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

[Gracie]

Im a freaking Rhodes Scholar compared to the frauds here.

And a very rude one too. Foxy has been very polite. Me, not so much when it comes to assholes. So...ok. Asshole Rhodes Scholar. Gotcha. Not.

I guess you're simply not used to the M.O. Its tire, played, we've seen it before. Nobdody buys it; it's just accepted by the simpler people that if you cloak your support into some supposedly intellectual argument, it will carry more weight. Sort of like if someone has an English accent, they are seen as being smarter.

Serioulsy...do you think Foxy would be anywhere near this if this dude from DD had come out in favor of gay rights and A&E had suspended him because of it? If you do, you're either an idiot or a liar; or both.

Foxy is one of the most tolerant, kind, fair individuals I have ever met on this board. So yes, she would and has stood up for rights regardless of whose are being trampled.
Which still makes you an asshole.

 

[Vox]

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?

Maybe they're explaining it that badly. Perhaps the question is "Do words hurt?" If someone walked up to me on the street and told me I was ugly, that would be an opinion and it's up to me to deal with that if I don't like it.

But perhaps things become different when discrimination becomes institutionalized across the country. We cannot deny that that has been the case for gay people in our country for some time. Does feeding into the culture of bigotry against gay people create an actual harm?

except quite the opposite is going on - a militant bigoted gay group is threatening individuals all over the country - you must accept me or we will destroy you.

there are no more aggressively intolerant, bigoted and hateful people in nowadays USA as the gay and lesbian activist groups such as GLAAD - they are an example of what the hate and bigotry today looks like.
Nobody else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay. Let's go to the new place FF moved the goalposts:


Al Sharpton, ‘PoliticsNation’ Advertisers Targeted in New Boycott

By David FreedlanderOctober 7th 20135:45 am


A new group bent on unmasking ‘leftists in the media’ has its first target—MSNBC’s ‘racial extortionist,’ the Rev. Al Sharpton. David Freedlander talks with the leader of the right’s answer to Media Matters.A group of conservative activists, tired of what they see as a persistent and little remarked liberal bias in the news media, are set to begin a series of boycotts aimed at advertisers who sponsor what they see as left-wing networks, outlets, and journalists.

...will we get the Bill Maher silent treatment, or the Foxfyre goalpost relocation?

lol

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...tion-advertisers-targeted-in-new-boycott.html

 

[Foxfyre]

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

More times than that in this one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

And which ones of those weren't Christians? And don't make the circular argument that they can't be Christians because real Christians aren't terrorists.

PS. Negged for falsely accusing me of lying.

To clarify the topic, it is on the subject of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And then there's this conservative group trying to get Ed Schultz fired for expressing his opinion:


Penny Nance of the conservative group Concerned Women for America explained this is par for the course when it comes to liberals. However, she took it a step further and proposed the MSNBC host lose his position at the network.

“There is nothing liberals fear more than a strong, conservative and outspoken woman,” Nance said. “They will attempt to cut her down by any means necessary to neutralize the threat. Apology or not, Ed Shultz should be swiftly relieved of his position at MSNBC for his brutal attack on Laura Ingraham.


Read more: Ed Schultz: A pattern of angry invective | The Daily Caller

 

[The T]

Okay. Let's go to the new place FF moved the goalposts:


Al Sharpton, ‘PoliticsNation’ Advertisers Targeted in New Boycott

By David FreedlanderOctober 7th 20135:45 am


A new group bent on unmasking ‘leftists in the media’ has its first target—MSNBC’s ‘racial extortionist,’ the Rev. Al Sharpton. David Freedlander talks with the leader of the right’s answer to Media Matters.A group of conservative activists, tired of what they see as a persistent and little remarked liberal bias in the news media, are set to begin a series of boycotts aimed at advertisers who sponsor what they see as left-wing networks, outlets, and journalists.

...will we get the Bill Maher silent treatment, or the Foxfyre goalpost relocation?

lol

Al Sharpton, ?PoliticsNation? Advertisers Targeted in New Boycott - The Daily Beast

So you are referring to an intolerant BIGOT? Really?


*FAIL*

 

[TemplarKormac]

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

More times than that in this one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

And which ones of those weren't Christians? And don't make the circular argument that they can't be Christians because real Christians aren't terrorists.

PS. Negged for falsely accusing me of lying.

You're a liar. I suggest you grow a pair and stop lying. Get back on topic.

 

[The T]

More times than that in this one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

And which ones of those weren't Christians? And don't make the circular argument that they can't be Christians because real Christians aren't terrorists.

PS. Negged for falsely accusing me of lying.

To clarify the topic, it is on the subject of tolerance and allowing people to be who and what they are.

It befuddles me why some on here refer to intolerant folks on their side to make a point. Yeah they made it alright...they don't get the gist of the thread...and they never will. They can't unprogram themselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you ever mean this thread to be objective? You've turned it into the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I think I've ever seen on this board.

She hasn't turned anything into "the most comical exercise in poorly disguised partisan hackery I (you) think I've ever seen on this board." You've spent the entirety of this thread trying to derail it, you were as a volcano of false equivalency. You don't have anything intelligent to add, simply cowardly acts of misdirection. And you accuse HER of partisan hackery?

You're one of the bigger partisan hacks on this board, carbine. You are a far cry from objective. In the spirit of what Foxfyre stands for, I will forgo negging you for making such an off base and patently egregious remark about someone. She wants tolerance? Here's my tolerance.

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

Probably by me perhaps. It's rare you ever prove me or anyone else wrong. Winning streaks don't last forever though.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Maybe they're explaining it that badly. Perhaps the question is "Do words hurt?" If someone walked up to me on the street and told me I was ugly, that would be an opinion and it's up to me to deal with that if I don't like it.

But perhaps things become different when discrimination becomes institutionalized across the country. We cannot deny that that has been the case for gay people in our country for some time. Does feeding into the culture of bigotry against gay people create an actual harm?

except quite the opposite is going on - a militant bigoted gay group is threatening individuals all over the country - you must accept me or we will destroy you.

there are no more aggressively intolerant, bigoted and hateful people in nowadays USA as the gay and lesbian activist groups such as GLAAD - they are an example of what the hate and bigotry today looks like.
Nobody else.

While I think you and I might be pretty much on the same page, Vox, I think SwimExpert posed a question that deserves a closer look. It was a serious and important question.

Is it somehow different or more painful to say something negative or erroneous or unkind about a group that has suffered extreme discrimination such as the gay and lesbian community--I don't think anybody could honestly say there is widespread discrimination now--than it is to say something negative or erroneous or unkind about fundamentalist Christians who perhaps get the most negative press of any single group other than the Tea Party?

Who would be more objectionable? The gay group who tries to get a fundamentalist Christian fired when he states his Christian beliefs about homosexuality in an interview?

- or -

The Christian group who tries to get a gay guy fired when he states his beliefs about fundamentalist Christianity in an interview?

And is there a difference between these two circumstances?

 

[Sunshine]

List ten times I've been proven factually wrong on this board.

More times than that in this one:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...re-is-nyc-s-list-of-christian-terrorists.html

And which ones of those weren't Christians? And don't make the circular argument that they can't be Christians because real Christians aren't terrorists.

PS. Negged for falsely accusing me of lying.

Perhaps if you had read what I posted on that thread you would not so indignantly derail this one. And since you negged me for calling you a liar which I didn't do, I'll just make it worth my while and call you a liar. Liar! There. You are a liar.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

 

[The T]

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?

Maybe they're explaining it that badly. Perhaps the question is "Do words hurt?" If someone walked up to me on the street and told me I was ugly, that would be an opinion and it's up to me to deal with that if I don't like it.

But perhaps things become different when discrimination becomes institutionalized across the country. We cannot deny that that has been the case for gay people in our country for some time. Does feeding into the culture of bigotry against gay people create an actual harm?

They DO when they use the power of Government to FORCE acceptance, thus furthering the divide.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

The operative term is "should." Knowing such things will never happen, she is tolerant of their methods. She didn't lose anything. She keeps her objectivity. The only thing she lacks (and fortunately so) is a sense of pomposity, or a need to feel self important.

 

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

The revision has been made. Please accept my apologies, and this pineapple.

And in return:

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

The revision has been made. Please accept my apologies, and this pineapple.

And in return:

 

[The T]

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.

WOW, criminal? WHAT charge? WHAT law did they break??

You just LOST the 'tolerance' debate.

Have YOU even bothered to look at the premise of this thread? Seems to me that you haven't and YOU are exuding the premise BY your intolerance. Try impeding someone else's liberty for political gain...THAT is the crime.

 

[The T]

@Statistikhengst

The revision has been made. Please accept my apologies, and this pineapple.

And in return:

 

[Statistikhengst]

@Statistikhengst

The revision has been made. Please accept my apologies, and this pineapple.

And in return:

42!​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now let's return to discussing Fox's OP. We owe her to.