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

[Vox]

The defenders of Robertson's 'free speech' rights have made as many attacks against GLAAD et al, i.e. that side of the argument,

just for the fact that GLAAD etc. MADE their argument,

as if it was somehow their obligation to remain silent in the face of something they found objectionable.

What justifies that belief?

GLAAD did not make the argument. GLAAD demanded from A&E to fire him.
and that is BIG difference.

actually I even can agree that GLAAD has the right to bully A&E.
But then the other group has the right to overbully GLAAD and A&E for caving.
Which is happening.

the point is - you can't FORCE the acceptance.
and that is exactly what those so called "groups for tolerance" are doing - they are FORCING their acceptance even when it is criminal.

since they are leftards and that is a synonym of ignorance they don't know that ignorance of the Third Newton's law does not prevent it from still being applicable in all situations

You're an idiot. What is GLAAD criminally forcing A&E to do?

actually harassing a business might be a criminal act( depends on the jurisdiction)
which has happened with those little bakeries which were harassed to the point of closing.

and if you do not understand that - you just proved you are a bigoted idiot yourself

 

[Foxfyre]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

A&E has a business to run. What this guy said was offensive to a segment of their viewership so he had to go.

Slimfast has a business to run. What Whoopie Said said about Bush was offensive to a segment of their consumers. So she had to go.

Monday Night Football is a TV Show. What Hank Williams said was offensive to a number of their viewers. So he had to go.

I'm offended by a lot of what I see on MTV and Bravo! TV. I don't watch it. I find mainstream GOP platform planks to be offensive. I don't vote for many republicans as a result.

It would make a lot more sense to simply remember that this guy from DD, Goldberg, Williams, etc... are just people. What they say isn't representative of any one but themselves. Partisan whackjobs on both sides of the ideological specturm should stop attributing groupthink to the words of the dimmer lights of that group. It's not intolerance; it's hypersensitivity to pereceived injustices. You guys have started what, 5 threads on this dork's rant about his views of homosexuals and a great many on the left have drummed HIS words up to his speaking for the GOP.

Don't worry about actors who get fired for starting their views. They are employees and when their employer is hurt by their actions, they are repremanded.

Be worried when Political parties embody those beliefs and there are people who agree with that embodiment...such as the GOP. No law forces the GOP to be anti-woman; but they are. No law forces the GOP to be anti-LGBT; but they are. This is what you should be aware of; not the words of some guy who apparently has given up on bathing.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has faulted A&E for making whatever business decision. But the fact is, A&E wouldn't have even blinked over that interview if GLAAD had not put heavy pressure on them to dump Robertson..

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

 

[Gracie]

You're an idiot. What is GLAAD criminally forcing A&E to do?

Right off the bat. Surely we can debate each other without becoming hostile?

I see. You're a group of one trying to coerce me into not expressing my honest opinion that someone who says GLAAD acted criminally is an idiot.

Fine. Give me the proper term to use for someone who says something that idiotic.

Misinformed in thinking? Differing view? Agree to not agree? She is far from an idiot. No need for name calling, dude. Chill.

 

[Gracie]

Folks are not reading your very well posted posts, Foxfyre. So...I will keep repeating it. Maybe it will eventually sink in. Probably not, though, so don't hold yer breath.

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Folks are not reading your very well posted posts, Foxfyre. So...I will keep repeating it. Maybe it will eventually sink in. Probably not, though, so don't hold yer breath.

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

Thanks Gracie. I know. It's a constant struggle sometimes.

But the whole point is that liberty requires tolerance for people to be who they are as long as they aren't trampling on anybody else's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But it defies logic to assume that anybody is entitled to tolerance that allows them to be who and what they are when they are unwilling to extend that same tolerance to others.

 

[candycorn]

It isn't just the Phil Robertson/Duck Dynasty controversy. It manifests itself in judgmental and hateful neg reps at USMB. It frequently dominates the media and congressional rhetoric from the hallowed chambers of the Senate and House, and is too often included in official Presidential statements. It makes its way into laws to punish what is defined as 'hate crimes'. It is sinister, pervasive, increasing, and, in my opinion, evil.

It is, for want of a better term to describe it, an intolerance of intolerance.

It is the syndrome of those who demand tolerance for their point of view whether it be their chosen lifestyle, their Atheist views, changing the traditional definition of marriage, who is entitled to the resources of others. . . .the list goes on and on. . ..

. . . .but who will not tolerate the point of view of opinions of many of those who disagree or think or believe differently--i.e. those described as "intolerant". And such people, if they are on the 'wrong' side of the debate are deemed fair game to denigrate, insult, diminish, marginalize, boycott, and sometimes to destroy.

For example--and by no means is this the ONLY example--we demand tolerance for those who wish to marry someone of the same sex. We consider it intolerant to deny anybody the ability to express such beliefs. There us a huge outcry of injustice if anyone is 'punished' or 'boycotted' or 'fired' or whatever for expressing such beliefs.

Where is the demand for tolerance for the beliefs of a Phil Roberson who sees it differently? He is not an activist attempting to interfere nor is he attacking any individual or group. Is punishing him for expressing his belief not also intolerance?

NOTE: Very much hoping this will be left in politics so we can have a chance to keep it on topic. Also strongly requesting that members be respectful and tolerant of the views expressed by others and that we can keep it civil.

A&E has a business to run. What this guy said was offensive to a segment of their viewership so he had to go.

Slimfast has a business to run. What Whoopie Said said about Bush was offensive to a segment of their consumers. So she had to go.

Monday Night Football is a TV Show. What Hank Williams said was offensive to a number of their viewers. So he had to go.

I'm offended by a lot of what I see on MTV and Bravo! TV. I don't watch it. I find mainstream GOP platform planks to be offensive. I don't vote for many republicans as a result.

It would make a lot more sense to simply remember that this guy from DD, Goldberg, Williams, etc... are just people. What they say isn't representative of any one but themselves. Partisan whackjobs on both sides of the ideological specturm should stop attributing groupthink to the words of the dimmer lights of that group. It's not intolerance; it's hypersensitivity to pereceived injustices. You guys have started what, 5 threads on this dork's rant about his views of homosexuals and a great many on the left have drummed HIS words up to his speaking for the GOP.

Don't worry about actors who get fired for starting their views. They are employees and when their employer is hurt by their actions, they are repremanded.

Be worried when Political parties embody those beliefs and there are people who agree with that embodiment...such as the GOP. No law forces the GOP to be anti-woman; but they are. No law forces the GOP to be anti-LGBT; but they are. This is what you should be aware of; not the words of some guy who apparently has given up on bathing.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has faulted A&E for making whatever business decision. But the fact is, A&E wouldn't have even blinked over that interview if GLAAD had not put heavy pressure on them to dump Robertson..

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

 

[Foxfyre]

A&E has a business to run. What this guy said was offensive to a segment of their viewership so he had to go.

Slimfast has a business to run. What Whoopie Said said about Bush was offensive to a segment of their consumers. So she had to go.

Monday Night Football is a TV Show. What Hank Williams said was offensive to a number of their viewers. So he had to go.

I'm offended by a lot of what I see on MTV and Bravo! TV. I don't watch it. I find mainstream GOP platform planks to be offensive. I don't vote for many republicans as a result.

It would make a lot more sense to simply remember that this guy from DD, Goldberg, Williams, etc... are just people. What they say isn't representative of any one but themselves. Partisan whackjobs on both sides of the ideological specturm should stop attributing groupthink to the words of the dimmer lights of that group. It's not intolerance; it's hypersensitivity to pereceived injustices. You guys have started what, 5 threads on this dork's rant about his views of homosexuals and a great many on the left have drummed HIS words up to his speaking for the GOP.

Don't worry about actors who get fired for starting their views. They are employees and when their employer is hurt by their actions, they are repremanded.

Be worried when Political parties embody those beliefs and there are people who agree with that embodiment...such as the GOP. No law forces the GOP to be anti-woman; but they are. No law forces the GOP to be anti-LGBT; but they are. This is what you should be aware of; not the words of some guy who apparently has given up on bathing.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has faulted A&E for making whatever business decision. But the fact is, A&E wouldn't have even blinked over that interview if GLAAD had not put heavy pressure on them to dump Robertson..

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

 

[candycorn]

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has faulted A&E for making whatever business decision. But the fact is, A&E wouldn't have even blinked over that interview if GLAAD had not put heavy pressure on them to dump Robertson..

The quarrel here is NOT with A&E. The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they are without taking a lot of sh*t from people but are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who he is.

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

You wrote:

The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they ....

What is the group you're talking about?

 

[Foxfyre]

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

You wrote:

The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they ....

What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Frankly, I think we are all being played for fools in all of this. Fighting pointlessly while a man and a corporation suck in the proceeds. As a matter of principle, it is intolerant to bully someone into silence. But as a matter of principle, one must admit reality as well.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bout-our-bigotry-than-phil-s.html#post8334947

 

[candycorn]

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

You wrote:

The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they ....

What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

 

[candycorn]

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so.

You wrote:

The quarrel is with a group who wants to be allowed to be who they ....

What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

Earlier you said:

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so

Now you say,

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD.

Seems like you have a quarrel with Glaad afterall.

 

[Foxfyre]

You wrote:



What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

No. One expressed his opinion. No activism. No suggestion that anybody act on it. No concept of punishment for anybody within anybody's earthly power. Just an expressed opinion/belief. Nothing more.

The other presumed to punish Robertson, cost him his job, for no offense other than he expressed his opinion that GLAAD didn't like.

If you cannot see the difference between these two things, then I suspect you are incapable of grasping the concept of the OP. But you did express your opinion.

 

[Gracie]

You have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe?

Ya didn't ask me, but I will answer. YES, I have a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe because they are hypocrites. But they have a RIGHT to say whatever they want to say, whine and have a temper tantrum whenever they want, and then they need to change the channel if they don't like what they see or hear and stop trying to force everyone else to think as THEY do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You wrote:



What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

Earlier you said:

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so

Now you say,

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD.

Seems like you have a quarrel with Glaad afterall.

Seems like to me you want to mince words, not argue the point. Typical.

 

[Foxfyre]

You wrote:



What is the group you're talking about?

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

Earlier you said:

Nope. If I had a quarrel with GLAAD for stating what they believe I would have said so

Now you say,

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD.

Seems like you have a quarrel with Glaad afterall.

No problem at all with GLAAD for stating what they think, what they believe, giving their opinion.

A LOT of problem with GLAAD who would demand that A&E punish somebody just because they offered a belief/opinion that GLAAD didn't like.

Again, it takes intellectual honesty to distinguish between these two things and see how they are different. Fortunately, most of the folks posting on this thread--both left and right wingers--have demonstrated that intellectual honesty.

 

[candycorn]

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

He's completely being allowed to be himself.

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

It is going both ways between Glaad and this guy. They are both giving their opinion.

No. One expressed his opinion. No activism. No suggestion that anybody act on it. No concept of punishment for anybody within anybody's earthly power. Just an expressed opinion/belief. Nothing more.

The other presumed to punish Robertson, cost him his job, for no offense other than he expressed his opinion that GLAAD didn't like.

If you cannot see the difference between these two things, then I suspect you are incapable of grasping the concept of the OP. But you did express your opinion.

A&E decided it wasn't in their interest to keep this guy after expressing his opinion which is, by definition, an act which is the root of all activism.

If you have a beef, it should be with A&E for suspending this guy. But it isn't it's with a group with whom you disagree with. That is if you're being intellectually honest. If you can't see the difference, I think your OP is disingenuous; bascially you support the view of this guy, disapporove of the view of GLAAD and have come up with some sort of mumbo-jumbo to make your dumbass opinion sound inetellecutal.

 

[candycorn]

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

Earlier you said:


Now you say,

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD.

Seems like you have a quarrel with Glaad afterall.

No problem at all with GLAAD for stating what they think, what they believe, giving their opinion.

A LOT of problem with GLAAD who would demand that A&E punish somebody just because they offered a belief/opinion that GLAAD didn't like.

Again, it takes intellectual honesty to distinguish between these two things and see how they are different. Fortunately, most of the folks posting on this thread--both left and right wingers--have demonstrated that intellectual honesty.

So you said they are being "intloerant" but you have no problem with them. Gotcha.

 

[candycorn]

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD. They are really big on demanding that we treat gays and lesbians with respect and allow them to be open and free about who they are and what they believe and what they want, but they were totally intolerant when it came to Phil Robertson to the point of demanding that A&E dump hm.

Why are gays and lesbians entitled to be who they are and Phil Robertson isn't?

Don't you think tolerance should go both ways?

Earlier you said:


Now you say,

Whatever group demands that they be allowed to be who they are, say what they think, say what they believe but won't allow others the same liberty. In the case of Phil Robertson, the intolerant group is GLAAD.

Seems like you have a quarrel with Glaad afterall.

Seems like to me you want to mince words, not argue the point. Typical.

She says she has no problem with GLAAD but does have a problem with GLAAD. You say you're a libertarian but are against certain people excercising their personal liberties.

Typical.

 

[Foxfyre]

?????

Oh well. I tried.