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

[TemplarKormac]

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?

A flaw:

Speech itself isn't destructive. Acting on that speech is what can be deemed or seen as destructive. To intimidate someone for their speech by using your speech and actions resulting therein, is itself unethical and un-American.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I look at it like this:

I don't care who you are, what you do (within the bounds of law), what you stand for or how you stand for it. So long as you don't force that on me, my tolerance will be numbered as the stars in the sky. The Constitution gives you all the right in the world to believe what you want and do what you want (once again within the bounds of the law). That tolerance, however, goes away when you decide to tell me what I am, what I should do, what I stand for or how I stand for it, and threaten action against me because you yourself are intolerant of it. As long as you walk my fine line of tolerance, I'll walk yours. It's that simple.

Well you are more tolerant than I am TK, because if you make a statement that I disagree with on a message board, I will often tell you why I disagree with it. However, there are some, including you, at USMB who allow that, even welcome that, so long as I am addressing your opinion and not, as you explained, tellling YOU what YOU think, want, believe, who you are, or misrepresent what you say. That makes for great discussion and give and take.

And there are some who simply are incapable of addressing and rebutting the other person's opinion. They instead go after the person who expressed the opinion accusing him/her of all sorts of negative things while they rarely, if ever, address the opinion that provoked the attack. And if we push back on that, the food fight starts. Or, if they are unable to provoke a food fight, they get in a huff, snit, or whatever, put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home. And if a thread dissolves into nothing but a food fight, I can be just as frustrated and 'go home' myself.

On a message board no harm no foul. I can ignore those who accuse me of all manner of things including being a liar, being blindly partisan, being stupid, being whatever. I probably won't respect them much if they do that, but oh well. If I don't want my thoughts dictated by them, then I have to allow them their thoughts too. And if they want to make it personal, that is their right. I just don't have to participate.

In real life it gets more complicated. There when people attack others for their beliefs, it can have real life consequences. And at some point, as a society, as a culture, we have to be able to distinguish right from wrong in a material way when it comes to tolerance. Organizing in an effort to stop those who are hurting others in a physical or material way, yes. Organizing to punish somebody who expresses an opinion or uses a word we don't like? I can't justify that on any moral or ethical grounds.

Well you are more tolerant than I am TK, because if you make a statement that I disagree with on a message board, I will often tell you why I disagree with it. However, there are some, including you, at USMB who allow that, even welcome that, so long as I am addressing your opinion and not, as you explained, telling YOU what YOU think, want, believe, who you are, or misrepresent what you say. That makes for great discussion and give and take.

I disagree. You are more tolerant than I could ever hope to be in my youth. I could be seen as overzealous, but I choose to disprove a position rather than to prevent someone from retaining it. That frame of mind ceases when someone else tells me that I am not allowed to have whatever positions and views I hold.

And there are some who simply are incapable of addressing and rebutting the other person's opinion. They instead go after the person who expressed the opinion accusing him/her of all sorts of negative things while they rarely, if ever, address the opinion that provoked the attack. And if we push back on that, the food fight starts. Or, if they are unable to provoke a food fight, they get in a huff, snit, or whatever, put on their rubber pants, take their ball, and go home. And if a thread dissolves into nothing but a food fight, I can be just as frustrated and 'go home' myself.

My thinking is, as you have tried repeatedly, would be to instead of engaging them, ignore them. By your willingness to ignore them, you allow them to have their opinions and be who they are without affecting you, hence tolerance. The simplest way to drown out a noise is by plugging your ears, IMO. You should be allowed to voice your opinion without acknowledging the distractions. The intent is clearly obvious, so therefore, don't lend it credence.

On a message board no harm no foul. I can ignore those who accuse me of all manner of things including being a liar, being blindly partisan, being stupid, being whatever. I probably won't respect them much if they do that, but oh well. If I don't want my thoughts dictated by them, then I have to allow them their thoughts too. And if they want to make it personal, that is their right. I just don't have to participate.

I'm glad we see eye to eye. Not much more to add here.

In real life it gets more complicated. There when people attack others for their beliefs, it can have real life consequences. And at some point, as a society, as a culture, we have to be able to distinguish right from wrong in a material way when it comes to tolerance. Organizing in an effort to stop those who are hurting others in a physical or material way, yes. Organizing to punish somebody who expresses an opinion or uses a word we don't like? I can't justify that on any moral or ethical grounds.

Like I told Bfgrn, speech itself isn't destructive, so long as it's confined to simple speech. When you use your beliefs and speech as a weapon, as a tool in an all out assault on someone who expresses their different opinions, you are little more than an eccentric entity, a malevolent force with no ethical standards of your own. You are only bent on destroying that person's will to express himself or his beliefs freely. The golden rule applies:

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you wish to have your beliefs, you must also let others have theirs, lest they come to destroy you for them. Attacking others for their beliefs sets in motion a vicious cycle of attrition whereby each side tries to destroy the other over simple expressions of belief. I agree, this is immoral and unethical behavior.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If I say something you don't like, you're willing to (a) punish me for it and (b) intimidate me from saying it again.

If you say something I don't like, I see an opportunity to discuss the issue and to try to change your heart and mind.

You are about ego, paranoia and control. I am about diversity of opinion, humility and communication.

I don't know how to fix your narcissism.

.

 

[candycorn]

Incorrect.

No one is ‘leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking,’ as ‘freedom of speech’ is a legal term in the context of the relationship between the speaker and his government.

The issue here has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ ‘leveraged’ or otherwise, as no one is seeking to use the power and authority of the state to preempt speech.

In a free and democratic society citizens are at liberty to speak out as they please. Private society in general will determine what is or is not appropriate speech. This is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness,’ as speech or actions considered inappropriate are determined so by private society as a whole, not one particular group.

Everyone is at liberty to say or do what he wishes (assuming it doesn’t violate the law, of course), and there is nothing stopping anyone from saying and doing whatever he wishes. And everyone is at liberty to object to speech he perceives to be inappropriate, to denounce that speech, to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, or start a campaign to remove the speaker from the venue in which he expresses his opinions.

Private society as a whole will evaluate the merits of the issue and the two conflicting views and make a determination as to what is appropriate or not.

That some might fear this process is perhaps understandable, but it’s infinitely preferable to government or the courts becoming involved and making the determination of what is appropriate or not.

In fact, this process should be celebrated and encouraged, as it demonstrates the ability of a free and democratic society to govern itself with regard to creating and expressing mores and values that form the foundation of that free and democratic society.

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?

Again, only if you disagree with it.

The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.

Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.

Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech. I wonder why?

 

[Mac1958]

The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.

Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.

Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech. I wonder why?

I'm totally against this firing. I can only imagine how this guy's opinion played in the culture that is the NFL, and I'm not surprised this happened. Hopefully someday we'll get past this, someday soon.

Being consistent just isn't that tough for those who are intellectually honest.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe I am a simpleton, so I will keep it as simple and brief as possible.
Anyone who threatens the life or morals of common..note I said common..."decency" (and your miles may vary according to what is deemed "decent"), deserves to be silenced.

And for good measure, here is what I believe is called a strawman in these parts:
If you could kill hilter or pol pot or stalin or (insert name here)....knowing what they did but you could stop it by silencing them forever BEFORE they did what they did....would you? I would.

Are you seriously saying that the opinions expressed by Phil Robertson and Evander Holyfield could possibly make them a Polpot or Hitler or Stalin? What criteria do you use to determine that somebody's opinion is dangerous?

Again I am not speaking of what people DO to other people. I am not speaking of what people say they INTEND TO DO to other people. I am speaking of people who express an opinion or conviction that others don't like but who violate the rights of others in no way.

No. I am not saying Robertson saying what he said has anything to do with polpot or stalin or hitler. Maybe I am not getting what you are trying to convey. I thought it was letting people be as they are. well, that is not possible sometimes. Sometimes, people have to be silenced. Or stopped. Hitler expressed an opinion and acted on it. I don't think it is in the generic possibilities of humans to accept anything they don't agree with, without it not becoming rights of others. Violence or violate, whatever you want to call it. Only one person could possibly do that and he was crucified..and also judged...and his rights were violated because He was not agreed with in what he taught. It's all connected because it is in our genetic makeup.

That's the trouble with words. Sometimes it is difficult to find the right ones to use and sometimes even more difficult to put them together in a way that fully explains what we intend for others to understand. And sometimes nigh unto impossible to express them without somebody taking offense or reading into them something that was never intended.

Again this is not a free speech issue and I strongly resist making it one. It is not a constitutional or legal issue, and I strongly resist making it that too. And most importantly it is not an issue of acceptance. I am not proposing that we accept any opinion or belief put out there without objection, without challenge, without rebuttal. But what I am proposing here is a change in the national psyche. A change in the culture.

Jesus's culture demanded orthodoxy and the Jews of that day did demand physical punishment, even unto death, for heretics. Jesus was crucified for the sin of blasphemy as the Jews defined that. But that culture changed and, except for the very rare anomly/exception, I can't imagine modern day Jews calling for somebody to be punished for no other reason than they express an unorthodox opinion re Judaic beliefs.

There was an indefensible chapter in Christian history in which the heretic and/or unorthodox could be subject to the Inquisition and punishment by flogging, burning at the stake, imprisonment, or banishment. That culture also changed and, except for the the rare anomaly/exception, I can't imagine modern day Christians calling for somebody to be punished for expressing an unorthodox opinion re Christian beliefs.

And now we have a culture that demands that the 'heretic', i.e. the politically incorrect, be punished physically and/or materially for no crime other than speaking a belief or opinion that is not P.C. My hope is that we can change that culture too, one heart and soul at a time, to make it wrong, to make it socially unacceptable to hurt people for no other reason than we disagree with them. Disagree with them yes. Rebut their unacceptable point of view, yes. Tell them off, yes. Explain to them how and why their opinions are wrong, yes. But do not presume to be their judge and jury and pass sentence upon them and deny them the right to be who and what they are. For if we do, we forfeit our own right to be who and what we are.

 

[Ava]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

I do know one person who is as you have described. She has a beautiful spirit and everyone she meets, wants to be her friend and she becomes just that. She gives a hug, when you greet her and one when you leave her presence and that applies to all people, including the very rich, the very poor, and from any political persuasion. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is a generous soul...more so than any I have ever met.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.

Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.

Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech. I wonder why?

I'm totally against this firing. I can only imagine how this guy's opinion played in the culture that is the NFL, and I'm not surprised this happened. Hopefully someday we'll get past this, someday soon.

Being consistent just isn't that tough for those who are intellectually honest.

.

Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty , the Vikings adamently deny that they fired Kluwe because of his opinions on anything. From the linked Wiki article:

On January 2, 2014, Kluwe alleged that he was released from the Vikings due to his support of same-sex marriage.[4][19] He stated that the Vikings requested that he "deliberately sacrifice my own numbers to help the team, a request with which I always complied."[20] The team stated it was not previously made aware of Kluwe's allegations, and countered that he "was released strictly based on his football performance."[19][21][22] Kluwe said that special teams coach Mike Priefer in 2012 made homophobic remarks and criticized the player for his views on same-sex marriage.[19] Preifer responded with a statement saying that "I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals. I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member.”[23] Kluwe called the coach's acts "inexcusable", and hoped he prevented Preifer from ever coaching again.[24] He also alleged that head coach Leslie Frazier told him to stop speaking out on same-sex marriage.[19] On January 3, the Vikings announced that an investigation of the allegations would be performed by former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Eric Magnuson and former U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney Chris Madel.[25]

And here is Huffpo's piece on the flap that backs up Wiki:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/mike-priefer-vikings-coach-chris-kluwe_n_4533500.html

So which side is telling it like it is? I don't know. Do any of us know?

Also it is important to consider the difference between an employee and employer's agreements, relationships, and expectations versus some unrelated group or organization demanding somebody's head on a platter. Phil Robertson's remarks had nothing to do whatsoever with A&E and were not made on A&E or Duck Dynasty. He was in an interview with GQ Magazine who published those remarks. And nobody has presumed to criticize GQ who were the ones who made the 'derogatory' remarks public and put them out there for all to see. GLAAD instead went after the totally innocent A&E and Duck Dynasty and demanded Robertson's head on a platter. I have not faulted A&E for whatever business decisions they make regarding their program content. I faulted GLAAD who were the bully.

So whatever issues the Vikings and Kluwe have might be subject to criticism, but it isn't the same thing. That is a flap between employer and employee, not an issue of an angry mob, group, or organization demanding that the Vikings fire Kluwe because of his views on something.

If some angry mob or group or organization HAD demanded that the Vikings fire Kluwe for his stated views, they would be every bit as wrong and reprehensible as GLAAD was when GLAAD went after Phil Robertson.

 

[Mac1958]

The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.

Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.

Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech. I wonder why?

I'm totally against this firing. I can only imagine how this guy's opinion played in the culture that is the NFL, and I'm not surprised this happened. Hopefully someday we'll get past this, someday soon.

Being consistent just isn't that tough for those who are intellectually honest.

.

Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty , the Vikings adamently deny that they fired Kluwe because of his opinions on anything. From the linked Wiki article:

On January 2, 2014, Kluwe alleged that he was released from the Vikings due to his support of same-sex marriage.[4][19] He stated that the Vikings requested that he "deliberately sacrifice my own numbers to help the team, a request with which I always complied."[20] The team stated it was not previously made aware of Kluwe's allegations, and countered that he "was released strictly based on his football performance."[19][21][22] Kluwe said that special teams coach Mike Priefer in 2012 made homophobic remarks and criticized the player for his views on same-sex marriage.[19] Preifer responded with a statement saying that "I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals. I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member.”[23] Kluwe called the coach's acts "inexcusable", and hoped he prevented Preifer from ever coaching again.[24] He also alleged that head coach Leslie Frazier told him to stop speaking out on same-sex marriage.[19] On January 3, the Vikings announced that an investigation of the allegations would be performed by former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court Eric Magnuson and former U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney Chris Madel.[25]

So which side is telling it like it is? I don't know. Do any of us know?

Also it is important to consider the difference between an employee and employer's agreements, relationships, and expectations versus what some unrelated group or organization demanding somebody's head on a platter. Phil Robertson's remarks had nothing to do whatsoever with A&E and were not made on A&E or Duck Dynasty. He was in an interview with GQ Magazine who published those remarks. And nobody has presumed to criticize GQ who were the ones who made the 'derogatory' remarks public and put them out there for all to see.

So whatever issues the Vikings and Kluwe have might be subject to criticism, but it isn't the same thing. That is a flap between employer and employee, not an issue of an angry mob, group, or organization demanding that the Vikings fire Kluwe because of his views on something.

Yup, that's why I haven't belched out an opinion before this, I haven't gotten enough info.

So you're right -- assuming that he was dumped because of his views...

.

 

[R.D.]

And some of us see how destructive, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people personally and/or materially for no offense worse than expressing an unpopular opinion or belief or for using a word that some in society have decided is taboo. And some of us have adopted a cause to try to help others see how destructivve, unethical, and unAmerican it is to attack people that way, and one by one change hearts, minds, and ultimately the culture to one that is far more tolerant and values liberty than what we have now.

To make that long story short, I hope to do what I can to change the culture and make attacking people for their beliefs so socially unacceptable, people will choose not to do that.

So freedom of speech is "destructive, unethical, and unAmerican"?

Again, only if you disagree with it.

The Minnesota Vikings recently fired their punter who was a vocal proponent of homosexual equality.

Unlike Dunk Dynasty, this wasn't a broadcast network deciding not to show filmed episodes they purchased from a production house (i.e. the actors have already been paid); this was a direct termination that seemed to be for nothing other than his political stances.

Chris Kluwe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet you see no outrage from the guardians of free speech. I wonder why?

Kluwe alleged that he was released from the Vikings due to his support of same-sex marriage

Because he may be lying, he tossed many men under the bus riding a dialogue train for sympathy and support.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

I do know one person who is as you have described. She has a beautiful spirit and everyone she meets, wants to be her friend and she becomes just that. She gives a hug, when you greet her and one when you leave her presence and that applies to all people, including the very rich, the very poor, and from any political persuasion. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is a generous soul...more so than any I have ever met.

Oh my. Tell me you know more than one. You have come across to me as such a person of course. You certainly don't agree with all opinions, but that is not a requirement for the kind of tolerance I am promoting here.

 

[Ava]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

I do know one person who is as you have described. She has a beautiful spirit and everyone she meets, wants to be her friend and she becomes just that. She gives a hug, when you greet her and one when you leave her presence and that applies to all people, including the very rich, the very poor, and from any political persuasion. She talks the talk and walks the walk. She is a generous soul...more so than any I have ever met.

Oh my. Tell me you know more than one. You have come across to me as such a person of course. You certainly don't agree with all opinions, but that is not a requirement for the kind of tolerance I am promoting here.

Well thank you, dearest one.

I am no where near the kind of person I was referencing above. She is a virtual Mother Teresa and I am no where near that, nor do I want to be.

 

[R.D.]

It sounds exhausting to be that good .

 

[Foxfyre]

It sounds exhausting to be that good .

Yeah it would be.

The thing is, if you read how Phil Robertson's friends and family describe him, he is a crusty old opinionated and crude guy. He freely admits he was a real rounder in his youth messed up with drugs and alcohol and he did a lot of things he is not at all proud of. He turned it around when he found Christ and allowed God to change him, but he still describes himself as a sinner just like all sinners who do the list of sins as he believes the Bible expresses them. He also wishes no harm or malice to anybody, freely says he loves his gay brothers and sisters, and leaves it to God to sort things out in the end as he doesn't see that as his prerogative.

Duck Dynasty does exhibit a family who stays together and prays together, but it has neither a religious or political format. It is a show intended to show a slice of Americana in a light and funny way and it accomplishes that and draws the largest audience A&E has ever had. Maybe that cable has ever had.

I just don't see how a Phil Robertson is a danger or detriment to anybody. And it should be socially and culturally unacceptable to punish him physically and/or materially purely because he isn't politically correct in his personal life.

 

[hunarcy]

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me. FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few. In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious. I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.

Okay Hunarcy, you know I appreciate you a lot, but you're giving Montrovant some grief he doesn't deserve here. I have encouraged and invited differences of opinion and welcome having my point of view challenged and he is doing that competently, objectively, and without malice. If I can't competently defend my point of view, it is probably flawed, yes?

I honestly welcome the mental workout.

You two would likely be good friends in a different setting.

I hope I didn't seem antagonistic to Montrovant personally. If I did, I apologize for the misimpression. But the whole "objection to boycotts" seems to be a distraction to me in that no one has ever objected to people boycotting things they don't agree with; objections arise when they go on a vendetta to destroy people they don't agree with by trying to ensure those who dare to have an unsanctioned opinion will "never work in this town again".

You're right, I do enjoy Montrovant's posts in most cases.

 

[Ava]

It sounds exhausting to be that good .

It would be for me. My sweet friend is accessible 24/7 to anyone for anything. I value my private nature too much, to be as she.

 

[hunarcy]

I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx. I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.". So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.

But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.

I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group. It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx. I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.". So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.

But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.

I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group. It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.

And wham!! Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out. LOL. (I really do love you guys.)

I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something. That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do. I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else. I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life. But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way. I see that as wrong.

Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.

There is a fine distinction between those two things.

 

[BillyZane]

I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx. I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.". So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.

But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.

I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group. It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.

And wham!! Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out. LOL. (I really do love you guys.)

I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something. That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do. I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else. I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life. But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way. I see that as wrong.

Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.

There is a fine distinction between those two things.

I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.

Let me give two examples.

In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.

On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding

The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"

 

[Foxfyre]

I totally agree, whether it's the opinion of an individual or a group. It's only when a group begins to "research" sponsors to ensure the person who said/did something is hounded out of the public arena (creating a type of blacklist) that intolerance raises its ugly head.

And wham!! Now hunarcy and Montrovant are allied in this and I am the odd 'man' out. LOL. (I really do love you guys.)

I honestly don't approve of organized boycotts for no other reason than we don't like somebody or disapprove of their opinion about something. That is something that I would like to be made socially unacceptable in our culture and something seen as what only the lowest of the lowlifes do. I see it as morally and ethically wrong to try to punish people for who and what they are when they are harming nobody else. I can choose not to patronize those who offend me and if enough people also choose to do that, well, that's life. But I won't go out of my way to organize punishment for somebody in that way. I see that as wrong.

Organized boycotts for the purpose of protesting bad ACTS, however, I have no problem with.

There is a fine distinction between those two things.

I must disagree with you here. Boycotts are a perfectly valid expression of disagreement. They aren't born of intolerance.

Let me give two examples.

In one case, we have people who want Phil off the air PERIOD , doesn't matter that they are able to change the channel and not see or hear hm. That's not good enough, they want him SILENCED.

On the other hand, we have people who encouraged a boycott of the Rose Bowl, but in no way suggested the RB should be shut down over a gay wedding

The latter says "I'm tolerant , but won't be part of" while the former says "I want this silenced"

First I need to qualify my immediately preceding post to assure hunarcy and Montrovant--and you too Billy--that I do not see any of you as lowlifes when you disagree with me on this.

But you see, I see both those things as morally and ethically wrong though the Phil Robertson thing is worse because it specifically targets an individual to be personally and materially hurt.

But there is a difference between personally choosing not to attend a gay wedding at the Rose Bowl and trying to get everybody to choose that. How does that gay wedding hurt anybody? If the Rose Bowl chooses to host it, how does that harm me or you or anybody else in any way? Do you--the rhetorical you--oppose gay marriage? Okay that is your right so long as you don't harrass or interfere with those who don't oppose it. It is your right not to participate.

But it should be morally and ethically wrong to try to spoil somebody else's activity purely because you don't want to participate in it.