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

[Sunshine]

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.

Whatever GQ paid him for the interview was not his main source of income. Small potatoes. They were after his livelihood.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 demographic 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?

Simply put. Both of them deserve to be who and what they are, without fear of reprisal, material or physical. The ultimate example of tolerance would be for the two groups to leave each other alone. Live and let live.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

He spoke a generic belief that impacts a lot of people in a very negative way. He didn't need to name names to do the damage.

GLAAD is demanding tolerance, not approval. I really doubt they care that much what the TV nutcase thinks. But, when he as a person in the public eye advocates a position that has serious ramifications for the daily lives of these people (as well as those of us who are friends and family members), why would anyone expect there to be no push back??

Do you think there would be no push back if this moron's comments were equally negative, but race based rather than based on sexual orientation? Would he have gotten no response if his comments were equally negative, but targeted the equality of women?

 

[Sunshine]

You know you're a paranoid liberal when:

A three word response from a conservative provokes you to write an essay in disagreement.

you know you are a crazy assed Conservative when a Liberal actual takes time and energy to explain something to you, so that you will understand him better, but you only heard three words....

You see, TK, that sword cuts in both directions. Really sure you want to go there?

Done with your love fest sport?

Sword? Really? Indeed it does...and it cuts YOU this time. Get over yourself.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

GLAAD is right on this.

If the statements had been made against a racial group, the same would apply - once again, there is no reason to leave such statements unopposed.

I don't remember any opposition to Robertson when he remained as a private citizen. He was certainly being tolerated. But, once he used his fame to make a public statement, he should have been more than aware that he would be opposed.

He was asked.

 

[BDBoop]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

FAL!

Collective bargaining is a long standing and accepted practice. Both the employer and the employees agree to have the union representing the employees.

 

[BDBoop]

In other words, your point would be valid if your team was ALL taking the same high road you're espousing.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Whatever GQ paid him for the interview was not his main source of income. Small potatoes. They were after his livelihood.

What do you mean by that Sunny? I think its more like they just turned on the mic & let him rip. Same thing us Progressives did w/ the last crop of Repub Presidential candidates. Just stand back & let the fun begin.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In other words, your point would be valid if your team was ALL taking the same high road you're espousing.

In other words, your point would be valid if you and your friends EVER took the high road. Resorting to attacking, excoriating, namecalling, stereotyping, vilifying, demonizing and criticizing does not qualify as taking the high road. As old as you are, I bet you would understand that.

 

[BDBoop]

you know you are a crazy assed Conservative when a Liberal actual takes time and energy to explain something to you, so that you will understand him better, but you only heard three words....

You see, TK, that sword cuts in both directions. Really sure you want to go there?

Is it not my right? Or is it not my right simply because I hit the nail on the head?

You see, my sword doesn't cut one way. Not all liberals take the time to explain anything to me, except for how much they hate my guts and want to string them up like Christmas lights because I disagree with them. I make examples of them if they do. Pogo for example is a liberal, so is Mertex and Noomi, they take the time to respectfully disagree with me. None of them call me names and get melodramatic like some others do. Other liberals make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, Stat. I do the same to conservatives on this board, so don't go prejudging me for whom I associate, okay? (I remember you telling me that a day or so ago)

Did I ever say that is is not your right?

Answer: NO.

All I did was to take your statement and reformulate it from the other side. Why the umbrage? If it was so innocent when you formulated it, isn't my formulation just as innocent? Hmmm???

And just to be clear, I have never called you a name, or?

Oh and:

Other Conservative make spectacles of themselves, spew self righteous invective and endless pejoratives in my direction instead of making an actual argument. That's a fact of life you will have to accept, TK.


I hope the point is getting across.

The point is that you keep making generalizations and then it itches when I remind you of those generalizations.

the key point here is that I have done absolutely none of these things to you. Food for thought for you.

I O U Rep. Also five gold stars, three 'Attaboy!'s, and two Warm Fuzzies.

Also, ^5.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Having a show cancelled is traditionally done on the basis of RATINGS which are rendered by ratings companies like Neilson. Not by some organization demanding that an individual on a show be fired.

 

[WillReadmore]

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 demographic 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?

Simply put. Both of them deserve to be who and what they are, without fear of reprisal, material or physical. The ultimate example of tolerance would be for the two groups to leave each other alone. Live and let live.

"Live and let live" is an offer of equality. But, not all the states are making that offer.

If they DID make that offer, I see no evidence that it wouldn't be accepted.

After it was accepted, there would still need to be people interested in maintaining "live and let live", as I suspect it would erode if not actively supported.

We made a "live and let live" offer to those of us who aren't white. Yet, even years after doing so, we still haven't fully fulfilled that offer, nor would the offer stay in place if we didn't have people actively pursuing that issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And just once I wish NYcarboneer and/or CandyCorn was smart enough or tolerant enough to be honest about what I have said. Now pay attention here folks. I'm going to use them to teach a principle.

I can easily call either or both dishonest when he misrepresents what I say. It is doing a BAD ACT when he deliberately attributes something to me that is not accurate. And if it got to be a problem for me, or if he was continually derailing the thread, I would be fully justified in doing whatever I could to have him removed from the thread or the forum or otherwise 'punished' for his bad acts. There is no reason I should ever have to tolerate being deliberately misquoted or misrepresented as to what I have said or done or be subjected to having my rights violated due to somebody's immaturity or just plain meanness.

BUT. . .he is fully within his right to tell me that my opinion sucks, that I have it all wrong, that I am stupid, ignorant, partisan or whatever. That is his opinion. He has been invited to express his opinion on this thread and that would be expressing his opinion. I might think he is a total jerk and/or partisan hack and think he is wrong in everything he says, but I am tolerant if I allow him to be who and what he is without neg repping or trying to persuade somebody in authority to remove him.

Do you have all the conservatives in this thread on ignore?

I have asked you several times about my own family, and why you would expect me to tolerate intolerance.

On another note, you specifically said that there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. When I pointed out One Million Moms, you did not acknowledge that yes, 'they do it too,' which would be the logical debate thing to do when your statement has been disproven.

Candycorn and NYCarbineer have behaved no more badly than anybody on the right in this thread - so why are they being held up as negatives.

Why do you perceive any opinion held about homosexuality to be a direct attack on your family? Are you so paranoid that you have to go about shielding them from random opinions? That's pretty sad, honestly.

For the record, I believe she invalidated your argument by asking whom of us here thinks both groups deserve to be who they are without being targeted or attacked. Looks like to me you only read what you want to read.

 

[Gracie]

An A&E rep was there with Phil when he was asked the volatile question. A&E knew what the answer would be. And why was a rep there to begin with?

Something stinks. And the smell is coming from A&E's direction.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

I didn't. He said he was bipolar and off his meds. He also said he has Aspergers, both of which have been diagnosed and both treated and untreated in my immediate family.

He posted nonstop thought the night and well into the next day, at which point I told him FFS, get some sleep.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 demographic 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?

Simply put. Both of them deserve to be who and what they are, without fear of reprisal, material or physical. The ultimate example of tolerance would be for the two groups to leave each other alone. Live and let live.

"Live and let live" is an offer of equality. But, not all the states are making that offer.

If they DID make that offer, I see no evidence that it wouldn't be accepted.

After it was accepted, there would still need to be people interested in maintaining "live and let live", as I suspect it would erode if not actively supported.

We made a "live and let live" offer to those of us who aren't white. Yet, even years after doing so, we still haven't fully fulfilled that offer, nor would the offer stay in place if we didn't have people actively pursuing that issue.

You don't understand something. If we are to live and let live, we don't tell other what opinions and stances they should have. Therefore the states aren't required to do anything.

It isn't an offer of equality, but an offer of understanding.

 

[BDBoop]

An A&E rep was there with Phil when he was asked the volatile question. A&E knew what the answer would be. And why was a rep there to begin with?

Something stinks. And the smell is coming from A&E's direction.

No he wasn't. The A&E rep was stupid enough to let Phil and GQ reporter dude go four-wheeling without him.

 

[Sunshine]

An A&E rep was there with Phil when he was asked the volatile question. A&E knew what the answer would be. And why was a rep there to begin with?

Something stinks. And the smell is coming from A&E's direction.

Yes, it is. Why did A & E send someone to accompany him if it was not their intent to have the responses edited? Yet A & E did not attempt to have his responses edited. It is entirely possible that this is exactly what they knew and intended to happen from the day they put the show on the air.

I have been cautioned to not confuse incompetence with malice, though. So, perhaps the person from A & E was taking a little break when the opinion was rendered. I don't know.

But the point of this thread is abundantly clear to those of us who get it:

A person has been materially/physically harmed because he voiced an idea. In American we are all supposed to be free to voice ideas without being materially/physically harmed. Robertson named no public or private individuals. He merely expressed an idea.

I think FF has made every attempt to state what this means to us all as individuals. The same thing could happen to any of us. And have no doubt it would because the usual stalkers who follow me around this forum have done so here as well, even the usual stalkers who claim to be newbies.

 

[WillReadmore]

Having a show cancelled is traditionally done on the basis of RATINGS which are rendered by ratings companies like Neilson. Not by some organization demanding that an individual on a show be fired.

It's definitely not all about ratings. Ratings just get used to convince advertisers to pay more for ad time.

Advertisers can lose interest in buying ad time regardless of ratings. They may not want to become associated with some element of the show, for example. In fact, major brands are unlikely to want their names associated with anything controversial - regardless of how "right" or "popular" it is. They don't need the grief and have no interest in taking chances with their brand.