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

[Dot Com]

tv shows live & die by ad revenue. The guy spouted-off & alienated a good portion of the population hence, ad revenue taking a hit. A & E knows this.

 

[1776]

The majority of people that watch Duck Dynasty....don't like the gay lifestyle and couldn't give a shit about San Fran falling into the ocean. A&E is full of shit if they don't believe it.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

It might be morally or ethically better for people to be able to be who and what they are without fear, but it isn't a right. I'm guessing you weren't speaking of rights in a legal sense, but just wanted to put that out there in case.

And I find myself curious about a question another poster posed earlier. Do you think it would be evil for Jewish groups to organize a boycott of a neo-Nazi, Holocaust-denying television channel?

 

[Dot Com]

The majority of people that watch Duck Dynasty....don't like the gay lifestyle and couldn't give a shit about San Fran falling into the ocean. A&E is full of shit if they don't believe it.

link?

You sure do have strong opinions for a n00b blowhard.

 

[Sunshine]

Not to worry guys. I long ago made a pledge to myself to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage myself in exercises of futility.

Several have failed to grasp the context of the thread topic. Perhaps this is on purpose. Perhaps they simply are not capable of grasping a subject that complex. Who knows?

But, they do give the rest of us an excellent opportunity to point out the intolerance they seem to embrace and keep restating the principles of what true tolerance is. I imagine we've been able to persuade a few folks to think about it in a more constructive way--at least think about it. Who knows? Maybe we will start a whole new common sense trend?

I also believe that if I am not able to defend my own beliefs and convictions, that they aren't much worth having are they. So I never mind anybody who challenges my point of view. So long as they challenge what I say and not what they want me to have said. And as long as they stay on topic and not what they want the topic to be.

This entire brouhaha is like someone stating they believe in the Buddha's eight fold path, and having an organization for amputees slaughter the person because he mentioned a
'path' of some description, and the amputee can't walk. The entire thing is certainly reminiscent of muslims going ballistic and calling for Salmon Rushdie's life over The Satanic Verses.

And in some twisted ludicrous way they compare all that to a purely American economic principle known as the law of supply and demand when people want Cracker Barrel to make the forbidden items available again.

I wonder why people don't go ballistic over someone saying that adultery is wrong. Or has adultery found acceptance and approval as long as it does not involve your own spouse?

 

[1776]

My friends watch it...all of them conservatives. I don't watch it since I like other shows.

Gay boys like you whining about a show you don't watch is pathetic. Get a fucking life.

The majority of people that watch Duck Dynasty....don't like the gay lifestyle and couldn't give a shit about San Fran falling into the ocean. A&E is full of shit if they don't believe it.

link?

You sure do have strong opinions for a n00b blowhard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Was your spelling of demographic 'demongraphic' a Freudian slip? lol

The answer is no you don't have that right because you cannot take away the right of the public to have public opinion.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

That is not why Jesus threw the money changers, not lenders, out of the temple. The money changers had turned the temple into a commercial marketplace. They were selling sacrificial animals, and had turned the temple into a marketplace. He did not throw them out because he was 'offended.' He threw them out because they were doing wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You can't take away the public's right to not watch a show, or not patronize an advertiser. You can't take away the right of an advertiser to threaten to pull its sponsorship. You can't take away the right of a shareholder to dump his stock in a company, if that applies.

 

[Sunshine]

Once again asking that we keep this civil and stop the sniping at each other and personal insults. I know it is difficult not to respond to an insulting troll, but try guys. Please try. They look a lot worse with their childishness if we just ignore them. If we respond in kind, they look justified in their sniping. And the train has to be dragged back onto the tracks.

I agree. I love it when they show themselves for what they are:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ine-s-cryfest-over-those-meanie-liberals.html

 

[Dot Com]

Once again asking that we keep this civil and stop the sniping at each other and personal insults. I know it is difficult not to respond to an insulting troll, but try guys. Please try. They look a lot worse with their childishness if we just ignore them. If we respond in kind, they look justified in their sniping. And the train has to be dragged back onto the tracks.

I agree. I love it when they show themselves for what they are:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ine-s-cryfest-over-those-meanie-liberals.html

Will you EVER stop whining? I was going to bump that thread ystrdy. Do you want me to Sunny? lol

As to the OP- ad revenue is EVERYTHING for a tv show & alienating current & potential viewers isn't that bright.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Once again asking that we keep this civil and stop the sniping at each other and personal insults. I know it is difficult not to respond to an insulting troll, but try guys. Please try. They look a lot worse with their childishness if we just ignore them. If we respond in kind, they look justified in their sniping. And the train has to be dragged back onto the tracks.

I agree. I love it when they show themselves for what they are:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ine-s-cryfest-over-those-meanie-liberals.html

Will you EVER stop whining? I was going to bump that thread ystrdy. Do you want me to Sunny? lol

As to the OP- ad revenue is EVERYTHING for a tv show & alienating current & potential viewers isn't that bright.

Actually, they didn't alienate anyone. Other than by suspending someone over something so petty as an opinion, they pissed their viewers off, DC. If that's what you mean by "alienating" then I agree entirely.

 

[Sunshine]

Well, that's certainly true. And, as I tried to say, Phil, for all his flamboyance, didn't flame anyone. He expressed his personal opinion. He didn't intend to harm or make anyone feel less human or deserving. He didn't say he wouldn't sell his duck calls to a gay hunting club.

If one demands another not express his opinion, that is intolerance. I agree.

BUT, Phil gets money for being a public figure. There can be a financial penalty. My guess is Phil will come out Ducks. (-:

I get payed money to provide service to Public Safety institutions...MANY including Government entities like the IRS, etc... that I at some point and time would excoriate here on these very boards...am *I* a hypocrite for providing such service?

We all post here with at least an expectation of some anonymity, and we do not use our real life persona to somehow give extra credence to our opinions. A bit different from Phil.

He was not on the air. He made his statements in an interview with a different entity, not A & E. Magazines like GQ most assuredly DO want the 'real life persona' of the people they interview.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Do you realize that if your principles were actually in place as law and/or policy,

MSNBC would have had to allow Martin Bashir to keep his job, if he so chose?

 

[Sunshine]

Do they not have a right to organize a boycott, carbine? They have the right to boycott whomever the hell they want to!

So an action that threatens or coerces, via an effort to do material to an organization and individuals affiliated with that organization

is OKAY,

but only if it's conservatives doing the coercing?

That sounds a bit partisan hackish to me.

It doesn't matter who does it!

Anyone who attempts to harm someone financially because of their opinion can be seen as an act of extortion. However, a boycott is different. It is a form of free expression, of association. The viewers themselves have no direct financial or material impact on A&E, other than their viewership.

You're losing this debate badly, Carbine.

Yes, this is true. It is all about 'ratings.' I have done one ratings week survey. I don't recall the name of the company, but they were very specific in what they wanted to know, like was I actually WATCHING a show or was the TV just ON with NO ONE watching.

Edited to add: I remember now, the company was Neilson.

 

[Sunshine]

You are a liar. You will receive no such apology from me. GLAAD held real sway over A&E. Want to disprove it?

Because you're a pussy is why you won't apologize. I proved that Foxfyre said what I said she said.

You need to put away the plastic light sabre and grow up.

I'm trying for civility, but I understand your frustration. And, yeah, its a bit difficult to grasp the thought that there should be a legal prohibition on people organizing themselves economically to affectuate a change in what is opinined in "a free press." I'd disagree with those people in this instance, but .... rights are rights. There can be social consequences from exercising rights though, for both Phil and GLAAD.

Key concept. But you must remember that the owner of the particular press only considers their side of the issue, and they do not consider other than themselves to be 'free.'

 

[Sunshine]

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?

One thing you missed:

How does his quoting the Bible affect you? How does doing such imply action or ill will? Hmm? "Civilized" is a relative term to you. "Civilized" only happens to be those that hold the same opinion as yours. Actually, the word you're looking for is "narcissism." Even the homosexuals who watch the show disagree, they don't care about what Phil Robertson thinks, they care about the show!

Why can't you do that, candycorn?

Never said it did. I think he had the right to say (and has the right still) whatever comes into his mind. And GLAAD has the right to organize any sort of response they deem appropriate outside of doing physical harm to him or anyone else.

You see sonny, I'm commenting on a thread written by a dingbat who thinks GLAAD had no such standing only because she agrees with what this guy from DD said. Now that there have been moves to counter-boycott, you'll notice Foxy (TTBOMK anyway) has not lambasted those who did the same thing GLAAD did.

As for "homosexuals who watch the show"...oh yeah as if you talked to everyone of them. When their lifestyle is compared to Beastiality, I would think that there were more than just a few who thought otherwise. Dunno for sure but the law of big numbers seems to indicate that there would be some. Your generalization is an earmark of your lazy research and weak mind.

I would consider someone taking my livelihood to be physical harm. I guess your body sustains itself without food. Most of the rest of us have to eat to stay physically alive.

 

[Sunshine]

So an action that threatens or coerces, via an effort to do material to an organization and individuals affiliated with that organization

is OKAY,

but only if it's conservatives doing the coercing?

That sounds a bit partisan hackish to me.

It doesn't matter who does it!

Anyone who attempts to harm someone financially because of their opinion can be seen as an act of extortion. However, a boycott is different. It is a form of free expression, of association. The viewers themselves have no direct financial or material impact on A&E, other than their viewership.

You're losing this debate badly, Carbine.

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)?

If you wanted to effectively boycott a network, you would have to boycott their sponsors.

 

[Sunshine]

PS, Merry Christmas to all. And it that's offensive .... tough. (-:

It's Ok Brother(?)...SAME to you. God Bless.

OK, many of our politicians have been members of fundamentalist churches and, no doubt, hold the same beliefs. So, why does this particular belief become the ruination of a non political figure and not those who run the country who believe the same?

 

[MeBelle]

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?

Do you realize that if your principles were actually in place as law and/or policy,

MSNBC would have had to allow Martin Bashir to keep his job, if he so chose?

When Bashir made the comments he did was he revealing his true personality?

If so I doubt that MSNBC would have hired him to begin with.