Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[Asclepias]

Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?

In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.

How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?

Probably quite a few.

Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone.

The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.

Etc, etc.

That is simply false beyond belief.

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct. So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.

 

[Plasmaball]

It seems that some here are intentionally refusing or failing to discern the difference between thinking/believing something and doing something to somebody else. I may think Asclepias to be the most bigoted, intolerant, and ignorant person in the world because he thinks people who watch A&E's Duck Dynasty are ignorant, but I do not harm Asclepias in the least because I think that. Nor does he harm a single Duck Dynasty fan by holding that opinion of them.

I am an advocate for demonizing and squelching the current concept of political correctness that translates into a politics of personal destruction for anybody who wanders off the PC plantation of th day or offends anybody in a 'protected' class. But I am not demanding that any one of you who do not agree with me on that be harmed or disciplined in any way.

The opinions that we hold harm nobody. It is ACTING on those opinions or intending to act on those opinions that can harm people. But too many here can't seem to make the distinction between those two things.

we got it the first 30 times you posted this, and everytime you've posted it you are wrong.

You cant have an opinion on what someone thinks unless they state it.

Nobody is saying you are not allowed to think/believe in what you want. What you are seemingly having trouble with is the concept of freedom. We have the freedom in this nation to protest, boycott and demand things. If you say something on national tv, I have the right if i don't like it to demand you to be fired.

Again like Mac had this been 1774 you would be arguing that we shouldn't be boycotting the Crown. You are against the very notion of the Tea party, Which is EXACTLY what you are arguing against. Sure its an extreme example, but hey fuck it. According to you and Mac we should have been able to "talk" it out politely where everyones opinion is heard. What a wonderful liberal utopia fantasy world that is.

You are actually pissing me off because all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want. You are so wrong it borderlines on the absurd.You can remain in the land of grey opinion and you are wrong. You can venture over to the legal area and you are wrong. The end result is your opinion is very anti-freedom, and massively ignorant of how this all works.

You don't get to express your opinion and have zero consequences for stating such opinions.

There is no protected class. There never was. You have the right to say ******, retard, gay, fag, etc all you want. If the general population doesnt approve of such opinions. Then they have to right to shun, mock and in the case you own a business take their money elsewhere. Which when you think about it, if you are a tv network and you loose viewers, you loose sponsors. The people could literally say nothing, walk away and the sponsors would pull out anyways.

A&E and other network are about making as much money as they can. Lets make up a term and call it capitalism for fun. In this world of capitalism the idea is to go out and make as much money as possible. So you want to reach as many people as possible in order to gain more profits.

There is nothing more fundamentally capitalistic than boycotting. Within this you will have people calling for firings and sponsor pullouts.

Its time to face the reality you are just wrong.

 

[Asclepias]

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists. All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion. They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn. And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted? The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused? We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people. And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.

Wow! That was highly amusing.

 

[Plasmaball]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

.

sigh you did it anyways...such a shame.

 

[Asclepias]

Then you lose. You can't be both. I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance. What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.

Lose what? I didn't know I was in a contest. Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.

No it's not. And no you can't. By your own definition you lack tolerance, period. Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.

I take it you disagree? Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.

 

[R.D.]

That is simply false beyond belief.

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct. So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.

Wrong.

Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.

Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed.

You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont. You swung and you missed.

 

[Montrovant]

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

I think it depends on just what he was responding to. Was he asked to describe his interactions with blacks as a child/young man? Was he asked if he felt blacks felt oppressed in his youth? The context is important.

I could easily see this as a way of saying blacks weren't unhappy with the way things were before the civil rights movement, and I could easily see this as a simple description of his own observations.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?

In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.

How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?

Probably quite a few.

Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone.

The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.

Etc, etc.

That is simply false beyond belief.

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

It is true that bullying is especially hurtful and harmful to the young and nobody can be more cruel than kids who are taunting/bullying/ridiculing another. And there can be people no more loving than kids who choose to care about another who is grieving or has other serious problems. It is incumbant upon adults to a) teach civility to children and expect it of them and b) to demonstate it themselves and c) teach and learn for themselves to respect themselves enough that they will not allow others to dictate how they will feel or respond to hurtful words of another.

Part of being a grown up is that another's opinion is just that. An opinion. And does not have to be accepted as fact. We can choose not to believe or accept the opinion of another or take it seriously and we can believe it is stupid, hateful, arrogant, ignorant or whatever. But we should not choose to try to hurt somebody physically or materially purely because he is who he is or said something we don't like. To allow people who aren't hurting or interfering with anybody else to be stupid, hateful, arrogant, ignorant, or whatever is the very core of tolerance.

 

[R.D.]

Lose what? I didn't know I was in a contest. Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.

No it's not. And no you can't. By your own definition you lack tolerance, period. Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.

I take it you disagree? Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.

Yes, you did. As intolerant, a bully and confused. We all see that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists. All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion. They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn. And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted? The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused? We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people. And then there is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.

Wow! That was highly amusing.

Well I am happy to be your amusement for the day. But the fact is such people do exist just as there are sexist, mysogynistic, arrogant SOBs as bosses who have given me some excellent opportunities over the years and have not disadvantaged me in any way because I am a woman. There are black people who are very prejudiced against whites who can still conduct themselves appropriately and without discriminating against people. Holding an opinion and acting it out are two different things. I know that. You seem to have a problem with it. And I notice you picked a phrase out of context to ridicule and did not answer the question.

 

[Asclepias]

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct. So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.

Wrong.

Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.

Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed.

You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont. You swung and you missed.

I think you meant right. Words are more powerful than anything going. Adults are only physically mature children. The very fact you bush your teeth every day is an example of the power of words.

 

[hunarcy]

No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times. No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.

As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups. I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed. I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.

He is an adult now and a successful businessman. He should have known better and the reality and impact of his words. Lots of people concluded exactly what I did from his comments. I agree its is funny to hear people say stuff like that but it stops being funny when you understand that was the rationale used to resolve the conflict between being a Christian and participating in a slave owning culture.

Do you know what question he was asked that led to the comments? I can't see it in the article, but it would matter.

 

[hunarcy]

That is simply false beyond belief.

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct. So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.

*sigh* It is not false beyond belief. If you call me a "cracker" or "hokey" or anything else in an attempt to hurt my feelings, I have to choose to accept it for it to have effect. If not, it's totally ineffective.

 

[hunarcy]

Lose what? I didn't know I was in a contest. Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.

No it's not. And no you can't. By your own definition you lack tolerance, period. Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.

I take it you disagree? Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.

"That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you." How can that be if his words can hurt you so?

 

[R.D.]

I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct. So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.

Wrong.

Again, you admit a clear lack of knowledge but want to convince yourself you know the answers.

Woman in an abusive relationship choose to be there...once they choose to leave the hurt can be healed.

You would have been better served using children to try to prove your pont. You swung and you missed.

I think you meant right. Words are more powerful than anything going. Adults are only physically mature children. The very fact you bush your teeth every day is an example of the power of words.

With this post I will wish you a good day. I suspect you might be fooling around, but you're ill equipped for the game. If not, the shallow end of the thought pool you're in leaves nothing more to discuss.

 

[Asclepias]

It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists. All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion. They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn. And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted? The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused? We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people. And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.

Wow! That was highly amusing.

Well I am happy to be your amusement for the day. But the fact is such people do exist just as there are sexist, mysogynistic, arrogant SOBs as bosses who have given me some excellent opportunities over the years and have not disadvantaged me in any way because I am a woman. Holding an opinion and acting it out are two different things. I know that. You seem to have a problem with it. And I notice you picked a phrase out of context to ridicule and did not answer the question.

I think you missed the fact that inherently if you think someone is inferior you are not going to treat them equal unless forced to. You may be condescending and treat them comparatively better than a vicious racist or sexist but you are still a racist/sexist. You will not give them equal consideration for opportunity etc etc. Which question in particular did you want answered? You asked alot of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

No it's not. And no you can't. By your own definition you lack tolerance, period. Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.

I take it you disagree? Thats fine but just remember I define what I am not you.

"That's fine but just remember I define what I am not you." How can that be if his words can hurt you so?

More important, assuming the unalienable right to define who and what we are does not translate into the unalienable right to define who and what somebody else is or must be. All a free people should be allowed to deal with are actions--what people do--not who and what people are, think, believe, or embrace.

 

[Asclepias]

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

I never knew people chose to be hurt. I thought we avoided it like the plague as a result of instinct. So yes it is false beyond belief. Ask any abused woman about her self worth after leaving that relationship.

*sigh* It is not false beyond belief. If you call me a "cracker" or "hokey" or anything else in an attempt to hurt my feelings, I have to choose to accept it for it to have effect. If not, it's totally ineffective.

Did you acquire this knowledge innately or were you lucky enough to have someone educate you as a youth?

 

[R.D.]

It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists. All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion. They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn. And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted? The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused? We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people. And then there is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.

Wow! That was highly amusing.

Well I am happy to be your amusement for the day. But the fact is such people do exist just as there are sexist, mysogynistic, arrogant SOBs as bosses who have given me some excellent opportunities over the years and have not disadvantaged me in any way because I am a woman. There are black people who are very prejudiced against whites who can still conduct themselves appropriately and without discriminating against people. Holding an opinion and acting it out are two different things. I know that. You seem to have a problem with it. And I notice you picked a phrase out of context to ridicule and did not answer the question.

That always confuses me. Are they bigots for show only in that case? Just messed up!

 

[Montrovant]

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists. All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion. They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn. And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted? The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused? We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people. And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.

Is there no intolerance that passively hurts people? Is there no intolerance that unintentionally hurts people?