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

[Foxfyre]

Is a boycott never an attempt to harm someone financially?

Is it perfectly reasonable to harm someone financially as long as it's done indirectly?

Viewers may not have a direct financial impact, but their indirect impact can be substantial. That is generally the point behind a boycott, isn't it? To try and get a person/company to change based on financial impact, be it a direct one (people stop buying a product) or indirect (loss of viewership causes sponsors to leave)?

No, not always.

What of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was that an attempt by civil rights supporters to harm the the Montgomery Transit System? Yes and no. Yes, because if I recall, transit systems back then relied on a combination of taxes and fares. Not only could their point be made through money, but in principle as well. No, because what happened to Rosa Parks was an act of blatant discrimination because of her skin color. That boycott lasted 381 days, until December of 1956.

Should a boycott of that nature be deemed unethical, or seminal?

Compare that to this case. A man quotes from Corinthians 6:9-11. He states on an interview that he believes homosexuality is sinful. A militant gay rights group goes on call with the executives of A&E to ask that this man be suspended. A&E agrees, and based on it's perfectly good right to do so, they suspend him. Lets stop right there.
What stopped GLAAD from simply organizing a boycott of their own? What stopped them from merely changing the channel? Instead they chose to make a spectacle out of him. That is the unethicality which Fox speaks, this sets a terrible precedent that could ultimately be adopted by our government (which I believe has already done so).

Continuing on. As news of this suspension spreads, millions of people across America (including homosexuals and liberals) voice their displeasure of this suspension. Many of the view this as an attack on him for expressing himself. They naturally feel displeased at the prospect of the show not having it's full compliment of stars on screen. So they boycott the network. Are they wanting to do harm to them? Yes, simply because they suspended the man for his opinion. They were speaking out against the egregious display of intolerance shown by the network. Ethically speaking, it is wrong to boycott someone for doing something well within their rights to do. This applies to both sides.

I think I may be grasping what Fox is trying to get at here.

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

Ethically wrong to personally boycott them because you don't like A&E? No. Ethically wrong to formally ORGANIZE a boycott for the specific purpose of physically or materially injuring A&E to force them to adopt a particular point of view. Yes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

About what? Your grey area(s)? Right is right, wrong is wrong. All depends on how you were brought up...is the course of liberty too strong to be understood?

Do you see why this is bull now?

I've presented the same thing to you, Templar and Fox and everytime I get a response like "What about it?"

This logic cannot be explained..Someone can be for liberty and still judge a child molester as being immoral cant they?

Or do I have to be tolerant of child molesters too now in this environment?

You and Templar are the last ones I thought would be on the PC police payroll but when its offensive to you its different it seems

I repeat the premise. Mr. Robertson did nothing wrong but to voice his opinion, as YOU have the right to voice yours as YOU do. Are YOU in YOUR RIGHT?

ARE YOU right in placing limitations?

"WHAT ABOUT IT"?

I agree he did nothing wrong but people including A&E didnt like it.

Does A&E HAVE to be silent?

That seems to be the only choice. Dont say nothing or else.

This is reminiscent of "Being for the terrorist" whenever someone would suggest maybe we shouldnt bomb schools or torture people. Its the same PC guilt your trying to throw onto people

 

[WillReadmore]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!



Good Lord!



He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

Such as? I need examples if I'm going to agree or disagree with you.

If you mean be fired: it is a slippery slope we trod when one form of speech is protected while others are punished. There are protections in law that prevent religious discrimination.

Getting fired by an entertainment or advertising employer is quite commonplace. These employers have clauses covering that stuff, as the value of the employee can be impacted so seriously by that employee's behavior in public.

And, demonstrations, boycotts, counter statements in the press, appeals to employers, and all sorts of other behavior is protected by the 1st amendment. That protection is not specific to the idiot on Duck Dynasty.

I see nothing in this case that amounts to "religious discrimination", so I have no idea what you're talking about on that one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

If you would limit yourself to intelligent and honest, you'd never post again.

FF was saying that when you threaten to go after a person's livelihood by trying to drive them completely out of public life, you go beyond reasonable rebuke. That's what GLAAD was doing and that's what is different from all the examples you offered.

So an interest group that tries to drive an elected official out of public life is acting unreasonably.

Ok, tell that to the NRA. OR, for our entertainment, give us a wacky explanation as to why that's not what you meant.

 

[The T]

What if I say that it is the ACT of the CEO publishing their opinion that I am opposed to? Not that the CEO holds whatever opinion, but that they put it out in a magazine article? If I feel that having an opinion is fine, discussing it is fine, but am against publishing it?

Or put another way, if you knew that Nestle wanted to use an unethical marketing strategy but did not only because they could not legally get away with it, why is a boycott against them evil?

I think it would be worse to limit legal boycotts to what you or anyone else decides is an acceptable reason than to have boycotts based solely on a person's opinion. As TK said, boycotts are a form of expression. They are a way of saying, "I don't like XXXX about this company. I don't think they should be supported. I will try to convince others to agree with me.". You seem to be advocating suppressing someone's opinion in order to keep them from suppressing someone's opinion.

Let me ask this : Would you consider it evil if someone organized a movement to say that Nestle is bad because of the CEO's opinion if they didn't call for people to stop buying their products? Is it only the direct call to financially harm the company/CEO that is evil, or is it the intent? One could, with the proper resources, probably do great harm to a company financially without ever actually asking anyone to stop buying/viewing their product.

The idea of making a boycott illegal based on the reasoning behind the boycott is, to me, going against the very principle of people being free to express themselves.

What is publishing but speech? Does it matter what it was except that is void by law that could kill someone? Rob them of their life, liberty, pursuit of property? A kin to yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre where no such condition exists...and people get maimed/killed thus impeding their liberty...Responsibility.

Mr. Robertson meets the criteria no matter if you, me or the guy next to read this thread agrees with it. He took no liberty from anyone.

WE are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness per the Constitution. WE are not guaranteed NOT to be offended.

It is interesting who the targets became too. A&E had absolutely nothing to do with that interview other than consenting to it. And, according to what I have read and heard reported, they DID consent to it. Phil Robertson answered questions that he was asked by the GQ interviewer and then GQ edited the final article to be published in the magazine.

If ANYBODY is to blame for what got published, it was GQ. And yet so far they have been left out of the discussion. No demands. No boycotts. No organized protest of any kind.

That makes GLAAD's unconscionable and hateful assault on Phil Robertson all the more reprehensible. It obviously is not what he said that has them all riled up, but it is who and what he is. And that is the worst and most evil kind of intolerance.

Yep. They made him an example...Robertson became a tool...and good for him for NOT recanting.

 

[The T]

Do you see why this is bull now?

I've presented the same thing to you, Templar and Fox and everytime I get a response like "What about it?"

This logic cannot be explained..Someone can be for liberty and still judge a child molester as being immoral cant they?

Or do I have to be tolerant of child molesters too now in this environment?

You and Templar are the last ones I thought would be on the PC police payroll but when its offensive to you its different it seems

I repeat the premise. Mr. Robertson did nothing wrong but to voice his opinion, as YOU have the right to voice yours as YOU do. Are YOU in YOUR RIGHT?

ARE YOU right in placing limitations?

"WHAT ABOUT IT"?

I agree he did nothing wrong but people including A&E didnt like it.

Does A&E HAVE to be silent?

That seems to be the only choice. Dont say nothing or else.

This is reminiscent of "Being for the terrorist" whenever someone would suggest maybe we shouldnt bomb schools or torture people. Its the same PC guilt your trying to throw onto people

NO A&E can DO whatever they like. Their network...but I wouldn't count on as much viewership as they once had. AH! The price of liberty. It's a two-way street. ALWAYS has been that way. And NO it doesn't have to be that way. A&E CHOSE to do what they did...

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, not always.

What of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Was that an attempt by civil rights supporters to harm the the Montgomery Transit System? Yes and no. Yes, because if I recall, transit systems back then relied on a combination of taxes and fares. Not only could their point be made through money, but in principle as well. No, because what happened to Rosa Parks was an act of blatant discrimination because of her skin color. That boycott lasted 381 days, until December of 1956.

Should a boycott of that nature be deemed unethical, or seminal?

Compare that to this case. A man quotes from Corinthians 6:9-11. He states on an interview that he believes homosexuality is sinful. A militant gay rights group goes on call with the executives of A&E to ask that this man be suspended. A&E agrees, and based on it's perfectly good right to do so, they suspend him. Lets stop right there.
What stopped GLAAD from simply organizing a boycott of their own? What stopped them from merely changing the channel? Instead they chose to make a spectacle out of him. That is the unethicality which Fox speaks, this sets a terrible precedent that could ultimately be adopted by our government (which I believe has already done so).

Continuing on. As news of this suspension spreads, millions of people across America (including homosexuals and liberals) voice their displeasure of this suspension. Many of the view this as an attack on him for expressing himself. They naturally feel displeased at the prospect of the show not having it's full compliment of stars on screen. So they boycott the network. Are they wanting to do harm to them? Yes, simply because they suspended the man for his opinion. They were speaking out against the egregious display of intolerance shown by the network. Ethically speaking, it is wrong to boycott someone for doing something well within their rights to do. This applies to both sides.

I think I may be grasping what Fox is trying to get at here.

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

Ethically wrong to personally boycott them because you don't like A&E? No. Ethically wrong to formally ORGANIZE a boycott for the specific purpose of physically or materially injuring A&E to force them to adopt a particular point of view. Yes.

Well, let's start at the top and work down. Let's say some sort of Neo-Nazi white supremacist type organization got their hands on a cable channel and started airing all sorts of anti-semitic propaganda, holocaust denial, etc., etc.,

you're claiming that it would be unethical for Jewish interest groups, for example, to organize boycotts against them?

 

[WillReadmore]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He 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.

Yes, he can say what he wants.

No, he most certainly does not have federal or state protection against ramifications unless those ramifications are in themselves illegal.

There is no reason for allowing the statements this idiot made to be an unopposed part of public discourse. And, the first amendment (and others) allows for a wide range of opportunities for expressing opposition.

 

[Montrovant]

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

Ethically wrong to personally boycott them because you don't like A&E? No. Ethically wrong to formally ORGANIZE a boycott for the specific purpose of physically or materially injuring A&E to force them to adopt a particular point of view. Yes.

What if your personal boycott is for the purpose of financially injuring A&E to convince them to adopt a particular point of view?

What if you personally boycott A&E, publish the fact that you are doing so and think they deserve it, without asking for anyone else to do so, and that leads to many people boycotting? In other words, you don't intentionally organize a boycott but unintentionally cause one by publishing your opinion of A&E.

Is it the intent that is wrong, or is it the act of organizing?

*Just to be clear about this, I think that a)A&E was probably foolish to suspend Robertson. His comments seem to fit the persona pushed by the show, at least the little I've read b)GLAAD getting up in arms about this is silly for basically the same reason.
I've never watched and almost surely will never watch Duck Dynasty. I don't watch 'reality' tv. I don't personally give a damn what he said in his GQ interview.

I'm just trying to understand the points being made and why you and others might feel it is appropriate to suppress certain expression, such as a boycott. I think I can understand the ethical argument, although I tend to disagree with it, but not the legal one.

 

[Foxfyre]

He most certainly does NOT!



Good Lord!



He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

Such as? I need examples if I'm going to agree or disagree with you.

If you mean be fired: it is a slippery slope we trod when one form of speech is protected while others are punished. There are protections in law that prevent religious discrimination.

Getting fired by an entertainment or advertising employer is quite commonplace. These employers have clauses covering that stuff, as the value of the employee can be impacted so seriously by that employee's behavior in public.

And, demonstrations, boycotts, counter statements in the press, appeals to employers, and all sorts of other behavior is protected by the 1st amendment. That protection is not specific to the idiot on Duck Dynasty.

I see nothing in this case that amounts to "religious discrimination", so I have no idea what you're talking about on that one.

I suggest you read the OP and it makes more sense. I have been absolutely 100% consistent that A&E has full right to make any business decision that they deem in their best interest short of trampling on somebody's else's rights. At no time in all of this has my quarrel been with A&E.

I have been absolutely 100% consistent that I do not personally agree with Phil Robertson's interpretation of the Bible or appreciate how he expressed it in that interview.

I have been absolutely 100% consistent that the issue isn't just GLAAD or A&E or Phil Robertson but we have used that example a lot because it is so currently in the news and has raised the consciousness level of the principle involved here. But the principle applies no matter who it is whether it is leftwing or rightwing or Democrat or Republican or whatever.

The issue is that GLAAD wants its members and those it is advocates for to be tolerated for who and what they are. They do not want to be punished physically or materially for stating who and what they are, what they believe, what they want, what they care about. But in this instance, they are not willing to extend the same tolerance to a Phil Robertson and allow him to be who and what he is, state what he believes, what he wants, what he cares about.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I repeat the premise. Mr. Robertson did nothing wrong but to voice his opinion, as YOU have the right to voice yours as YOU do. Are YOU in YOUR RIGHT?

ARE YOU right in placing limitations?

"WHAT ABOUT IT"?

I agree he did nothing wrong but people including A&E didnt like it.

Does A&E HAVE to be silent?

That seems to be the only choice. Dont say nothing or else.

This is reminiscent of "Being for the terrorist" whenever someone would suggest maybe we shouldnt bomb schools or torture people. Its the same PC guilt your trying to throw onto people

NO A&E can DO whatever they like. Their network...but I wouldn't count on as much viewership as they once had. AH! The price of liberty. It's a two-way street. ALWAYS has been that way. And NO it doesn't have to be that way. A&E CHOSE to do what they did...

Now you get it.

So the people who opt not to watch any more are they being intolerant also?

 

[The T]

I agree he did nothing wrong but people including A&E didnt like it.

Does A&E HAVE to be silent?

That seems to be the only choice. Dont say nothing or else.

This is reminiscent of "Being for the terrorist" whenever someone would suggest maybe we shouldnt bomb schools or torture people. Its the same PC guilt your trying to throw onto people

NO A&E can DO whatever they like. Their network...but I wouldn't count on as much viewership as they once had. AH! The price of liberty. It's a two-way street. ALWAYS has been that way. And NO it doesn't have to be that way. A&E CHOSE to do what they did...

Now you get it.

So the people who opt not to watch any more are they being intolerant also?

They are exercising their liberty. Fair enough?

 

[Statistikhengst]

This whole "conservatives are evil, hypocritical and inconsistent" assertion proves her point yet again, since such assertion only applies to conservatives, not liberals. It speaks to your intolerance. You have such a biased view of the world that anyone who holds one view over another is as you described them. You are intolerant, accept it.

Liberals employ the same hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards, too. I can rattle off a list of Christians who have been targeted for their views on homosexuality, yet liberals preach of tolerance. Such behavior indicates a lack of tolerance, an obvious hypocrisy, and a glaring double standard.

When have you seen a liberal defend a conservative's right to free speech with such passion and "frenzied zeal" as they have defended the rights of a black man or a gay man?

Let me help you.

The answer is never.

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Again, I request of you: define "violently". Where are the threats of violence?

 

[The T]

To clarify, are you saying that it is ethically wrong to boycott A&E for suspending Robertson, assuming they had the right to do so?

Ethically wrong to personally boycott them because you don't like A&E? No. Ethically wrong to formally ORGANIZE a boycott for the specific purpose of physically or materially injuring A&E to force them to adopt a particular point of view. Yes.

What if your personal boycott is for the purpose of financially injuring A&E to convince them to adopt a particular point of view?

What if you personally boycott A&E, publish the fact that you are doing so and think they deserve it, without asking for anyone else to do so, and that leads to many people boycotting? In other words, you don't intentionally organize a boycott but unintentionally cause one by publishing your opinion of A&E.

Is it the intent that is wrong, or is it the act of organizing?

*Just to be clear about this, I think that a)A&E was probably foolish to suspend Robertson. His comments seem to fit the persona pushed by the show, at least the little I've read b)GLAAD getting up in arms about this is silly for basically the same reason.
I've never watched and almost surely will never watch Duck Dynasty. I don't watch 'reality' tv. I don't personally give a damn what he said in his GQ interview.

I'm just trying to understand the points being made and why you and others might feel it is appropriate to suppress certain expression, such as a boycott. I think I can understand the ethical argument, although I tend to disagree with it, but not the legal one.

You then have a lot of reading to do on this thread my friend. Joyeaux Noel...

 

[ClosedCaption]

NO A&E can DO whatever they like. Their network...but I wouldn't count on as much viewership as they once had. AH! The price of liberty. It's a two-way street. ALWAYS has been that way. And NO it doesn't have to be that way. A&E CHOSE to do what they did...

Now you get it.

So the people who opt not to watch any more are they being intolerant also?

They are exercising their liberty. Fair enough?

See?

It seems that the intolerant label is only being used by someone who doesnt like the action.

Meaning its subjective. Meaning theres no right or wrong like I said to begin with

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, who is more unethical and intolerant, Mr. Robertson for his opinion, or the Gay employees involved in the show's production who went to A&E and GLAAD to have him suspended? I think this is a new wrinkle people need to consider. And a reaffirmation of one of my thought to be debunked points. A&E acted out of fear. They didn't want to alienate their homosexual employees by not addressing the issue. They suspended the man in the light of purely prima facie evidence.

Phil Robertson disrespected gay employees at A&E ... and THAT'S why he was sacked from "Duck Dynasty" ... sources connected with the network tell TMZ.

We're told A&E CEO Nancy Dubuc felt she could not in good conscience ask gay employees to kill themselves for a show when he disrespected them by calling them sinners.

Our sources say ... gay employees involved in the production -- and there are a number of them -- were outraged by Phil's comments to GQ and wanted Dubuc to give him the ax.

We're told Dubuc felt this way ... If Phil had made similar comments about African Americans or Jews ... there would have been a public outcry for his head. She felt it was just plain wrong not to have the same sense of indignation when the comments were directed at gays.

Our sources say GLAAD was heavily involved in lobbying the network to 86 Phil, and they had an impact.

A&E Didn't Want to Disrespect Gay Employees By Keeping Phil Robertson on 'Duck Dynasty' | TMZ.com

Ms. Dubuc, the CEO of A&E networks, apparently held the same OPINION GLAAD did. Therefore she let that opinion dictate the action she took with Robertson. So, who's the villain here, folks?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I defend your right to free speech, without restrictions of any type at all...

Likewise. But there are some ON BOTH SIDES who don't. Namely the person who thanked your post, carbine, candycorn and Bfgrn. They all react violently to differential opinions. God help someone if they disagree with homosexuality, God help someone if they are a Black Conservative Woman or Man, God help anyone who has not the same opinion as they do or approve of.

Again, I request of you: define "violently". Where are the threats of violence?

You're taking the term too literally. The reaction was volatile, unstable, unrestrained, violent with words not with acts.

 

[The T]

Now you get it.

So the people who opt not to watch any more are they being intolerant also?

They are exercising their liberty. Fair enough?

See?

It seems that the intolerant label is only being used by someone who doesnt like the action.

Meaning its subjective. Meaning theres no right or wrong like I said to begin with

Should having liberty be used to impede the liberty of another with malice?

 

[ClosedCaption]

They are exercising their liberty. Fair enough?

See?

It seems that the intolerant label is only being used by someone who doesnt like the action.

Meaning its subjective. Meaning theres no right or wrong like I said to begin with

Should having liberty be used to impede the liberty of another with malice?

I dont know, are the people who will stop watching A&E doing so to impede the liberty of another with Malice?

 

[Statistikhengst]

How does someone else's opinion on this issue affect your relationship with your circle of friends and family? If it affects that at all, then you need to reexamine your relationships. Personally, I think gay people should definitely marry one another. The old gay lifestyle was doing nothing but spreading disease. The fact that they caught on to this and have done something to change it is admirable. And second, gays marrying one another saves some other person the heartbreak of learning that their spouse is on the down low. To marry someone of the opposite sex when you know you are gay is unconscionable. But that is what many did before the 80s.

Does all of what I said above mean that I think being gay is righteous and holy? No, not at all. And I have as much right to say that as they have to do their thing. It is also unconscionable for a person or persons to take away the livelihood of someone who does not share the popular beliefs of the day.

People on this forum who are not Christians have no problem throwing the Bible up to the Christians. Well, here's a flash: Jesus did not conform to the PC thinking of His day. And He was clearly not 'tolerated.' So what has changed since then? Apparently nothing. If leftists can't legally take Robertson's life, then they will take his livelihood. But we all know, you all would kill him if you could.

Now, it should be noted that GLAAD is whining about the 'backlash' and angry emails and letters. So sad. Too bad. They claim to believe in the 'live and let live' philosophy. They should have stuck with it. I don't know what A&E or the Robertson family will do. But Cracker Barrel has put all the DD stuff back on the shelves because of the backlash. Money talks and it talks VERY loudly sometimes.

Gays aren't the only people with rights. And nowhere do the laws of our nation state that American citizens are required to approve of them. They don't want 'tolerance.' They want 100% unopposed approval. Well, here's another flash: As long as there are Christians who believe what the Bible has to say on they matter, they will not get it.

A huge amount of untrue bullshit in that one, which is not all too surprising, considering the vile source.

The boldeds are a clue.

You just accused Progressives of wanting to be murderers. That is not true.

If a non-christian asks about a passage from the Christian Bible or challenges an interpretation, that is "not" throwing the bible in Christians' faces. That is called adult discussion. Maybe one day, when you finally emotionally become an adult, you will understand this.


So, since you are saying that boycotts because you don't agree with someone is unconscionable, I assume that you want to condemn a great number of Christian pastors who have called for the boycotting of companies that are gay friendly in their company policies. How many "Christians" called for boycotts of Starbucks Coffee? Are you also condeming this, or is your faux outrage only aimed at non-christians.

With all that work you do broadbrushing other people, I bet your hands get really tired.