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

[WelfareQueen]

Tolerance has to be a two way street. Organizations like GLAAD make money by shoving their views down your throat. They are not about tolerance or understanding. They are about raising money by being intolerant and fascist.

There are many organizations in our society like GLAAD, that started out as legitimate advocacy groups that slowly morphed into fund raising machines that make their money by being intolerant.

I would say most so-called civil rights groups today make money off of racial discord and divisiveness...not by bringing people together. These groups exist on both sides of the political spectrum. The should all be equally shunned. If you fall for these groups you are being played.

 

[The T]

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.

And they deserve to be slapped down for the course of liberty they claim to uphold, but refuse to tolerate.

 

[Foxfyre]

"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.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

 

[OKTexas]

"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?

When the left took up rules for radicals, they don't enter a debate or discussion, they go to war, there is no intent for compromise, just dominance. We have to fight fire with fire or continue to watch our country slide into the abyss.

 

[Vox]

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.

yes, they do.
they are the LEFT - that is their mindset.

the left is a collectivist cohort, the crowd, the mob - the individuals are generally weak and need the feeling of "majority" for their self esteem.
That feeling of fake "majority" gives them an illusion they have the right to tell YOU what THEY want you to think and be happy.

people with individualistic mindsets tend to view others and reality as _ live and let live, or just leave me alone and piss off. They do not need a crowd to affirm their position - they can stand on their own.
The internal strength usually manifests as relative indifference to the all likes of "others" - who cares, really.
However, when those "others" come too close to take away the freedom of being indifferent and want to impose their rule of "you must love me, or else" - they will feel the backlash.
so they will shriek and scream and complain and whine.

and that whole story with Duck Commander is a perfect example.

 

[The T]

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.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

Precisely my point. Orwell was correct...albeit late...

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

The PC Police are very powerful in our society. It is good to finally see some push back.

 

[The T]

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.

yes, they do.
they are the LEFT - that is their mindset.

the left is a collectivist cohort, the crowd, the mob - the individuals are generally weak and need the feeling of "majority" for their self esteem.
That feeling of fake "majority" gives them an illusion they have the right to tell YOU what THEY want you to think and be happy.

people with individualistic mindsets tend to view others and reality as _ live and let live, or just leave me alone and piss off. They do not need a crowd to affirm their position - they can stand on their own.
The internal strength usually manifests as relative indifference to the all likes of "others" - who cares, really.
However, when those "others" come too close to take away the freedom of being indifferent and want to impose their rule of "you must love me, or else" - they will feel the backlash.
so they will shriek and scream and complain and whine.

and that whole story with Duck Commander is a perfect example.

They live in the imposition of fascism they attempt to pin upon others so as to do the very same. Hypocrisy in their world is rampant.

 

[The T]

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

The PC Police are very powerful in our society. It is good to finally see some push back.

And precisely part of the instruction manual our Founding Fathers left to us when they crafted this free society. For the unwashed? it's called the Federalist Papers.

 

[Vox]

So they live in a 'my way or the highway' existence? I say they do. They do NOT practice what they preach. Perfect hypocrisy.

yes, they do.
they are the LEFT - that is their mindset.

the left is a collectivist cohort, the crowd, the mob - the individuals are generally weak and need the feeling of "majority" for their self esteem.
That feeling of fake "majority" gives them an illusion they have the right to tell YOU what THEY want you to think and be happy.

people with individualistic mindsets tend to view others and reality as _ live and let live, or just leave me alone and piss off. They do not need a crowd to affirm their position - they can stand on their own.
The internal strength usually manifests as relative indifference to the all likes of "others" - who cares, really.
However, when those "others" come too close to take away the freedom of being indifferent and want to impose their rule of "you must love me, or else" - they will feel the backlash.
so they will shriek and scream and complain and whine.

and that whole story with Duck Commander is a perfect example.

They live in the imposition of fascism they attempt to pin upon others so as to do the very same. Hypocrisy in their world is rampant.

if one remembers that fascism is just a variation of the left, that fits perfectly well.

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

If it wasn't a popular TV show, Phil Robertson never would have been interviewed by GQ in the first place. There was absolutely zero mystery re his religious or social views. He regularly expresses them on the show. But he has never violated his 'contractual restrictions', whatever those might be, on his show. The interview with GQ was a separate thing, however, from what I've read and heard, A&E had no problem with Robertson being interviewed by GQ. GQ certainly baited Robertson--could you imagine them asking questions re gay marriage or homosexuality to a Justin Timberlake or Melanie Griffin or any other celebrity persona?

Robertson certainly could have been more restrained and tactful in his expressed belief, but he is who he is. No mystery there. Do I agree with Robertson on that issue? No I don't. I doubt very many of us do. But that is not the point. The point is individual liberty allowing us all to hold whatever beliefs or point of view we hold--which is a whole different thing than acting out on those beliefs.

The point is, had GLAAD not gone after A&E to fire Robertson, it would have been a small one day story and that would have been the end of it. But GLAAD's intolerance for a point of view expressed by Phil Robertson and their demands made to A&E presumably cost Robertson his job.

Fast forward to many other such incidents that make the news of people boycotting or staging protests or demanding somebody be fired for purely expressing an un-PC point of view.

In my opinion it is evil. And dangerous if it continues unchecked.

 

[The T]

yes, they do.
they are the LEFT - that is their mindset.

the left is a collectivist cohort, the crowd, the mob - the individuals are generally weak and need the feeling of "majority" for their self esteem.
That feeling of fake "majority" gives them an illusion they have the right to tell YOU what THEY want you to think and be happy.

people with individualistic mindsets tend to view others and reality as _ live and let live, or just leave me alone and piss off. They do not need a crowd to affirm their position - they can stand on their own.
The internal strength usually manifests as relative indifference to the all likes of "others" - who cares, really.
However, when those "others" come too close to take away the freedom of being indifferent and want to impose their rule of "you must love me, or else" - they will feel the backlash.
so they will shriek and scream and complain and whine.

and that whole story with Duck Commander is a perfect example.

They live in the imposition of fascism they attempt to pin upon others so as to do the very same. Hypocrisy in their world is rampant.

if one remembers that fascism is just a variation of the left, that fits perfectly well.

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

'You must accept or be destroyed..."

 

[TemplarKormac]

GLAAD's intolerance of differentiating views had a way of backfiring on them. Their members didn't take too kindly to them targeting someone for having an opinion they disagreed with. As for GQ, and for liberals alike:

 

[The T]

GLAAD's intolerance of differentiating views had a way of backfiring on them. Their members didn't take too kindly to them targeting someone for having an opinion they disagreed with. As for GQ, and for liberals alike:

The only thing they are after is forced acceptance. Liberty be damned for opposition.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

The LGBT crowd is not asking you to do ANYTHING any way other than the way you want to.

On the other hand, there are a good number of citizens in this nation who are more than ready to impose their own preferences on the LGBT minority without any valid justification.

This isn't new - we had this with slavery, voting rights, and interracial marriage. It is to be expected that some percent of humans will behave in this manner, at least until they get yanked into line with the fact that individuals have rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

And I want all of you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, where James Madison makes it clear what factionalism, or what we call special interests today, can unduly and adversely affect the course of a nation. It shouldn't be eliminated, but kept in check. People like GLAAD should hold no influence over political discourse in this country. Nor any special interest group for that matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

They live in the imposition of fascism they attempt to pin upon others so as to do the very same. Hypocrisy in their world is rampant.

if one remembers that fascism is just a variation of the left, that fits perfectly well.

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

'You must accept or be destroyed..."

That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.

 

[The T]

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.

The LGBT crowd is not asking you to do ANYTHING any way other than the way you want to.

On the other hand, there are a good number of citizens in this nation who are more than ready to impose their own preferences on the LGBT minority without any valid justification.

This isn't new - we had this with slavery, voting rights, and interracial marriage. It is to be expected that some percent of humans will behave in this manner, at least until they get yanked into line with the fact that individuals have rights.

Is this why they scream bloody murder when someone voices (as their God-given right, and codified with the First Amendment), in an attempt to SHAME, silence opposing views? Sorry, NOT buying it. I AM correct as to their hypocrisy.

 

[The T]

if one remembers that fascism is just a variation of the left, that fits perfectly well.

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

'You must accept or be destroyed..."

That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.

I understood your point from post one my friend. Another good discussion from you. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the point that they legislate intolerance out of existence...due to their intolerance. SEE where this will head? Absence of liberty.

That's the problem isn't it? When the government or any special interest group can determine what will and will be tolerated - by law or by force or by coercion or by threat - not based on what we do, but on what we believe or profess.

And I want all of you to read Federalist 10 and Federalist 51, where James Madison makes it clear what factionalism, or what we call special interests today, can unduly and adversely affect the course of a nation. It shouldn't be eliminated, but kept in check. People like GLAAD should hold no influence over political discourse in this country. Nor any special interest group for that matter.

GLAAD is made up of Americans though and have as much right to EXPRESS their point of view as anybody else. But when their point of view extends to efforts to get somebody fired for no other offense than expressing a point of view unpopular with GLAAD, we have entered territory that is sinister, unAmerican, and evil.