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

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe you should type slower.

LOL. Do you think that would help?

DEFINITIONS: (Agree or disagree)

Expressing an opinion: Saying what you think or believe.

Activism: Promoting a cause.

Intolerance: Excluding, discriminating against, or seeking to harm, punish, or physically or materially hurting somebody purely because of who they are or what they think and say.

It's almost a work of art as to how you are refining and reducing this issue in such a way as to allow you to pretend you are defending A&E on principle only.

 

[SwimExpert]

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

Maybe they're explaining it that badly. Perhaps the question is "Do words hurt?" If someone walked up to me on the street and told me I was ugly, that would be an opinion and it's up to me to deal with that if I don't like it.

But perhaps things become different when discrimination becomes institutionalized across the country. We cannot deny that that has been the case for gay people in our country for some time. Does feeding into the culture of bigotry against gay people create an actual harm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sorry...groups do that all the time. Should the NRA stop trying to influence others?

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

"After the meeting, GLAAD issued its statement on Robertson’s comments. A&E initially released a statement from Robertson in which he said he would “never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.” But the network declined to comment itself until Wednesday night, when it announced the suspension, which GLAAD applauded.

“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson."

?Duck Dynasty? Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep - Yahoo TV

OMG...GLAAD 'issued its statement on Robertson’s comments' How DARE they!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

But this thread isn't about the NRA is it? Therefore I will dismiss this argument absent consideration. You disrespect the author of this OP by spouting irrelevance.

Reread the title of this thread and tell me where and how it excludes certain particular examples of tolerance/intolerance.

Are you claiming that despite the general principle appearance of the OP, Foxfyre was really just using that as a subterfuge to make another DD specific partisan attack on those who didn't like what Phil Robertson said?

 

[TemplarKormac]

On the bright side, according to this thread, most people (left and right) seem to be tolerant of people they disagree with or find objectionable because they understand the bigger issues. It only seems to be a handful of authoritarian types who can't think outside their own bias.

Yeah, Foxy needs some mental counseling.

You need an attitude readjustment. You don't speak to to Fox in such a manner.

 

[Sunshine]

I was raised Catholic. I know what Christianity is. I went to Church every Sunday.

You're still not getting it. I am not judging your faith. I am judging people who are hateful of gay people.

But again, do you approve of GLAAD demanding that A&E fire Phil Robertson because, in your point of view, he was 'hateful of gay people'? Or if you expect Christians to be tolerant of homosexuality, does it not follow that homosexuals should be tolerant of an expressed fundamentalist Christian view expressed by a fundamentalist Christian?

A person who believes gays should be compared to terrorists is not a true Christian in my opinion. Period. They can all themselves anything they want.

[MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION]

But you and others like you have no problem asserting that there are Christian terrorists, even in the face of my having shown each and every example given to NOT be the case. In fact, you have, in this very thread, labeled a person as a terrorist, a person you have never met and who has never perpetrated a violent act against anyone. And here is your post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8333871-post111.html

Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, how is it that you are exempt from your own rule? Your rule seems to be 'do as I say, not as I do.' You have already been shown to be a hypocrite, but pardon me if I say it again: You are a hypocrite of the highest water.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The NRA spends millions trying to get or keep people out of office in government. If that isn't trying to silence people I don't know what is.

And, while we're at it:

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons

"A massive boycott backed by the NRA and outdoorsmen and women outraged that the nation's largest outdoors show banned the exhibition of assault weapons has caused the show's organizers to abruptly cancel the week-long event in Harrisburg, Pa.

The successful boycott, started by the website mynortheastoutdoors.com, was the biggest demonstration of support by the outdoors industry yet against gun control efforts being pushed in Washington and in several states."

NRA boycott kills outdoors show that banned assault weapons | WashingtonExaminer.com

But this thread isn't about the NRA is it? Therefore I will dismiss this argument absent consideration. You disrespect the author of this OP by spouting irrelevance.

Reread the title of this thread and tell me where and how it excludes certain particular examples of tolerance/intolerance.

Are you claiming that despite the general principle appearance of the OP, Foxfyre was really just using that as a subterfuge to make another DD specific partisan attack on those who didn't like what Phil Robertson said?

Like I said, I will not address any further irrelevance from you. What the NRA did was and is not an example of tolerance and intolerance, it was advocacy done right. They didn't have someone silenced because they disagreed with them. Now if you can't distinguish between the two, I'm sorry, I can't help you.

 

[hunarcy]

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

I don't think you've explained it badly. I think they willfully ignore the truth because it's inconvenient for them that GLAAD so publically behaved this way and revealed the intolerant attitudes they so desperately try to hide.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The NRA doesn't go around trying to silence gun control advocates who disagree with them. When will you stop with the red herrings?

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Exactly as I predicted.

 

[Foxfyre]

BS...

Your idea of 'tolerance' is for Phil Robertson to have the right to speak his mind. And for GLAAD to have the right to be SILENT.

And the violent threats and intimidation is coming from the right, not the left.

GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz said at the time:

“He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.”

Now, the tables have turned on GLAAD and they are the ones facing backlash because of their condemnation of Robertson.

Rich Ferraro, vice president of communications for GLAAD told The Wrap:

“In the five-and-a-half years I’ve worked at GLAAD, I’ve never received so many violently angry phone calls and social media posts attacking GLAAD for us speaking out against these comments.”

No. I have not at any point or any way suggested GLAAD should be silent. My only objection to GLAAD is that they did not just express their opinion in rebuttal to PR, but they sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

They have researched his sponsors and called for those sponsors to drop him. They demanded that A&E drop him.

Bob Harper, the popular trainer on Biggest Loser, recently came out that he was gay. And he used his bully pulpit of that popular TV show to express his views of how gay people should see themselves. To me, that was pretty okay and special,. Bbut since I don't agree with PR's views on homosexuality or his Biblical interpretation, it's pretty safe to guess that PR wouldn't have appreciated Harper's statements about it either.

So let's pretend PR goes after Harper, seeks to identify all the different sponsors who use his image and try to get those sponsors to drop him; tries to get Biggest Loser and/or the network to drop him. You would see that as tolerance? As an expression of free speech? Or something hateful and unacceptable that none of us should tolerate?

That's what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. It was hateful and unacceptable and none of us should tolerate it no matter what brand of partisan we are.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I already have a full time job and go to school full time...but thanks.

and yet... I don't care.

And yet....I don't care that you don't care....

An example of apathy, am I right?

 

[hunarcy]

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

"After the meeting, GLAAD issued its statement on Robertson’s comments. A&E initially released a statement from Robertson in which he said he would “never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.” But the network declined to comment itself until Wednesday night, when it announced the suspension, which GLAAD applauded.

“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson."

?Duck Dynasty? Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep - Yahoo TV

OMG...GLAAD 'issued its statement on Robertson’s comments' How DARE they!

Thank you for putting your stupidity on display for all to see. If you think that researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson is benign, you are as stupid as your response to my post.

 

[Sunshine]

I think the majority of Americans agree that Duck Dynasty guy should not be suspended for expressing his religious beliefs. Rather people find his opinions hatful or ignorant is inconsequential. The bigger topic we are having concerns the application of tolerance. It's a good conversation to have. I tend to side with the majority of people who say that A&E had a legal right to suspend Duck Dynasty guy but believe, ethically, that people should not be punished for expressing their religious views.

No, what is the issue are the remarks themselves. They were disrespectful and insulting. Had he simply stated homosexuality goes against his beliefs, he wouldn't have been suspended. He took it too far.

I don't understand why people aren't getting that.

So what if his comments were disrespectful and insulting? I've heard many insulting and disrespectful comments on television. I'm a conservative and I've been called every name in the book by people on television. So what? I've been called a racist, xenophobic, sexist, terrorist, etc by people who classify conservatives in the dumbest and angriest language possible. I find Pierce Morgan and Chris Mathews as insulting and disrespectful as I'm sure you find Duck Dynasty guy. However, it would never occur to me to suspend them because of their vile remarks. I'm far more interested in the rights of the individual to express their opinions than I am about forcibly shutting other people's arguments down.

Yes, on this forum, if you are a conservative American you are automatically a sexist, racist, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and on and on and on.

 

[Sunshine]

No, what is the issue are the remarks themselves. They were disrespectful and insulting. Had he simply stated homosexuality goes against his beliefs, he wouldn't have been suspended. He took it too far.

I don't understand why people aren't getting that.

So what if his comments were disrespectful and insulting? I've heard many insulting and disrespectful comments on television. I'm a conservative and I've been called every name in the book by people on television. So what? I've been called a racist, xenophobic, sexist, terrorist, etc by people who classify conservatives in the dumbest and angriest language possible. I find Pierce Morgan and Chris Mathews as insulting and disrespectful as I'm sure you find Duck Dynasty guy. However, it would never occur to me to suspend them because of their vile remarks. I'm far more interested in the rights of the individual to express their opinions than I am about forcibly shutting other people's arguments down.

The obvious difference is that gay people were born gay. Conservatives are not. And I am against the idea of calling all conservatives dumb. They aren't.

I would like to know what they exactly have said about conservatives.

But you are OK with calling them terrorists: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8333871-post111.html

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Exactly as I predicted.

Predicted? That crystal ball shoved up your backside is busted, you didn't predict anything, carbine. Now, you can either A) vacate the thread, or B) make a cogent, relevant point pertaining to the OP. Your choice.

 

[hunarcy]

Actually the NRA does.

Colorado Recall Results: Democratic State Senators Defeated In Major Victory For NRA

Rhode Island Gun Recall: Voters Reject Council Ouster | TIME.com

Actually, Derideo, that's called the democratic process. That's how its supposed to work this day and age, believe it or not. That isn't silencing people. What GLAAD did was seek out one solitary individual for destruction. Those instances and this share no correlation between one another.

Exactly as I predicted.

Hey, did the NRA go to the private employers of Colorado and demand that those State Senators also be fired from other jobs because they voted for the anti-gun rights measure after they were recalled? Because GLAAD is trying to do that to Phil Robertson.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

"After the meeting, GLAAD issued its statement on Robertson’s comments. A&E initially released a statement from Robertson in which he said he would “never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me.” But the network declined to comment itself until Wednesday night, when it announced the suspension, which GLAAD applauded.

“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.

The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson."

?Duck Dynasty? Fallout: GLAAD Reeling From Biggest Backlash in Years, Says Rep - Yahoo TV

OMG...GLAAD 'issued its statement on Robertson’s comments' How DARE they!

OMG, Robertson quoted the Bible! How dare he?! Ohhh the indignity of it all!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. I have not at any point or any way suggested GLAAD should be silent. My only objection to GLAAD is that they did not just express their opinion in rebuttal to PR, but they sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like.

Is it just the liberal mind that cannot distinguish between those two things? Is any conservative here having the same problem seeing expressing an opinion and materially punishing somebody as separate things? Am I explaining it that badly?

I have no problem distinguishing, but I do have a problem with you portraying GLAAD speaking out against PR as "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

HOW did GLAAD "sought to physically and materially punish him, hurt him, destroy him for no other reason than he expressed an opinion they didn't like."

They have researched his sponsors and called for those sponsors to drop him. They demanded that A&E drop him.

Bob Harper, the popular trainer on Biggest Loser, recently came out that he was gay. And he used his bully pulpit of that popular TV show to express his views of how gay people should see themselves. To me, that was pretty okay and special,. Bbut since I don't agree with PR's views on homosexuality or his Biblical interpretation, it's pretty safe to guess that PR wouldn't have appreciated Harper's statements about it either.

So let's pretend PR goes after Harper, seeks to identify all the different sponsors who use his image and try to get those sponsors to drop him; tries to get Biggest Loser and/or the network to drop him. You would see that as tolerance? As an expression of free speech? Or something hateful and unacceptable that none of us should tolerate?

That's what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson. It was hateful and unacceptable and none of us should tolerate it no matter what brand of partisan we are.

What happened to GLAAD's free speech rights. When did you decide that pro-gay free speech should somehow be abridged?

 

[hunarcy]

The difference is that while promoting their political beliefs, they do not "research" their opponents with the goal of insuring they lose their ability to make a living.

And, they didn't demand that the nations largest outdoors show be shut down. They just didn't go. If GLAAD had just said we won't watch Duck Dynasty and called for a boycott of it as they have done countless other times (Dr. Laura, for example) there wouldn't have been the backlash. It was the calling of the "jihad" that smacks of bullying.

Exactly as I predicted.

There is a "fish in the barrel" aspect to this isn't there?

We're running out of fish.

Sad that you're so blinded by your smugness that you don't see you're the fish.