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

[hunarcy]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

 

[kaz]

"Don't become so tolerant you tolerate intolerance." - Bill Maher

Neither Bill Maher nor the liberals he was talking to need to be worried about becoming too tolerant as they have none now.

 

[Foxfyre]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

Some do not read the thread or read the gazillion explanations of that already posted Hunarcy, but thank you, thank you, thank you for 'getting it.' Damn. I hate being out of rep because I definitely would have repped this. (I'll get back to you on that, okay? )

It goes back to the OP that we have developed into a culture not that much different than early America when many of the colonies demanded that people be orthodox. No heresy was tolerated. This was in the days of the scarlett letters, the witch burnings, putting people in stocks, or banishment for nothing other than being heretics who spoke other than the doctrines that were required. Whether mildly or severely, people were punished physically and/or materially for straying off the religiously or politically correct plantation.

But those early Americans figured it out that unalienable rights include the right to be who we are, who we choose to be. And almost all those early punishments were discontinued and declared to be the evils that they were. Such narrow minded and authoritarian restrictions on thought became the rare exception rather than the norm.

But in recent years, some are not content to tell somebody he or she is a jerk or is offensive or is repulsive or is hateful. Now it seems more and more the norm that somebody must be physically and/or materially damaged to punish them for being unorthodox and/or heretical, i.e. politically incorrect.

And to me it is scary that so many here seem unable to understand that when only a certain segment of society is allowed to speak freely without fear of physical or material recriminations, and another large segment of society is not allowed that same liberty, we have no liberties at all.

 

[hunarcy]

But in recent years, some are not content to tell somebody he or she is a jerk or is offensive or is repulsive or is hateful. Now it seems more and more the norm that somebody must be physically and/or materially damaged to punish them for being unorthodox and/or heretical, i.e. politically incorrect.

And to me it is scary that so many here seem unable to understand that when only a certain segment of society is allowed to speak freely without fear of physical or material recriminations, and another large segment of society is not allowed that same liberty, we have no liberties at all.

They forget that it was only a little more than a generation ago that they were the ones being treated the way they now treat those who don't agree with them. It's as if they have exchanged positions with their oppressors and are now going for their pound of flesh. They've become that which they used to hate and now we must rebuke them as people rebuked their oppressors for being intolerant.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And to think that this posting:

The libs just don't get it because they don't want to get it! Their wiring s defective!

came right after this one:

But to anyone who is capable of reading and understanding the OP, the point is not what he said or how he said it. Again--for the umpteenth time, I do not agree with his interpretation of the Bible or how he expressed it.

The point is whether he is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian, or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The point is whether ANYBODY is entitled to his beliefs, right or wrong, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Christian or non Christian or whatever without fear of some group, mob, or organization demanding that he be physically or materially punished.

The issue here is not whether Phil Robertson, or anybody else, is right or wrong. The issue is whether he should be allowed to be so long as he is not infringing on anybody else's rights.

And yes, I have strongly resisted anybody, left or right, who tried to introduce something different from that particular issue.

The issue is not partisanship.
The issue is not who or what is a Christian.
The issue is not who is worthy of criticism.
The issue is not advocacy groups whether left or right.
The issue is not who has said objectionable things.
The issue is not actions that have a physical or material affect on others.
The issue is not whether somebody else has done it too.
The issue is not whether I or anybody else is partisan.

The issue is whether the ability to say what we believe should be an unalienable right. Should we approve and let it stand unopposed when GLAAD, or ANY other group, left or right, demands that a person be physically or materially punished purely for expressing a belief not shared by the group?

I rest my case.

BTW, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], nice posting.

And for the record, I really don't care what Robertson said. It's a free country, he can yap all he wants. But a lot of people see it as hatred, and if he's not smart enough to realize that, then that is his problem if a backlash happens, not mine. And that, my friends, has nothing to do with politics or religion. It has to do with two words connected to the word "common":

common sense

-and-

common decency.

 

[Statistikhengst]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

The problem is that one man's "tolerance" can be another man's "intolerance", which, in turn, can even be a third man's dogma.

So, whether people like to admit it or not, whether or not to tolerate "intolerance" is alot like the concept of beauty: all in the eye of the beholder.

That is the crux of the problem.

 

[Statistikhengst]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

Some do not read the thread or read the gazillion explanations of that already posted Hunarcy, but thank you, thank you, thank you for 'getting it.' Damn. I hate being out of rep because I definitely would have repped this. (I'll get back to you on that, okay? )

It goes back to the OP that we have developed into a culture not that much different than early America when many of the colonies demanded that people be orthodox. No heresy was tolerated. This was in the days of the scarlett letters, the witch burnings, putting people in stocks, or banishment for nothing other than being heretics who spoke other than the doctrines that were required. Whether mildly or severely, people were punished physically and/or materially for straying off the religiously or politically correct plantation.

But those early Americans figured it out that unalienable rights include the right to be who we are, who we choose to be. And almost all those early punishments were discontinued and declared to be the evils that they were. Such narrow minded and authoritarian restrictions on thought became the rare exception rather than the norm.

But in recent years, some are not content to tell somebody he or she is a jerk or is offensive or is repulsive or is hateful. Now it seems more and more the norm that somebody must be physically and/or materially damaged to punish them for being unorthodox and/or heretical, i.e. politically incorrect.

And to me it is scary that so many here seem unable to understand that when only a certain segment of society is allowed to speak freely without fear of physical or material recriminations, and another large segment of society is not allowed that same liberty, we have no liberties at all.

I still challenge you on the word "physically" and note also that you have, after 4 or 5 inquiries from me, not responded. Hmmmmm....

 

[hunarcy]

And for the record, I really don't care what Robertson said.

I can believe that, as you've shown you don't even care what the main theme of the thread is. Should we tolerate intolerance from GLAAD just because they rail against the intolerance they see in Robertson?

 

[Statistikhengst]

And for the record, I really don't care what Robertson said.

I can believe that, as you've shown you don't even care what the main theme of the thread is. Should we tolerate intolerance from GLAAD just because they rail against the intolerance they see in Robertson?

Oh, I understand the theme quite clearly and actually, I care about it. I just don't have much patience for your caterwallering.

The OP is whether or not we should tolerate intolerance, or better put, what we see as intolerance. GLAAD and Robertson are just one practical (and current application) of that idea.

I personally think that both sides need to cool their jets. If people would only spend half as much time exercising some Tikkun Olam (google is our friend!!) instead of screaming at each other, the world would be a better place.

One sentence out of Mr. Robertson's mouth is not going to destroy a civilization. And a call for a boycott is not going to take food out of Mr. Robertsons mouth, he is a very, very rich man. Both sides are engaging in strong hyperbole, but it looks like you are only willing to see hyperbole from one side. Why?

I will also go on that record that I am generally against threats of any kind, toward any person. In the case of war, I make an exception, for instance, WWII. Inter Enim Silent Leges (google is one again our friend!)

 

[Mac1958]

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

They have to take the issue off the rails, move it into another direction.

Heaven forbid they admit to being -- wait for it -- intolerant.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Why the double speak all the time?

Intolerance of criminal behavior is not the same as intolerance of liberty. That which is being tolerated or not is most certainly applicable to the discussion.

Thus, as usual your posts are completely random and without any explanation of what the hell you are trying to say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've been making the argument again and again and again. And again, the issue is not public opinion or expression of public opinion. This has nothing to do with what is or is not legal though it is my opinion that denying somebody their unalienable right to be who and what they are, so long as they infringe on nobody else's rights, should be illegal. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for gays or abortion rights. It should be illegal to punish somebody for advocating for traditional marriage or the rights of the unborn. It should be illegal to punish somebody for stating they think Christians are evil people or teach evil concepts. And it should be illegal to punish a Phil Robertson simply because he holds a politically incorrect opinion.

But what I think should be illegal is my personal opinion. I have no power to enforce that opinion, other than with one vote, and I have no desire to punish anybody who does not agree with me.

I would have had zero problem with GLAAD or anybody else cxriticizing Robertson for what he said. That is certainly within their right to do. That certainly would be a proper thing for them to do.

My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Is calling for a boycott, or calling for a person to be taken off the air, not an expression of disapproval? Couldn't Robertson's suspension be considered an expression of disapproval by A&E (or whichever company is in charge of his employment)?

If A&E fired Robertson because they didn't like his opinions expressed in the interview, rather than pressure from GLAAD, would that also be evil, or is it only when someone other than an employer asks for it that it is evil, even though they have no direct power to make that decision?

I think my big issue with your stated opinions here are that you seem to be granting GLAAD a lot more power than they actually have. They did not fire Phil Robertson. So far as I can tell, they merely expressed their opinion that he should not have a television show and perhaps said they would organize a boycott if he continued to be part of one. A&E was under no obligation to listen to them.

And I still would like to hear what you would think of Jewish groups organizing a boycott of a television station that showed anti-semetic, Holocaust denying programming. Would that, too, be evil?

If an interest group like GLAAD has no right to go after Robertson, then no interest group should have the right to defend him.

 

[RKMBrown]

However twisted or unethical the Phil Robertson situation may be, he was not made to stop speaking by the government or law. He's free to continue speaking as he has without government interference, as he should be. Why would you want to take that away from others?

The thread is not about government infringement or interference. It's about whether we should tolerate intolerance from those trying to impose their brand of tolerance on us all. That's been said MANY times, so I have to wonder if you missed it on purpose.

The problem is that one man's "tolerance" can be another man's "intolerance", which, in turn, can even be a third man's dogma.

So, whether people like to admit it or not, whether or not to tolerate "intolerance" is alot like the concept of beauty: all in the eye of the beholder.

That is the crux of the problem.

Someone that gets it ^

 

[candycorn]

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'.

putting to death those working on Sunday.

 

[hunarcy]

...instead of screaming at each other, the world would be a better place.

And, who do you perceive is screaming?

GLAAD said it is researching other companies who sponsor the Christian patriarch of the popular program. Do you see that as benign and tolerant?

Should we allow a vendetta against Robertson merely because he expressed his beliefs? Or, should we point out that it is inappropriate to behave that way?

 

[candycorn]

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.

see bolded passage above. Foxy doesnt seem to mind when some do it, just when others apply pressure. lying twit

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unless these ideas of FF's were to become law, which they never will, anyone would be foolish to unilaterally disarm.

I guarantee you no conservative interest groups will ever do so.

 

[candycorn]

I understand what happened. You called them out by name. And even though you saw conservatives doing the exact same thing (to we on the 'other side'), you did not specifically call any of them on it.

Correct.

We're out of fish again.

 

[candycorn]

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.

No BdBoop, I did not say there is no conservative group doing what GLAAD does. I said I did not KNOW of any conservative group doing what GLAAD did in the Phil Robertson bruhaha and I asked for any who knew of such examples to please link to them. I did not see a post about your family or about One Million Moms--I have skipped over lot of posts doing the occasional food fight outbreaks here and have tried not to respond to off topic posts. I regret and apologize if I have inadvertently slighted a pertinent post.

One Millions Moms is an advocacy group promoting decency in the media yes. I am unware that they have targeted any individual and attempted to destroy him. Do you know of such a case?

CandyCorn and NYCarbineer and one or two others were referenced since they targeted me and misrepresented and mischaracterized what I have posted here and accused me of saying things I did not say. And that is the ONLY reason they were targeted for specific criticism from me. I did not say they have behaved any worse than anybody else. If any conservative had misrepresented or mischaracterized my comments as they did, they would also have been targeted for similar rebuttal. And if you think I have not urged conservatives to get back on topic as I have urged those two, you need to get your eyes checked.

Again the topic is tolerance. And the right of a Phil Robertson--or use any other example of an individual who has been physically and/or materially attacked purely for expressing an opinion--to be who and what he is as much as members of GLAAD have a right to be who and what they are.

And frankly, I'm pretty discouraged that we apparently have so few members at USMB with the maturity to be civil and focused on such a topic and who have the ability to discuss it without making it partisan and attacking each other.

No one mischaracterized anything you did. You support his anti-gay view and tried to cloak it in some sort of higher purpose. When cons did the same thing you bitched about GLAAD doing, you didnt say anything. To the surprise of nobody because all saw your poorly disguised motive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[My quarrel with GLAAD is that they were not content to express their disapproval of or disagreement with what he said. They instead went after him to physically and materially punish him for what he said. And THAT is what I see as morally and ethically wrong. It isn't illegal. But it should be.

Is there any chance you could describe, in detail, and linked, what GLAAD did that you would wish to make illegal?