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

[The T]

The Montgomery Bus Boycott apparently never should've happened because its wrong to be intolerant of intolerance

welcome to crazy land

It's a very short trip from outlawing a worker's right to strike since it deprives the owner of income.

Worker's RIGHT to what?

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

 

[Vox]

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)?

There's nothing wrong with a boycott in and of itself. When people stop buying or using the goods or services of a certain company or country as a protest, it can get attention. However, when the attempt is not a boycott but is, instead, an attempt to completely silence people by driving them out of public life, that's a different thing and is intolerant.

what they fail to understand is that boycott of individuals, is a realization of the free will of the individuals. The behind the scenes threats of a corporation ( which GLAAD is) is illegal and can fell under the harassment laws.
Should GLAAD put a request to it's supporters - let's boycott A&E because they hire PR or let's not but DD stuff, or let's not go to Cracker Barrel restaurant - that is OK, it is a public request to INDIVIDUALS to express their opinion.
Calling the CEO of the A&E and threatening them or putting pressure otherwise - is evil and should be criminal ( it might be) s well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and personal insults to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

Agreed.

The only recourse I have is to place a few people on my ignore list for the preservation of this thread. I will not name names but they will come off after this thread has run its course.

 

[Vox]

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?

you can CALL him whatever you feel like is appropriate - but you do not have the right, unless you are an intolerant bigot, to engage in persecuting the guy who just called you a word.
Big fucking deal. a word

You weren't very kind to the Tea Party in that moment. Tsk, tsk.
That is going to leave a mark. Ouch.

link.

to the examples where Tea Party exemplifies the bolded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

I would have hoped that, after your poor performance yesterday, you'd come in a bit more prepared today. But, you aren't.

Those aren't Phil Robertson's own words. He was reading a passage from the Bible, specifically Romans 1:26-32. Anything else?

Hardly.

Romans I:26 - 32 says this:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Robertson was not reading from a Bible, no other version btw either.

If you acknowledge you were wrong and apologize to me for your assholedness, I'll tell you why it matter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

you can CALL him whatever you feel like is appropriate - but you do not have the right, unless you are an intolerant bigot, to engage in persecuting the guy who just called you a word.
Big fucking deal. a word

You weren't very kind to the Tea Party in that moment. Tsk, tsk.
That is going to leave a mark. Ouch.

link.

to the examples where Tea Party exemplifies the bolded.

Come on Vox, T... lets all be nice to Fox and not get her threat trashed, okay? Please ignore carbine, candycorn CC and stat for now. I beg you.

 

[Vox]

No, your arguments stand on contention. Nothing more. Actually, my opinions are more than opinions, carbine. I've debated theology, ethics, philosophy, and history with a good number of people here. I remember thumping you twice in this thread already.

I've refuted your argument many different ways, but you chose to ignore it and persisted in making your unwarranted claims about the author of this OP. You have been attacking her incessantly all day, not once have you debated her seriously. You've been indignant, uppity, and self-righteous.

A say-so is not an argument.

Show how I compared FF to Hitler. Do it in detail, mr. debater.

Excuse me, but haven't you been "saying so" all day?

"You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words."

When you referred to Hitler as a "big talker" you meant Fox also. You accused her of being a big talker and of being a fraud. Hitler was inherently evil and megalomaniacal

You've crossed two lines today:

One, you've attacked a good woman today, who has not responded in kind to your childishness.

Two, you've compared her to a mass murderer, you've dubbed her "evil" and have been in no uncertain terms unapologetic and unremorseful. You don't like others calling you a liar, but you don't mind calling others liars. You don't like to have your image tarnished by anyone, yet you take to slandering others.

"Humility for thee, but not for me" in other words.

Actually what Hitler was doing to the Jews was not widely publicized at all. Plus it was not only Jews - there were other groups of people which just started to disappear.
It is one of the myths of the uneducated left that everybody in Germany knew what was happening and what was going on.
Totalitarian societies are very secretive, especially on their crimes.
People learn, but not from the open sources. The press in such societies does not discuss the problems but hails the achievements.

Much like our lame stream media with obama just kidding. lame stream media as lame as they are are not even close to what happens to the press under totalitarian regime.

 

[Vox]

You weren't very kind to the Tea Party in that moment. Tsk, tsk.
That is going to leave a mark. Ouch.

link.

to the examples where Tea Party exemplifies the bolded.

Come on Vox, T... lets all be nice to Fox and not get her threat trashed, okay? Please ignore carbine, candycorn CC and stat for now. I beg you.

It was neither of them - it was Stat whom two pages ago I considered ADEQUATE

but I'll try

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

You keep trying to coerce people into posting in a certain style that suits you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Not very tolerant of you.

 

[The T]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and personal insults to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

Agreed.

The only recourse I have is to place a few people on my ignore list for the preservation of this thread. I will not name names but they will come off after this thread has run its course.

Ditto. It's difficult...

 

[TemplarKormac]

link.

to the examples where Tea Party exemplifies the bolded.

Come on Vox, T... lets all be nice to Fox and not get her threat trashed, okay? Please ignore carbine, candycorn CC and stat for now. I beg you.

It was neither of them - it was Data whom two pages ago I considered ADEQUATE

Data?

You mean this guy?

 

[The T]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

You keep trying to coerce people into posting in a certain style that suits you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Not very tolerant of you.

It's her thread and she's requested it many times by matter of good form. Respect.

All there is to it. Have a Merry Christmas none the less Carbo.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, your arguments stand on contention. Nothing more. Actually, my opinions are more than opinions, carbine. I've debated theology, ethics, philosophy, and history with a good number of people here. I remember thumping you twice in this thread already.

I've refuted your argument many different ways, but you chose to ignore it and persisted in making your unwarranted claims about the author of this OP. You have been attacking her incessantly all day, not once have you debated her seriously. You've been indignant, uppity, and self-righteous.

A say-so is not an argument.

Show how I compared FF to Hitler. Do it in detail, mr. debater.

Excuse me, but haven't you been "saying so" all day?

"You pretend that words alone are harmless. Hitler was little more than a big talker before he eventually came to power and could 'act out' his words."

When you referred to Hitler as a "big talker" you meant Fox also. You accused her of being a big talker and of being a fraud. Hitler was inherently evil and megalomaniacal

You've crossed two lines today:

One, you've attacked a good woman today, who has not responded in kind to your childishness.

Two, you've compared her to a mass murderer, you've dubbed her "evil" and have been in no uncertain terms unapologetic and unremorseful. You don't like others calling you a liar, but you don't mind calling others liars. You don't like to have your image tarnished by anyone, yet you take to slandering others.

"Humility for thee, but not for me" in other words.

No, I was referring to FF's repeated assure that objecting to someone just talking is evil. Her point being that we have no business bothering someone who's just talking.

Hitler was just talking.

"The pen is mightier than the sword." Ever heard that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

You keep trying to coerce people into posting in a certain style that suits you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Not very tolerant of you.

It's her thread and she's requested it many times by matter of good form. Respect.

All there is to it. Have a Merry Christmas none the less Carbo.

There is another sub-forum for more civil debate.

And Merry Christmas to you and all the little T's.

 

[Gracie]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

You keep trying to coerce people into posting in a certain style that suits you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Not very tolerant of you.

She doesn't want the thread to wind up in the basement. Is it that hard to understand? While in a restaurant, do you make it a habit of listening on conversations then going to the table where the conversation is taking place and eating off their plates, spitting in their drinks, and getting all up in their faces? Probably not. So why is it considered ok to do that in a thread where the person asked politely to PLEASE discuss, not spit in the water pitcher?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

You keep trying to coerce people into posting in a certain style that suits you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Not very tolerant of you.

She doesn't want the thread to wind up in the basement. Is it that hard to understand? While in a restaurant, do you make it a habit of listening on conversations then going to the table where the conversation is taking place and eating off their plates, spitting in their drinks, and getting all up in their faces? Probably not. So why is it considered ok to do that in a thread where the person asked politely to PLEASE discuss, not spit in the water pitcher?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay guys, I'm once again asking you to respect the request made in the OP that we be civil. Please take your personal insults and cat and dog fights and side topics to the Flame Zone before you get this thread busted to there.

Surely there are enough grown ups at USMB to discuss what is and what is not tolerance without ragging on each other? It is almost Christmas. Let's show some good will here.

You keep trying to coerce people into posting in a certain style that suits you. Shouldn't that be illegal?

Not very tolerant of you.

She doesn't want the thread to wind up in the basement. Is it that hard to understand? While in a restaurant, do you make it a habit of listening on conversations then going to the table where the conversation is taking place and eating off their plates, spitting in their drinks, and getting all up in their faces? Probably not. So why is it considered ok to do that in a thread where the person asked politely to PLEASE discuss, not spit in the water pitcher?

I can't reply because discussing mod policy on the board is against the rules.

 

[Sunshine]

So you are intolerant of my decision?



My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.

There is nothing left to say after that.

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.

To the bolded - I didn't say it did. I said I do not want to be friends with someone who agrees with the things Phil said.

Of course it goes without saying that TK had been in a manic episode for many hours by that point, and undiagnosed, untreated people have a tendency to trigger me.

You are not qualified to diagnose anything.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

I agree. This person, unlike the one who said Palin should have her mouth defecated in, did not name or indicate any particular person. He spoke a generic belief which many people also do and will continue to hold. Basically, what he did was the equivalent of saying, 'it is wrong to steal.'

If there are people out there who want to be activists about it, they will do so. But they need to recognize that there are people out there who will be activists back.

GLAAD is not 'asking for tolerance.' GLAAD is DEMANDING approval.