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

[Asclepias]

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.

I dont recall the question but I dont believe it really matters. He knew he was being interviewed.

 

[Iceweasel]

I wasn't trying to insult you, I merely want you to be serious in your argument. I can agree that no one has the right to tell you who to choose, but it is wrong headed to base the choice on who sleeps with who. It should be based on who will pay the price while taking the best care of the property.

And, the State doesn't tell you who to rent to...it tells you what criteria you may NOT use to make your choice, but it never says you must rent to a specific person or group of people.

Larger companies have to be careful of that. If you have 1,000 employees and none of them are black, or female, or male, you will come under scrutiny. If a restaraunt won't serve a group, it too will have problems (although I don't agree with it). How can you enforce a law that says a landlord can't rule out a gay couple? Unless he has a large complex and tells them to their face or on the lease it's going to be tough to prosecute, assuming the locale has such a law. I'm unaware of sexual orientation being a Constitutionally protected class but bring me up to speed if I'm wrong.

YOU may not think it matters, but someone else may. That's the point.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Who said his words hurt me?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Thats what people always say when they are faced with the truth. Good day.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do. We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.

 

[Foxfyre]

"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.

As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do. We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.

Do we? I don't. I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.' I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group. That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively. But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group. You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.

That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that. Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that. ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too. But control thought? Beliefs? Expressed opinions? Concepts? No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities. It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do. We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.

Do we? I don't. I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.' I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group. That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively. But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group. You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.

That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that. Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that. ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too. But control thought? Beliefs? Expressed opinions? Concepts? No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities. It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.

I do not pretend to read your mind but I would wager that statement was a falsehood. I highly doubt you do whatever you want without regard of law and social norms. People like that wind up in prison or mental institutions. I dont believe that people expressing intolerant ideas help to move society along in a positive manner. I dont care if you think intolerant thoughts. I care if you potentially influence others with those thoughts. I disagree that allowing expression of those thoughts will do away with oppression. I think the opposite is true in that it will take longer each time the idea comes around to get rid of oppression. I don't seek to forcefully control thought only the expression of intolerant thought that leads to or has led to oppression of others.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?

That is not specifically a sign of intolerance and bigotry. Instead it speaks more of ignorance and the inability to make a coherent argument in support of their position. Another driver is low self esteem on the part of the name caller. Attempting to belittle their opponent in order to boost their own fragile ego.

Granted those techniques are used by intolerant bigots but that is not to say that all name callers are automatically intolerant bigots. Some are merely incapable of engaging in civil discourse.

And no, it is not intolerance on your part to ignore them. You are under no obligation to tolerate uncouth boors. However if you respond in kind then you risk being perceived as being no better than them yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, I didn't contradict myself at all. If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no. Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.

Landlords aren't offering services to the public. They are offering the service to an individual(s). Landlords pick and choose until the next time. It isn't like a public swimming pool. And you are not qualified to dictate what is reasonable for everyone else. In fact, that's very unreasonable. Liberals seem to always feel that society as a whole owns the business. Except when paying the bills comes along.

A corporation is a legal contract with the state and as such must abide by state regulations. Simply because you own your own business does not give you the right to violate the Rule of Law. Landlords who are renting out their property for profit are corporations just like all others. Individuals who don't incorporate but instead make private rental arrangements for profit are also subject to the Rule of Law although it applies slightly differently.

 

[Foxfyre]

As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do. We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.

Do we? I don't. I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.' I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group. That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively. But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group. You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.

That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that. Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that. ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too. But control thought? Beliefs? Expressed opinions? Concepts? No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities. It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.

I do not pretend to read your mind but I would wager that statement was a falsehood. I highly doubt you do whatever you want without regard of law and social norms. People like that wind up in prison or mental institutions. I dont believe that people expressing intolerant ideas help to move society along in a positive manner. I dont care if you think intolerant thoughts. I care if you potentially influence others with those thoughts. I disagree that allowing expression of those thoughts will do away with oppression. I think the opposite is true in that it will take longer each time the idea comes around to get rid of oppression. I don't seek to forcefully control thought only the expression of intolerant thought that leads to or has led to oppression of others.

As you said, you don't allow others to define you. I don't allow others to define me either. And please read more carefully. I did not say, imply or suggest that I do whatever I want without regard of law and social norms. I believe if you will honestly read what I wrote, I said the explicit opposite of that. That I choose to conform to what is considered civil in my social groups and thereby achieve harmony and a pleasant and/or productive environment in no way changes who and and what I am.

Now try to focus. I am speaking of controlling what people think, believe, perceive. It is THAT which no society can try to control without oppressing the people. How can you demand tolerance of thought in others without being aggressively and forcably intolerant yourself? And who do you trust with the authority to determine what is okay for people to think, believe and express and what is not?

Would you trust me to make up such a list for you?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

You are correct that holding an opinion is different to ACTING on that opinion.

PR ACTED on his opinion when he used his celebrity status to expound his intolerance. It was that ACTION on his part that caused the REACTION by GLAAD.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Excellent post. Extremely well-done.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

As a group choosing to exist together that is exactly what we do. We sacrifice individualism for the better of the group.

Do we? I don't. I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.' I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group. That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively. But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group. You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.

That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that. Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that. ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too. But control thought? Beliefs? Expressed opinions? Concepts? No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities. It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.

Actually Foxy, as usual I think the argument is more of degree than a yes/no, right/wrong one.

Any society does it's best to control thought, in that it attempts to get the members to think the rules are right and good. Yes, anyone can think whatever they want, but when the societal norm is to, to use your example, teach a particular form of etiquette as correct, that is a type of thought control. The most effective, perhaps; teaching children what is right and correct. In that way, society controls the thoughts of it's members to a degree.

It is not a complete control, as that is currently impossible. No one (that I am aware of) can actually CONTROL anyone else's thoughts. Punish someone for the expression of certain thoughts, yes, but not direct control.

So, call it control, call it encouragement, call it indoctrination, societies most definitely practice it, as do individuals.

No one is having their thoughts directly controlled. What you disagree with is the degree of action taken to encourage or punish based on someone's thoughts, IMO. Telling someone what they believe is incorrect can be a form of encouraging or punishing someone for their beliefs. Deciding not to watch a show like Duck Dynasty because you disagree with Phil Robertson's views is an attempt to encourage your beliefs or punish for his. The intent can even be the same; there is no reason an individual cannot wish to see Phil Robertson physically and materially punished for his beliefs and stop watching or buying DD products in an attempt to further that, or encourage others to do the same. What you seem to oppose is a certain degree; you don't like it done in an organized fashion, you don't like to see it go further than a certain level.

Especially since this is not, by your own design, a legal issue, it is all about how far you think someone should go to try and change or suppress someone else's opinions, not whether you think they should try at all.

Put another way, it is not about anyone's intent but about the end results. Anyone can intend to hurt Phil Robertson physically and materially, but you only seem upset when they are able to accomplish it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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 demanded plantation 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.

I agree with Fox up to the point that once a intolerant idea is expressed for public consumption, any and all means are fair play to rid the earth of that sentiment being circulated again. Progress is slowed down by intolerant ideas. Squashing them from being expressed and allowing the concept of gradualism to deal with the inherent damaging aspects of those thoughts will speed up progress.

I can't agree that "any and all means are fair play". Censorship is never an answer. Even if it slows down that which you consider progress, allowing everyone to express their ideas and then judging those ideas on their merits are the ONLY way that true progress will be achieved.

Just to play devils advocate here Conservatives believe that political correctness is a form of censorship and up to a point they are correct. However PCness is "censorship" imposed by a society choosing to no longer tolerate demeaning terms. It is NOT censorship imposed by the government via regulation. That distinction is the key here. Society does have the right to censor those who are disrespectful towards others. But the penalty for that censorship is merely societal disapproval. There is no legal penalty as would be the case if it were regulated censorship.

 

[Asclepias]

Do we? I don't. I don't become somebody I am not for the 'betterment of the group.' I believe allowing people to be who and what they are contributes to the betterment of the group. That does not mean that we don't develop cultural norms and expectations that allow us to live together harmoniously, pleasantly, and productively. But whenever the group decides that it will exercise thought, belief, mind control and dictate who and what people must be in order to be acceptable, you will never have betterment of the group. You will have oppression, active acted out prejudice and bigotry, and power over all transferred to a few of the strongest.

That is what I hope this thread will accomplish--raise consciousness to the point that more people will understand that. Control destructive BEHAVIOR--yes, a moral society does that. ENCOURAGE etiquette including our language and conduct, yes a moral society can do that too. But control thought? Beliefs? Expressed opinions? Concepts? No, that cannot be done without serious destruction of people's liberties options, choices, and opportunities. It will always produce a more coarse, angry, hateful, and oppressed society among those tryng to doing it and those it is done to.

I do not pretend to read your mind but I would wager that statement was a falsehood. I highly doubt you do whatever you want without regard of law and social norms. People like that wind up in prison or mental institutions. I dont believe that people expressing intolerant ideas help to move society along in a positive manner. I dont care if you think intolerant thoughts. I care if you potentially influence others with those thoughts. I disagree that allowing expression of those thoughts will do away with oppression. I think the opposite is true in that it will take longer each time the idea comes around to get rid of oppression. I don't seek to forcefully control thought only the expression of intolerant thought that leads to or has led to oppression of others.

As you said, you don't allow others to define you. I don't allow others to define me either. And please read more carefully. I did not say, imply or suggest that I do whatever I want without regard of law and social norms. I believe if you will honestly read what I wrote, I said the explicit opposite of that. That I choose to conform to what is considered civil in my social groups and thereby achieve harmony and a pleasant and/or productive environment in no way changes who and and what I am.

Now try to focus. I am speaking of controlling what people think, believe, perceive. It is THAT which no society can try to control without oppressing the people. How can you demand tolerance of thought in others without being aggressively and forcably intolerant yourself? And who do you trust with the authority to determine what is okay for people to think, believe and express and what is not?

Would you trust me to make up such a list for you?

I could not have said it better myself. Those that do not wish to promote harmony are the problem. Their ideas are worthless and recycled. If they conform to social norms by not espousing their stale viewpoints we lose nothing but gain an enormous benefit in a more tolerant, progressive society.

I think you are the one having an issue with focusing. I have said innumerable time I don't care what you think only the expression of it. As far as demanding tolerance goes its pretty easy as I pointed out previously. If your idea is to denigrate, subjugate, or any of those bad words then I get to punish you by boycott etc. Again I dont have a problem with being intolerant of intolerance. I trust the people that are on the side of tolerance and equality to assist in defining what expressions of thought should be subjected to censorship just like we do now. I dont know where you stand on issues so no I would not trust you.

 

[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.

Excellent post. Extremely well-done.

sadly they will just ignore it and then post the same tripe over again that nobody is understanding the overly simple question the OP created.

Its really sad when people clamor for honest debating, and then either ignore it, or claim they rarely get it. Then brush it off when they get a serious answer that doesnt jive with their opinion.

Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.

 

[Plasmaball]

i wonder if if Fox is against protests when someone wants to open up a "adult store", and thus tries to pressure the local board to not allow it.

 

[Mac1958]

What do you think?

So, I guess you have your answer.

There are people who are going to do whatever they can to shut down opposing speech, and they are convinced that this is the way to fix our problems.

We'll see, huh?

.

 

[R.D.]

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. ....

So protest. A&E crossed the line

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

As A&E swiftly discovered

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

Regardless A&E did the right thing and didnt fire Phil. They should let things ride and they will see Glaad still hating Phil but their ratings will remain high.

A&E didn't boycott them.

They backed off because they were wrong and thankfully most voices saw their bs for what it was.

 

[Plasmaball]

What do you think?

So, I guess you have your answer.

There are people who are going to do whatever they can to shut down opposing speech, and they are convinced that this is the way to fix our problems.

We'll see, huh?

.

see what i mean..ill just repost these parts:

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.
i bet you look good with a wig