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

[TemplarKormac]

CC, you'll live. I invite you to say something productive, or leave.

 

[The T]

So thats a yes or a slippery non answer because you cant answer?

It's because I refuse to take trolls like you seriously.

So now you're doing the girl thing where you dont like me so that clouds your judgement about everything I say.

You're so upset that if I said the sky was blue you'd say I was abusing you

Originally Posted by Foxfyre
Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Congrats this means nothing

^^YOUR WORDS...now why?

 

[ClosedCaption]

CC, you'll live. I invite you to say something productive, or leave.

Concession noted

 

[The T]

CC, you'll live. I invite you to say something productive, or leave.

Concession noted

Congrats this means nothing

Care to explain your words to Foxy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

CC, you'll live. I invite you to say something productive, or leave.

Concession noted

What concession? Is there food involved?

 

[bendog]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, I took Phil's comment to be more bizarre (in keeping with his entire life) than hateful or intolerant. The entire Robinson schtick is based on the premise of it's ok to be different. A&E has a right to be concerned about its advertising base, but if I were to bet, I'd bet this was more a flap (hah) that will vanish into thin air.

However, as to the OP, I'd merely note (with respect) that anyone who acts with intolerance towards another's presonal lifestyle has no reason to expect any tolerance from those whom he/she has intentionally offended? Jesus opined on turning the other cheek, but he also kicked out the money lenders from the Temple because he was offended.

Jesus's 'turning the other cheek' was more in line with the defiinition of true tolerance. A form of forgiveness. As for the money changers, Jesus was not reacting in a physical way to bad speech. He never did that. He was reacting to bad ACTS that were hurting people. A huge difference between those two things. A distinction that many of our friends don't seem to be able to make.

The OP does not pertain to bad ACTS. It does not pertain to any effort to hinder any person's ability to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. We are NOT talking about manifested discrimination here.

We are talking about a person being allowed to be who and what he is, including speaking his/her opinions, without fear that some angry group or mob with use that as an excuse to physically or materially harm him.

The right to be who and what they are is what the gay and lesbian community has been rightfully lobbying to achieve for generations now. And for the most part they have achieved their goal. But the irony is that a group like GLAAD is now not willing to allow the same right to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who expresses an opinion they don't share. They are not willing to allow him to be unmolested when he is who and what he is. And that is just plain wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his exception that I will be civil?

Being civil means you walk away.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

That's because the OP is built on an invented false premise that was specifically designed to impugn liberals.

 

[Montrovant]

He [Robertson] has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

That is true, and his cable network is going to regret their decision to put him on hiatus until it has all blown over. Nothing will ever be the same, if and when, he returns for new episodes. The internal damage has been done. The Robertson's are a proud family.

I don't know. If A&E does decide to blow off GLAAD and reinstate Phil, I think the good press they would get from a lot of us would pretty well smooth out the damage done. And I believe the Robertsons would forgive and forget because I think it is their nature to do so. From what I've read, Duck Dynasty's contract with A&E will not allow them to set up shop somewhere else right away; however, A&E already has a full season of Duck Dynasty, Phil included, in the can now so the program will almost certainly run for quite awhile longer.

But again, as I have said, before, A&E has every right to make whatever business decisions they see as being in their best interest. I do not fault them for that.

My only quarrel is in an organized and well funded and powerful activist group demanding that Phil Robertson be physically and/or materially harmed for no reason other than that he expressed an opinion that they didn't like. That is intolerance to the level of being evil.

If GLAAD truly felt they had been defamed, wouldn't it have been more logical to protest GQ Magazine publishing the intereview? But GQ is pro-gay and very liberal and therefore a 'friend' to organizations like GLAAD. So GLAAD was not the least bit concerned about 'defamation'. They had the power to hurt somebody for no better reason than they didn't like an opinion somebody expressed. And they used it. And that is evil no matter who gets targeted no matter what race, religion, ethnicity, or sociopolitical affiliation.

I'm getting a bit confused as to your position Foxy.

Are you opposed to boycotts? Is your problem that GLAAD would try to get Robertson fired, or that it was GLAAD, a 'well funded and powerful activist group'? If an individual disagreed with his statements in the GQ interview and, say, wrote a letter to A&E asking them to fire him, would that be evil? Or is the evil not in the intent but in the power behind the intent?

Was GLAAD being intolerant of Robertson's intolerance? Are you, in turn, being intolerant of their intolerance of his intolerance?

 

[The T]

cc, you'll live. I invite you to say something productive, or leave.

Concession noted

congrats this means nothing

care to explain your words to foxy?

*ahem*

 

[ClosedCaption]

CC, you'll live. I invite you to say something productive, or leave.

Concession noted

Congrats this means nothing

Care to explain your words to Foxy?

Sure I did 2 pages back

Congrats this means nothing

So does this^

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

 

[The T]

That is true, and his cable network is going to regret their decision to put him on hiatus until it has all blown over. Nothing will ever be the same, if and when, he returns for new episodes. The internal damage has been done. The Robertson's are a proud family.

I don't know. If A&E does decide to blow off GLAAD and reinstate Phil, I think the good press they would get from a lot of us would pretty well smooth out the damage done. And I believe the Robertsons would forgive and forget because I think it is their nature to do so. From what I've read, Duck Dynasty's contract with A&E will not allow them to set up shop somewhere else right away; however, A&E already has a full season of Duck Dynasty, Phil included, in the can now so the program will almost certainly run for quite awhile longer.

But again, as I have said, before, A&E has every right to make whatever business decisions they see as being in their best interest. I do not fault them for that.

My only quarrel is in an organized and well funded and powerful activist group demanding that Phil Robertson be physically and/or materially harmed for no reason other than that he expressed an opinion that they didn't like. That is intolerance to the level of being evil.

If GLAAD truly felt they had been defamed, wouldn't it have been more logical to protest GQ Magazine publishing the intereview? But GQ is pro-gay and very liberal and therefore a 'friend' to organizations like GLAAD. So GLAAD was not the least bit concerned about 'defamation'. They had the power to hurt somebody for no better reason than they didn't like an opinion somebody expressed. And they used it. And that is evil no matter who gets targeted no matter what race, religion, ethnicity, or sociopolitical affiliation.

I'm getting a bit confused as to your position Foxy.

Are you opposed to boycotts? Is your problem that GLAAD would try to get Robertson fired, or that it was GLAAD, a 'well funded and powerful activist group'? If an individual disagreed with his statements in the GQ interview and, say, wrote a letter to A&E asking them to fire him, would that be evil? Or is the evil not in the intent but in the power behind the intent?

Was GLAAD being intolerant of Robertson's intolerance? Are you, in turn, being intolerant of their intolerance of his intolerance?

Tolerence/Intolerence. Second Amendment stuff...like using intimidation to get people to shut up...costing them their job...you know that which is rampant in our society right now...that flies in the face of the Second Amendment...Robbing liberty by coercion, intimidation...for forced acceptance...

 

[bendog]

Personally, I took Phil's comment to be more bizarre (in keeping with his entire life) than hateful or intolerant. The entire Robinson schtick is based on the premise of it's ok to be different. A&E has a right to be concerned about its advertising base, but if I were to bet, I'd bet this was more a flap (hah) that will vanish into thin air.

However, as to the OP, I'd merely note (with respect) that anyone who acts with intolerance towards another's presonal lifestyle has no reason to expect any tolerance from those whom he/she has intentionally offended? Jesus opined on turning the other cheek, but he also kicked out the money lenders from the Temple because he was offended.

Jesus's 'turning the other cheek' was more in line with the defiinition of true tolerance. A form of forgiveness. As for the money changers, Jesus was not reacting in a physical way to bad speech. He never did that. He was reacting to bad ACTS that were hurting people. A huge difference between those two things. A distinction that many of our friends don't seem to be able to make.

The OP does not pertain to bad ACTS. It does not pertain to any effort to hinder any person's ability to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. We are NOT talking about manifested discrimination here.

We are talking about a person being allowed to be who and what he is, including speaking his/her opinions, without fear that some angry group or mob with use that as an excuse to physically or materially harm him.

The right to be who and what they are is what the gay and lesbian community has been rightfully lobbying to achieve for generations now. And for the most part they have achieved their goal. But the irony is that a group like GLAAD is now not willing to allow the same right to a Phil Robertson or anybody else who expresses an opinion they don't share. They are not winning to allow him to be unmolested when he is who and what he is. And that is just plain wrong.

OK, perhaps I misunderstood. If you're making a distinction between the bakers in Oregon (I think) who refused to do biz with the gay/lesbian wedding couple, and a guy like Phil who is merely spouting his beliefs (bizarre though they may be), then I do see a distinction.

Also, I don't think Phil was intentionally dissing anyone's lifestyle. He was just saying it doesn't work for him. He should have that right, although he exchanged much of his expectation for privacy and free speech for money. All people in the public light do that .... left and right.

I apologize for the Jesus allusion. They can be used to make any point, and I know better than to use them in politics.

 

[The T]

Concession noted

Care to explain your words to Foxy?

Sure I did 2 pages back

So does this^

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

Fine. Do YOU condone it? Appears you do...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

That's because the OP is built on an invented false premise that was specifically designed to impugn liberals.

You're paranoid.

 

[The T]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

EASY. Ignore their ignorance...YOU know you aren't. Show by example. TURN the other cheek...move on...

 

[The T]

Well, in an attempt to be positive, here's what confuses me as to the OP. Suppose someone calls me "a fag." What is his expection that I will be civil?

That's because the OP is built on an invented false premise that was specifically designed to impugn liberals.

You're paranoid.

He's projecting as well.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Care to explain your words to Foxy?

Sure I did 2 pages back

By your use of the words "so does" it indicates that my words mean nothing either except Fox received thanks for saying nothing.

I was merely pointing out that if you dont accept intolerance then she believes that is intolerance. Basically there is no right or wrong because if you take a side you yourself are showing a negative trait which is intolerance.

So you cant judge, you cant express disagreement...basically its a PC mexican standoff and its bullshit.

Agree?

Fine. Do YOU condone it? Appears you do...

Condone what? The Standoff?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whether she did nor not, threatening violence is criminal and is counter to our standards as a society.

Indeed. But nobody ever said or implied anything of the sort.

So, it was nycarbineer's hyperbole?

No it was fact. I was referring to this Foxfyre quote:

"I think what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson SHOULD be illegal. It SHOULD be considered sufficiently wrong that it should be against the law to intentionally target somebody and attempt to materially harm them for nothing more than expressing an opinion that somebody didn't agree with."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8338573-post437.html

And the first definition of 'deem' is:

1. to form or have an opinion; judge; think:

So shut up until you have something intelligent and honest to say.