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

[Sunshine]

Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)

But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:

Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page

'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes

Depriving someone of their livelihood can certainly be a crime as well as a tort.

 

[Sunshine]

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

Which parts are 'ignored?' Just wonderin'.

 

[Sunshine]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

Whose livelihood did they take?

The restaurant and entertainment industry needs to stay out of politics. They aren't good at it.

 

[1776]

Liberals are only for FREE speech for themselves.

This apparent in the media, college campuses, etc.

On college campuses they shout down conservative speakers even attack them on stage.

In the media they defend "Christ in Piss" paid for by taxpayers but then get offended with that Duck guy says anal sex between gay men is disgusting.

Liberals are just piles of shit, that is all.

 

[Sunshine]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

You have just described the law of supply and demand.

 

[Sunshine]

1. what basis could GLAAD possibly have for a lawsuit.

2. when did objecting to a cable channel's content rise to the level of a crime?

1. Who knows? Maybe they'd try a defamation suit of some kind. But, what they would also do is use such a suit, even if it were frivolous, to bash A&E again and again and again. Obviously A&E didn't want to face it.

2. When it become harassment...such as "researching" to ensure than anyone who has used Robertson as a spokesman would be contacted and possibly intimidated into not giving him work. You've never addressed how that's tolerant.

There is no lawsuit without a tortfeasor. And because no particular person was named, there is no tortfeasor.

Robertson has rights just like every other American. It will be interesting in the coming days to see how he and his family handle all this.

 

[Dot Com]

intolerance? When someone who is employed by A & E goes out of their way to demonize millions of Americans? You bet.A & E, any statin for that matter, is about generating ad revenue & when one of their current stars demonizes a sizeable portion of the population, they will take their eyes & wallets elsewhere. A & E knows this.

 

[Gracie]

Everything and everyone is getting wacko over this. Friendships end, enemies made, threats of violence, businesses folding, shows ending.....oy.

When opinions start to become physical and garner such things....you know things aren't good and will only escalate.

It's pretty damn sad.

 

[1776]

Freedom of speech to talk about your gay anal sex being disgusting.

Oh, but scum like you think Americans should be forced to fund "Christ in Piss" like art....

intolerance? When someone who is employed by A & E goes out of their way to demonize millions of Americans? You bet.

 

[Vox]

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?

I punched the keyboard in a hurry :blush:

 

[TemplarKormac]

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

You have just described the law of supply and demand.

Indeed. But somehow certain others deem it a criminal enterprise. Or should I say bigoted.

 

[Dot Com]

one party has a "Base" that lives by the credo the hater espoused. Guess which party that is?

 

[Foxfyre]

One last time, the next person that goes railing against conservatives or liberals, I'm going to SCREAM. This thread is not about that.

It is not a matter of being gay
Or being Christian
Or being partisan
It is not about whether something is constitutional or legal
It is not about free speech
It is not about business decisions
It is not about who else does it or who started it or who did it first

This is a matter of tolerance. The right to be who or what we are without fear of some angry group or mob or organization demanding that we be physically or materially harmed.

Who among us will say that gay and lesbian people or any other demongraphic should not enjoy the right to be who and what they are without fear that an angry group or mob or organization will demand that they be physically or materially harmed?

And who among us will say that Phil Robertson or any other Christian or any other person should not enjoy the right to be who and what they are without fear of some angry group or mob or organization demand that they be physically or materially harmed?

Could we please focus on those two questions?

 

[Vox]

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?

Except that is NOT TRUE.
Hitler was not talking at all.
he was doing instead.
Silently.
There was no publicity to what he was doing at all.

 

[1776]

Strange....I don't recall liberal speakers being physically attacked on college campuses.

We understand you never stepped foot on a college campus (reject), but I will let you know that conservatives get attacked all the time. So much for your bullshit, shitstain.

one party has a "Base" that lives by the credo the hater espoused. Guess which party that is?

 

[TemplarKormac]

intolerance? When someone who is employed by A & E goes out of their way to demonize millions of Americans? You bet.A & E, any statin for that matter, is about generating ad revenue & when one of their current stars demonizes a sizeable portion of the population, they will take their eyes & wallets elsewhere. A & E knows this.

Huh? What? He went "out of his way"? To do what exactly? Those millions of people disagree with your assertion that he demonized anyone, actually.

 

[1776]

The Duck guy just gave his opinion in an interview on various subjects, whereas that British piece of shit on msnbc said live on the air in a script that Palin should be forced to eat feces.

There is a big difference.

 

[Mac1958]

One last time, the next person that goes railing against conservatives or liberals, I'm going to SCREAM. This thread is not about that.

It is not a matter of being gay
Or being Christian
Or being partisan
It is not about whether something is constitutional or legal
It is not about free speech
It is not about business decisions
It is not about who else does it or who started it or who did it first

This is a matter of tolerance. The right to be who or what we are without fear of some angry group or mob or organization demanding that we be physically or materially harmed.

Who among us will say that gay and lesbian people should not enjoy the right to be who and what they are without fear that an angry group or mob or organization will demand that they be physically or materially harmed?

And who among us will say that Phil Robertson or any other Christian or any other person should not enjoy the right to be who and what they are without fear of some angry group or mob or organization demand that they be physically or materially harmed?

Could we please focus on those two questions?

They're having to pretend a few things:

1. That the only argument here is about the First Amendment, which is untrue.
2. That the only argument here is about the guy's contract with the network, which is untrue.
3. That they have no choice but to, when "offended", punish the offender, which is a lie and they know it.

.

 

[Gracie]

intolerance? When someone who is employed by A & E goes out of their way to demonize millions of Americans? You bet.A & E, any statin for that matter, is about generating ad revenue & when one of their current stars demonizes a sizeable portion of the population, they will take their eyes & wallets elsewhere. A & E knows this.

Pardon me, but....those "millions" also have their own shows. Like, Project Runway...most of whom are gay designers; Tim Gunn, who is having his own show soon (I just love Tim); RuPauls Drag Race, etc etc etc. I don't see, nor hear, of people going after them. I see courts for gay marriages. I see the LGBT community getting support from straights. I SAW progress. Little at a time, but PROGRESS. Until GLAAD threw a wrench in the oiled machine.

I read today about a woman who made cookies for the past 15 years for the bus driver that drove her kids to school...and the students in that bus. 15 years she has done this. Until ONE person complained. She got a cease and desist from the school due to ONE complaint. So..no more cookies for the students. No more cookies for the bus driver. All it takes to destroy something is ONE person. In the DD situation..it took a (What I firmly belive now was a setup) group called GLAAD to make all that progress....slide back down hill.

Shit. This is just....crazy.

 

[Gracie]

Foxy...the question you pose is very thought provoking. I don't think there are any answers without finger pointing from all sides. I'm sorry. Even I did it. I think everyone is frustrated about this and they really have nothing they can say that they think will make a difference.