your intention to do something to somebody.

I am making the connection as a fiscal conservative. Money equals the power to suppress the message you don't like and to replace it with one that you prefer. Since you equate what GLAAD is doing as "punishment" then you are equating it to money. By pouring money into elections the NRA is "punishing" those it disagrees with.

There is no actual difference in the end result since money decides the outcome.

 

[Bfgrn]

No. I have not at any point or any way suggested GLAAD should be silent. My only objection to GLAAD is that they did not just express their opinion in rebuttal to PR, but they sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

They have researched his sponsors and called for those sponsors to drop him. They demanded that A&E drop him.

Bob Harper, the popular trainer on Biggest Loser, recently came out that he was gay. And he used his bully pulpit of that popular TV show to express his views of how gay people should see themselves. To me, that was pretty okay and special,. Bbut since I don't agree with PR's views on homosexuality or his Biblical interpretation, it's pretty safe to guess that PR wouldn't have appreciated Harper's statements about it either.

So let's pretend PR goes after Harper, seeks to identify all the different sponsors who use his image and try to get those sponsors to drop him; tries to get Biggest Loser and/or the network to drop him. You would see that as tolerance? As an expression of free speech? Or something hateful and unacceptable that none of us should tolerate?

That's what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. It was hateful and unacceptable and none of us should tolerate it no matter what brand of partisan we are.

ALL within acceptable free speech. You said GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him. The man is a millionaire, so I doubt anything GLAAD SAYS is going to ruin him materially. GLAAD used WORDS. And the threats of violence were from the right against GLAAD.

Here is GLAAD's statement:

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

And they can 'demand' all they want, it has ZERO to do with A&E's decision.

The network said in a statement:

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."


Phil Robertson's ‘bestiality' remark earned ‘Duck Dynasty' suspension

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson’s comment to GQ magazine grouping homosexuality with bestiality was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as A&E’s top executive was concerned, who reportedly “carefully” considered all of Robertson anti-homosexual remarks before suspending Robertson from the show, according to TheWrap.

A network exec reportedly told the website that Nancy Dubuc, the CEO of A&E Networks, ultimately reached the suspension decision because Robertson’s remarks were in conflict with “the fundamental values of the company.” Dubuc’s response was, at least in part, prompted by concerns of company employees, the executive said.

“She gathered all the information, assessed it, thought seriously about this,” said the executive. “It’s a dilemma.”

Dubuc is one of the most powerful television executives in Hollywood, overseeing A&E, Lifetime and History channels. TheWrap reported that “Duck Dynasty” is the highest-rated reality show on the air.

The executive told the website that arguments that A&E trampled Robertson’s free speech rights were ridiculous, as a suspension from a television show did not curtail his ability to speak freely. The executive also said any idea that A&E had a conflict with Christianity was absurd, considering A&E’s History recently aired the hit miniseries, “The Bible.”

The decision to suspend Robertson came Wednesday night, hours after a phone call between A&E executives and GLAAD, the civil rights group told TheWrap. “They took this very seriously, as soon as the news broke,” said Rich Ferraro, a GLAAD spokesman.

A&E initially released a statement from Robertson in which he said he would “never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.” The network itself declined to comment until Wednesday night, when it announced the suspension.

Phil Robertson’s ‘bestiality’ remark earned ‘Duck Dynasty’ suspension


It is funny how you extol the virtues of 'free market capitalism', until it bites you in the ass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

Sigh. I think only a liberal could see making a choice between two political candidates as 'silencing' somebody. Or thinks that is no different than hurting somebody purely because that somebody expressed a personal opinion.

When I choose between political candidates, it is never based on what a candidate expresses as his or her personal opinion about an issue. It is based on what that person expresses that he or she intends to DO about it or the track record of what that person has done about it in the past.

If you think that is the same thing as punishing Phil Robertson, who is running for no political office and who suggested no action whatsoever be taken regarding anything or anybody, then I just don't know what to say. I simply do not comprehend a kind of disconnect that makes it impossible for some of you to distinguish the difference between expressing an opinion or belief and acting to do something to somebody or stating your intention to do something to somebody.

I am making the connection as a fiscal conservative. Money equals the power to suppress the message you don't like and to replace it with one that you prefer. Since you equate what GLAAD is doing as "punishment" then you are equating it to money. By pouring money into elections the NRA is "punishing" those it disagrees with.

There is no actual difference in the end result since money decides the outcome.

I don't believe she is equating it to money, Derideo. This was a direct assault on the man's beliefs. Literally no money was spent in getting A&E to suspend PR for his remarks (at least not that I know of). Threats are free. You can threaten to sue someone, does that cost money? No. If you don't want the issue exploding into an even bigger issue than it is, you comply, if you have a so-called reputation to keep.

 

[BDBoop]

"Only a liberal ..."

Yeah.

Well.

And that's where nothing remains to be said.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Only a liberal ..."

Yeah.

Well.

And that's where nothing remains to be said.

Sorry, this isn't your kingdom to rule, BD. You haven't the right to dictate speech. Only a liberal would say "that's where nothing remains to be said." Says you and what army?

 

[Foxfyre]

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

Sigh. I think only a liberal could see making a choice between two political candidates as 'silencing' somebody. Or thinks that is no different than hurting somebody purely because that somebody expressed a personal opinion.

When I choose between political candidates, it is never based on what a candidate expresses as his or her personal opinion about an issue. It is based on what that person expresses that he or she intends to DO about it or the track record of what that person has done about it in the past.

If you think that is the same thing as punishing Phil Robertson, who is running for no political office and who suggested no action whatsoever be taken regarding anything or anybody, then I just don't know what to say. I simply do not comprehend a kind of disconnect that makes it impossible for some of you to distinguish the difference between expressing an opinion or belief and acting to do something to somebody or stating your intention to do something to somebody.

I am making the connection as a fiscal conservative. Money equals the power to suppress the message you don't like and to replace it with one that you prefer. Since you equate what GLAAD is doing as "punishment" then you are equating it to money. By pouring money into elections the NRA is "punishing" those it disagrees with.

There is no actual difference in the end result since money decides the outcome.

What GLAAD did was try to hurt somebody, punish somebody, destroy somebody for NO OTHER REASON than the person expressed a personal opinion that GLAAD didn't like.

If you think that is okay and no different than any other protest, then that is your opinion. But I fear for my country if many share it with you.

I think was GLAAD did was evil. It SHOULD be criminal. It should at the very least be denounced by every citizen who values fair play and liberty to be who and what we are.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Only a liberal ..."

Yeah.

Well.

And that's where nothing remains to be said.

Okay, point well taken. There may be a conservative who wouldn't see the difference between protesting somebody's actions vs protesting somebody's opinion. So I misspoke there. I inappropriately reacted to those on the liberal side who are desperately trying to make me a partisan hack on this and making this a us vs them issue. That was wrong of me and I apologize.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

Can you name a single instance where a conservative group acted inappropriately in the same manner you believe that GLAAD acted inappropriately,

or are you of the belief that no such thing ever occurs on the Right?

I don't know. I have asked any of you to post a link to a conservative group that has tried to get somebody fired or removed from their position or otherwise punished, just because that person expressed a personal opinion the group didn't like.

Conservative groups have protested what some teachers teach in the classroom.
Conservative groups have protested abortion clinics.
Somebody--was it you?--posted the NRA boycotting an expo that banned certain type weapons.
There are probably many other similar examples.

But all of those instances were protests against ACTIONS of somebody or some group and not due to anybody's opinion about something.

I don't know if there is an instance when any conservative group has demanded that somebody be fired just because they expressed an offensive opinion in an interview with somebody. If they did, they are just as wrong and just as hateful as GLAAD.

But then so far, some of you can't seem to understand that there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion and performing an action. Some of you seem to think these are one and the same. And to me, that is downright scary. I thought the Inquisition and Witch Burnings and putting people in the stocks and such for heresy had been pretty well eliminated by advanced societies. But some of you seem to think that anything you consider heresy must be physically punished. Yes, that is indeed scary.

Conservatives spent a year trying to convince people not to give Obama the job of president because of a guilt by association with things that the Reverend Wright SAID.

btw, none of your goalpost shiftings are legitimate; don't think that because I'm destroying them systematically implies otherwise.

Physically punished?

Are you saying that anyone who expresses the opinion that someone should be fired for what they said is guilty of trying to physically punish them in a manner that can be grouped with burning a witch?

Are you losing it? I mean 'it', as in your sanity, not 'it' as in this idiotic argument you've attempted.

You're losing that obviously.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Only a liberal ..."

Yeah.

Well.

And that's where nothing remains to be said.

Sorry, this isn't your kingdom to rule, BD. You haven't the right to dictate speech. Only a liberal would say "that's where nothing remains to be said." Says you and what army?

I think you misunderstood Boop. She was rightfully chastising me for singling out a group for criticism here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can you name a single instance where a conservative group acted inappropriately in the same manner you believe that GLAAD acted inappropriately,

or are you of the belief that no such thing ever occurs on the Right?

I don't know. I have asked any of you to post a link to a conservative group that has tried to get somebody fired or removed from their position or otherwise punished, just because that person expressed a personal opinion the group didn't like.

Conservative groups have protested what some teachers teach in the classroom.
Conservative groups have protested abortion clinics.
Somebody--was it you?--posted the NRA boycotting an expo that banned certain type weapons.
There are probably many other similar examples.

But all of those instances were protests against ACTIONS of somebody or some group and not due to anybody's opinion about something.

I don't know if there is an instance when any conservative group has demanded that somebody be fired just because they expressed an offensive opinion in an interview with somebody. If they did, they are just as wrong and just as hateful as GLAAD.

But then so far, some of you can't seem to understand that there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion and performing an action. Some of you seem to think these are one and the same. And to me, that is downright scary. I thought the Inquisition and Witch Burnings and putting people in the stocks and such for heresy had been pretty well eliminated by advanced societies. But some of you seem to think that anything you consider heresy must be physically punished. Yes, that is indeed scary.

Conservatives spent a year trying to convince people not to give Obama the job of president because of a guilt by association with things that the Reverend Wright SAID.

btw, none of your goalpost shiftings are legitimate; don't think that because I'm destroying them systematically implies otherwise.

Physically punished?

Are you saying that anyone who expresses the opinion that someone should be fired for what they said is guilty of trying to physically punish them in a manner that can be grouped with burning a witch?

Are you losing it? I mean 'it', as in your sanity, not 'it' as in this idiotic argument you've attempted.

You're losing that obviously.

Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Removing a platform and/or removing someone from office is de facto "silencing". If A&E "fires" PR then he will no longer have that platform. No different to someone being ousted from office and losing that platform.

Yes, they still have their right to express their opinions they just don't have the right to use the platform concerned. And what the NRA is doing is "silencing" those who have opposing views with the power of money. The SCOTUS has given this it's blessing but I suspect that Citizens United will eventually be taught in law schools in the future as one of the great blunder decisions.

Sorry, my friend, what the NRA and what GLAAD did are two entirely different things. One strategy is political the other isn't. One is spiteful and destructive, the other isn't.The NRA does not interfere with the livelihoods of others to make their cases, namely getting people suspended from their own TV shows. They do so by boycotts, protests and electioneering. Those are three perfect and very tolerant things to do. Trying to silence someone for an opinion they have is in a whole 'nother ballpark.

I will be honest and say that this is a false equivalence strategy, simply because the NRA does not resort to militant tactics to silence someone.

The NRA spends millions of dollars to silence people. Shut the **** up with that idiocy.

 

[BDBoop]

"Only a liberal ..."

Yeah.

Well.

And that's where nothing remains to be said.

Okay, point well taken. There may be a conservative who wouldn't see the difference between protesting somebody's actions vs protesting somebody's opinion. So I misspoke there. I inappropriately reacted to those on the liberal side who are desperately trying to make me a partisan hack on this and making this a us vs them issue. That was wrong of me and I apologize.

Apology accepted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know. I have asked any of you to post a link to a conservative group that has tried to get somebody fired or removed from their position or otherwise punished, just because that person expressed a personal opinion the group didn't like.

Conservative groups have protested what some teachers teach in the classroom.
Conservative groups have protested abortion clinics.
Somebody--was it you?--posted the NRA boycotting an expo that banned certain type weapons.
There are probably many other similar examples.

But all of those instances were protests against ACTIONS of somebody or some group and not due to anybody's opinion about something.

I don't know if there is an instance when any conservative group has demanded that somebody be fired just because they expressed an offensive opinion in an interview with somebody. If they did, they are just as wrong and just as hateful as GLAAD.

But then so far, some of you can't seem to understand that there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion and performing an action. Some of you seem to think these are one and the same. And to me, that is downright scary. I thought the Inquisition and Witch Burnings and putting people in the stocks and such for heresy had been pretty well eliminated by advanced societies. But some of you seem to think that anything you consider heresy must be physically punished. Yes, that is indeed scary.

Conservatives spent a year trying to convince people not to give Obama the job of president because of a guilt by association with things that the Reverend Wright SAID.

btw, none of your goalpost shiftings are legitimate; don't think that because I'm destroying them systematically implies otherwise.

Physically punished?

Are you saying that anyone who expresses the opinion that someone should be fired for what they said is guilty of trying to physically punish them in a manner that can be grouped with burning a witch?

Are you losing it? I mean 'it', as in your sanity, not 'it' as in this idiotic argument you've attempted.

You're losing that obviously.

Expressing an opinion that someone should be fired is one thing. Trying to get somebody fired is quite a different thing.

I know the difference between these two things.

Do you?

I know conservatives tried to get Bill Maher fired. Where's your defense of him?