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

[Foxfyre]

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.

I disagree. It was no doubt his celebrity status that got him the interview with GQ Magazine. But his expressing an opinion when asked for that opinion is not acting on anything. It is expressing an opinion. And it doesn't matter if it is a bowery gutter bum, a preacher, a Buddhist monk, a CEO of a corporation, a movie star, a Duck Dynasty character, or the President of the United States, expressing an opinion is expressing an opinion and nothing else. The ACTION came from GQ Magazine that chose to publish the opinion they gathered in the interview.

Would GLAAD have been justified in going after GQ Magazine for pubishing that opinion? No, they would not any more than they were justified going after A&E and Phil Robertson. Would they have been justified in publishing or speaking or advertising their own opinion of that opinion? Yes they would.

But it's back to the difference between telling somebody off and physically assaulting or punching them out. To object to another's public opinion is fair game. To go after him to physically and/or materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing an opinion they didn't like is not.

If it is okiay to punch Phil out for expressing an unpopular belief, then it is okay for me to punch out any member of GLAAD for expressing an opinion I don't agree with or to threaten or punch out or hurt anybody I disagree with. It doesn't take a whole lot to start a whole new civil war if everybody thinks its okay to hurt somebody who says something they don't like.

 

[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?

.

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

Did I say something wrong in that post?

.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

No they didnt. They did what they felt would make them the most money by reaching the most viewers. They suspended him so they would not alienate any gay viewers they might have.

True, but so did Phil. Ten to one Phil nor the rest of the group will be making such statements in the future.

I never stated A&E boycotted them.

They backed off because either this was a PR stunt for the new season or they saw that the reality was more people who watch Ducks would have left and that hurt their bottom line

 

[Plasmaball]

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

Did I say something wrong in that post?

.

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

 

[Mac1958]

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

Did I say something wrong in that post?

.

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

That's okay, I never expect straight answers here.

.

 

[R.D.]

Did I say something wrong in that post?

.

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

You already said that

 

[Mac1958]

Did I say something wrong in that post?

.

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

 

[Plasmaball]

Did I say something wrong in that post?

.

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

That's okay, I never expect straight answers here.

.

but you where given them a few times, and they where brushed off or ignored so you could continue on your little whatever quest about how people want to do blah blah even though you are wrong.

 

[R.D.]

They did what they felt would make them the most money by reaching the most viewers. They suspended him so they would not alienate any gay viewers they might have. ..


They backed off because either this was a PR stunt for the new season or they saw that the reality was more people who watch Ducks would have left and that hurt their bottom line

Which is it?

You're applying what you want to be the motive not what they claim to be the motive. By backing off they admit they were both wrong and out maneuvered by the public outrage

I don't doubt PR played them and he will speak up again if asked.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?

Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works. I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.

A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.

 

[Plasmaball]

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

 

[Mac1958]

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.

Come on, say it: Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Aren't you proud of that? What are you afraid of?

.

 

[Asclepias]

all you are doing is repeating the same tripe because you are not getting the answers you want.

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.

 

[Plasmaball]

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



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.

Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?

Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works. I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.

A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.

Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..

Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.

 

[R.D.]

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said. Be honest.

 

[Mac1958]

You already said that

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

With a slight correction I have admitted it several times. Speech that denigrates and slows down progress.

There ya go, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't know what Plasmaball is so afraid of.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Uh, this is the Clean Debate Zone, right?

Just checking...

 

[Plasmaball]

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

I think you folks are genetically incapable of providing straight, honest responses.

Come on, say it: Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Aren't you proud of that? What are you afraid of?

.

You folks? you know how many times i've gone into your threads you've made and gave you an actual answer when nobody else would give you the time of day Mac?
Numerous.

When you going to admit you would have sided with the crown?

 

[Asclepias]

So protest. A&E crossed the line



As A&E swiftly discovered



A&E didn't boycott them.

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

Why would someone protest if they thought A&E took the correct actions albeit for monetary reasons?

Yes A&E discovered their viewers felt the same way the duck guy does. Thats how it works. I bet that also taught the duck guy to watch what he says in public and A&E is probably already looking to create more shows that cater to open minded individuals to replace the revenue stream.

A&E is about making money. Their decisions reflected that in both moves.

Principle. Glaad protested Phil and the Phil likers protested Glaad..

Nobody is going anywhere. I doubt they will loose viewers. The thing people dont understand is after a week people forget and move onto the next drama.

That is true. Our society has the attention span of a gnat. The only good thing is that we are now aware of where the duck guy and A&E stand.

 

[Plasmaball]

Just say it, folks. Just admit that you're willing to do whatever it legally takes to shut down speech that you don't like, to intimidate people into keeping their mouths shut, and to punish those who don't follow your rules.

Just say it, it's okay. We already know.

.

this isnt a free speech issue nor is any of this. Phil, and everyone else who the OP listed still have their freedom of speech intact. For the love of dogs you cant even get that right, how do you even expect to have any of the rest right?

It certainly is about shutting him down...based on what he said. Be honest.

they wanted him off the air yes, but that didnt take away his freedom of speech. Need not to confuse the two.