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

[LoneLaugher]

When you think about it, maybe we are seeing a push back. When is the last time you saw one of these big guns back down when they fired somebody over a flap like this? But A&E blinked under the pressure of millions of viewers who love Duck Dynasty and the Robertson family and expressed their support for them.

That is rather encouraging. Maybe the pendulum is swinging back to something more normal than the politics of personal destruction that we've been subjected to for the last 20 years?

Here's hoping. And I do think it's happening.

In my warped little world, here's the bottom line: Once the PC Police realize that they can no longer play their little game -- diverting from an important issue by putting their targets on the defensive -- everyone will need to calm down and start discussing/debating the issues in a free, open, civil, mature and honest environment. I'm thinking this will marginalize the screamers and the absolutists and the perpetual liars.

That's when the real heavy lifting begins. It'll be difficult as hell. We'll have an environment, a culture, in which we all have to be able to defend our positions with minimum bullshit -- and that includes the narcissists bigots on both sides. But at least we'll be able to do so honestly. Everyone will win some and lose some. God bless America, we're so lucky to live in a country that allows for such debate. But it needs to be honest debate. We are NOT there right now.

In my zillions of posts screaming about this topic, that's what it boils down to. And I refuse to believe that we're not capable of improving to that point.

Goofy, huh?

.

Zillions might be correct.

Would an honest debate necessarily be one in which both sides are required to present facts and support them?

Because....it seems to me that you think opinions and beliefs are as weighty as facts in the arena of debate. You know....Phil Roberstons opinion that black people were not mistreated while subjected to Jim Crow laws or his belief that homosexuals are sinners no different than murderers and terrorists.

Those are not facts. Do you think we need to consider them to be valid points in our national debate? Or....is this debate simply going to be one where everyone states their opinion....and magically, an agreement is reached?

I would also like to know what issue the "PC Police" tried to divert us from when "they" petitioned A&E to disavow the comments that Robertson made. If GLAAD is a member of the PC Police, what issue are they, in general, attempting to obfuscate?

Finally.....lets strive for that honest discussion. Where people say what they mean. I have been trying to do that with you for a year or two now. Never once have I uttered a dishonest word in my discussions with you. You know what your reaction to that effort has been. I am pretty sure your tactic is not going to produce the results that you seek.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dogma to the end. There are no PC police.

politically correct

A pejorative term, and straw man for a political movement fabricated by United States conservatives in about 1980 to discredit the liberal cause, and its ideas.

Whether it be any poorly handled incident where a home office minister gets ticked off for using 'nitty-gritty' in a speech, school children brought before judges for playground racial taunts, to reports of doctors reprimanded for not giving men cervical smears, they all propel an instruction of disapproval about 'politically correct madness' and for one purpose: to mock the entire liberal cause in the process. Plain-talking conservatives who yearn for 'common sense and clear thinking debate' would never fall to such liberal follies.

Thus, any environmental campaign, any discussion about global warming, any case of sexual harassment, or any response to racial prejudice, can be portrayed as the irrational exponents of 'political correctness'.

Yes, I know, it's politically incorrect to use the term "Political Correctness".

This is just delightful beyond words.



.

You really are exposing who and what you REALLY are...a brainwashed right wing parrot. And you are HYPER-partisan. You accept ONLY the right's definitions and refuse to even CONSIDER that conservatives have fabricated the term to attack liberalism.

Youre a dunce and a half. The term was coined by liberals and coopted by conservatives when PC ran amok.

 

[Mac1958]

Dogma to the end. There are no PC police.

politically correct

A pejorative term, and straw man for a political movement fabricated by United States conservatives in about 1980 to discredit the liberal cause, and its ideas.

Whether it be any poorly handled incident where a home office minister gets ticked off for using 'nitty-gritty' in a speech, school children brought before judges for playground racial taunts, to reports of doctors reprimanded for not giving men cervical smears, they all propel an instruction of disapproval about 'politically correct madness' and for one purpose: to mock the entire liberal cause in the process. Plain-talking conservatives who yearn for 'common sense and clear thinking debate' would never fall to such liberal follies.

Thus, any environmental campaign, any discussion about global warming, any case of sexual harassment, or any response to racial prejudice, can be portrayed as the irrational exponents of 'political correctness'.

Yes, I know, it's politically incorrect to use the term "Political Correctness".

This is just delightful beyond words.



.

You really are exposing who and what you REALLY are...a brainwashed right wing parrot. And you are HYPER-partisan. You accept ONLY the right's definitions and refuse to even CONSIDER that conservatives have fabricated the term to attack liberalism.

Tell me, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION], what are my opinions on:

• Foreign policy?
• War?
• Personal income taxation?
• Welfare?
• Abortion?
• Gay rights?
• The Drug War?

I've given my opinions on all of them on this board.

You clearly don't know, but that doesn't stop you from making simplistic assumptions, does it? Like many other partisan ideologues, your thought processes are very binary, black & white, either/or. And so are your arguments. Speaking of "brainwashed".

You don't realize it, but you're part of the problem.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Dogma to the end. There are no PC police.

politically correct

A pejorative term, and straw man for a political movement fabricated by United States conservatives in about 1980 to discredit the liberal cause, and its ideas.

Whether it be any poorly handled incident where a home office minister gets ticked off for using 'nitty-gritty' in a speech, school children brought before judges for playground racial taunts, to reports of doctors reprimanded for not giving men cervical smears, they all propel an instruction of disapproval about 'politically correct madness' and for one purpose: to mock the entire liberal cause in the process. Plain-talking conservatives who yearn for 'common sense and clear thinking debate' would never fall to such liberal follies.

Thus, any environmental campaign, any discussion about global warming, any case of sexual harassment, or any response to racial prejudice, can be portrayed as the irrational exponents of 'political correctness'.

Yes, I know, it's politically incorrect to use the term "Political Correctness".

This is just delightful beyond words.



.

You really are exposing who and what you REALLY are...a brainwashed right wing parrot. And you are HYPER-partisan. You accept ONLY the right's definitions and refuse to even CONSIDER that conservatives have fabricated the term to attack liberalism.

You are wrong about Mac, Bfgrn.

He is not a partisan hack. He is a non-partisan hack. He listens to both sides of all issues and thinks for himself.

He is laser focused on the issue of Political Correctness. Any time someone calls someone else out for saying or doing something discriminatory, or racist, or homophobic, or generally shitty........Mac is going to defend the the "someone else". Mac does not want the "someone else" to think twice before opening their pie hole. Because doing so might prevent them from saying what they really, really mean. Then....we'll have a society where people are afraid to be honest. And we will never heal our wounds or unite as a nation. Mac wants what is best for America.

It only appears that he is a right wing hack......because most of the time, the "someone else" is a right winger. So....in order to help bring about unity in the nation.....Mac must ........................

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Now ACTING OUT that bigotry or prejudice such as GLAAD or the AFA did is quite something else again. That is a much different thing than simply expressing our opinions in a forum in which it is proper to express opinions.

So, in short, in your world, it's bigotry to speak out against bigotry.

That sounds like something from a satirical comedy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think folks are confusing the issue when they use the word "intolerance" inappropriately in a sentence , such as when they really mean "dislike."

Yes. I think.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, I know, it's politically incorrect to use the term "Political Correctness".

This is just delightful beyond words.



.

You really are exposing who and what you REALLY are...a brainwashed right wing parrot. And you are HYPER-partisan. You accept ONLY the right's definitions and refuse to even CONSIDER that conservatives have fabricated the term to attack liberalism.

Tell me, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION], what are my opinions on:

• Foreign policy?
• War?
• Personal income taxation?
• Welfare?
• Abortion?
• Gay rights?
• The Drug War?

I've given my opinions on all of them on this board.

You clearly don't know, but that doesn't stop you from making simplistic assumptions, does it? Like many other partisan ideologues, your thought processes are very binary, black & white, either/or. And so are your arguments. Speaking of "brainwashed".

You don't realize it, but you're part of the problem.

.

I have given my opinions on all of those topics on numerous threads.

I make no " simplistic assumptions," It is REAL simple to make accusations based on how you have reacted on THIS topic. You REFUSE to even entertain that "PC police" is in any way a fabricated term by the right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and for those of you who have been taken aback by Foxfyre's desire to make certain acts illegal,

but then dismissed it (including perhaps with a chuckle) as just one more absurd fantasy of one more crazy cat lady, an idea that could never have traction in the real world, you might want to read this:

Knesset Anti-Boycott Law May Infringe On Basic Democratic Rights

Jerusalem, July 12, 2011 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed concern about a law passed in the Israeli parliament which imposes legal liability for damages against anyone calling for a boycott of Israel, including economic, academic, cultural, and other blacklisting.

The law enables Israeli citizens to bring civil suits against people or organizations instigating anti-Israel boycotts, and bars companies which participate in any boycott, including of goods produced in the West Bank, from bidding for Israeli government tenders.

Read more:

Knesset Anti-Boycott Law May Infringe On Basic Democratic Rights

 

[Mac1958]

You really are exposing who and what you REALLY are...a brainwashed right wing parrot. And you are HYPER-partisan. You accept ONLY the right's definitions and refuse to even CONSIDER that conservatives have fabricated the term to attack liberalism.

Tell me, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION], what are my opinions on:

• Foreign policy?
• War?
• Personal income taxation?
• Welfare?
• Abortion?
• Gay rights?
• The Drug War?

I've given my opinions on all of them on this board.

You clearly don't know, but that doesn't stop you from making simplistic assumptions, does it? Like many other partisan ideologues, your thought processes are very binary, black & white, either/or. And so are your arguments. Speaking of "brainwashed".

You don't realize it, but you're part of the problem.

.

I have given my opinions on all of those topics on numerous threads.

I make no " simplistic assumptions," It is REAL simple to make accusations based on how you have reacted on THIS topic. You REFUSE to even entertain that "PC police" is in any way a fabricated term by the right.

I truly don't care if it was or not. If you want to run with that, great. To me, it's irrelevant to the big picture. It's a nice, quick little term that works fine for me. I'd much rather concentrate on the issue.

And this is precisely where PC can be so destructive. Instead of dealing with the macro picture, you want to deal with little words and phrases. You're illustrating my point for me, over and over and over.

I will use the terms that I want to use. I want us to fix our problems. You can either complain about the words being used, or deal with the issues. Your call, I don't care. But I won't be put on the defensive.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If GLAAD had done what FF claimed they did, wouldn't Phil Robertson still be off the show?

 

[Bfgrn]

Tell me, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION], what are my opinions on:

• Foreign policy?
• War?
• Personal income taxation?
• Welfare?
• Abortion?
• Gay rights?
• The Drug War?

I've given my opinions on all of them on this board.

You clearly don't know, but that doesn't stop you from making simplistic assumptions, does it? Like many other partisan ideologues, your thought processes are very binary, black & white, either/or. And so are your arguments. Speaking of "brainwashed".

You don't realize it, but you're part of the problem.

.

I have given my opinions on all of those topics on numerous threads.

I make no " simplistic assumptions," It is REAL simple to make accusations based on how you have reacted on THIS topic. You REFUSE to even entertain that "PC police" is in any way a fabricated term by the right.

I truly don't care if it was or not. If you want to run with that, great. To me, it's irrelevant to the big picture. It's a nice, quick little term that works fine for me. I'd much rather concentrate on the issue.

And this is precisely where PC can be so destructive. Instead of dealing with the macro picture, you want to deal with little words and phrases. You're illustrating my point for me, over and over and over.

I will use the terms that I want to use. I want us to fix our problems. You can either complain about the words being used, or deal with the issues. Your call, I don't care. But I won't be put on the defensive.

.

You "don't care"? And you would "much rather concentrate on the issue"??

REALLY???

Then WHY did you start and dedicate a whole thread to PC police?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell me, [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION], what are my opinions on:

• Foreign policy?
• War?
• Personal income taxation?
• Welfare?
• Abortion?
• Gay rights?
• The Drug War?

I've given my opinions on all of them on this board.

You clearly don't know, but that doesn't stop you from making simplistic assumptions, does it? Like many other partisan ideologues, your thought processes are very binary, black & white, either/or. And so are your arguments. Speaking of "brainwashed".

You don't realize it, but you're part of the problem.

.

I have given my opinions on all of those topics on numerous threads.

I make no " simplistic assumptions," It is REAL simple to make accusations based on how you have reacted on THIS topic. You REFUSE to even entertain that "PC police" is in any way a fabricated term by the right.

I truly don't care if it was or not. If you want to run with that, great. To me, it's irrelevant to the big picture. It's a nice, quick little term that works fine for me. I'd much rather concentrate on the issue.

And this is precisely where PC can be so destructive. Instead of dealing with the macro picture, you want to deal with little words and phrases. You're illustrating my point for me, over and over and over.

I will use the terms that I want to use. I want us to fix our problems. You can either complain about the words being used, or deal with the issues. Your call, I don't care. But I won't be put on the defensive.

.

The most zealous attacks on the perceived 'political correctness' of the left come from the most rabid practitioners of conservative political correctness on the right.

 

[Mac1958]

I have given my opinions on all of those topics on numerous threads.

I make no " simplistic assumptions," It is REAL simple to make accusations based on how you have reacted on THIS topic. You REFUSE to even entertain that "PC police" is in any way a fabricated term by the right.

I truly don't care if it was or not. If you want to run with that, great. To me, it's irrelevant to the big picture. It's a nice, quick little term that works fine for me. I'd much rather concentrate on the issue.

And this is precisely where PC can be so destructive. Instead of dealing with the macro picture, you want to deal with little words and phrases. You're illustrating my point for me, over and over and over.

I will use the terms that I want to use. I want us to fix our problems. You can either complain about the words being used, or deal with the issues. Your call, I don't care. But I won't be put on the defensive.

.

You "don't care"? And you would "much rather concentrate on the issue"??

REALLY???

Then WHY did you start and dedicate a whole thread to PC police?

Glad you asked.

Because it is my firm belief that (as you can see on my signature) PC is used as a tactical weapon to control the conversation, to divert from the issue with hypersensitivity over words and phrases. As a result, it stops us from solving our problems.

That's all I really give a crap about, solving our problems. Whether it was my idea or your idea or someone else's. I don't care. And we can't do that unless and until we can have free, open, honest discussions at all times. Right now we simply are not, and PC is one of the primary culprits.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Who are the PC police?

What issue did GLAAD make an attempt to divert attention from?

We're they not, in fact, calling attention to an issue?

 

[RKMBrown]

Just saw this. It is right on the mark.

Here's Everything We Learned From the Duck Dynasty Controversy Summed Up in Just One Sentence

You can say whatever you want, including that gay people are sinful and full of "murder, envy, strife, hatred" and are in the same league as those who enjoy being penetrated by barnyard animals and that black people were "happy" and were not "singing the blues" when Jim Crow laws ruled America, and as long as you later tack on "I love all of humanity" and I would "never incite or encourage hate" and throw around the word "tolerance," and as long as there's enough money and publicity swirling and more ready to be made, you will face absolutely no consequences and if anything you'll be celebrated as a hero and lauded as an icon of freedom -- some will even go so far as to call you the "Rosa Parks" of our generation -- while the people you were talking about will still be vilified and will have to fight even harder against society's belief that they are -- even in the 21st century, even in a country that is not supposed to be ruled by religion or heartless, hateful zealots -- at their very core all of those vile and (let it be said once and for all) patently untrue things that you said about them.

You and the quote you posted are lying pieces of shit.

 

[Bfgrn]

I truly don't care if it was or not. If you want to run with that, great. To me, it's irrelevant to the big picture. It's a nice, quick little term that works fine for me. I'd much rather concentrate on the issue.

And this is precisely where PC can be so destructive. Instead of dealing with the macro picture, you want to deal with little words and phrases. You're illustrating my point for me, over and over and over.

I will use the terms that I want to use. I want us to fix our problems. You can either complain about the words being used, or deal with the issues. Your call, I don't care. But I won't be put on the defensive.

.

You "don't care"? And you would "much rather concentrate on the issue"??

REALLY???

Then WHY did you start and dedicate a whole thread to PC police?

Glad you asked.

Because it is my firm belief that (as you can see on my signature) PC is used as a tactical weapon to control the conversation, to divert from the issue with hypersensitivity over words and phrases. As a result, it stops us from solving our problems.

That's all I really give a crap about, solving our problems. Whether it was my idea or your idea or someone else's. I don't care. And we can't do that unless and until we can have free, open, honest discussions at all times. Right now we simply are not, and PC is one of the primary culprits.

.

YOU are the one using it as a tactical weapon. You are using it to deflect what SHOULD be the topic and what is the CORE of the problem....WHAT Phil Robertson said and HOW he said it. What Phil Robertson said and how he said it should be denounced by liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, blacks, whites and ALL citizens. No man or woman could not have been more defamatory, incendiary and used words in a more despicable way than Phil Robertson's did describing a group of people.

What Phil Robertson said should be roundly criticized by everyone, liberal or conservative.

 

[Mac1958]

You "don't care"? And you would "much rather concentrate on the issue"??

REALLY???

Then WHY did you start and dedicate a whole thread to PC police?

Glad you asked.

Because it is my firm belief that (as you can see on my signature) PC is used as a tactical weapon to control the conversation, to divert from the issue with hypersensitivity over words and phrases. As a result, it stops us from solving our problems.

That's all I really give a crap about, solving our problems. Whether it was my idea or your idea or someone else's. I don't care. And we can't do that unless and until we can have free, open, honest discussions at all times. Right now we simply are not, and PC is one of the primary culprits.

.

YOU are the one using it as a tactical weapon. You are using it to deflect what SHOULD be the topic and what is the CORE of the problem....WHAT Phil Robertson said and HOW he said it. What Phil Robertson said and how he said it should be denounced by liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, blacks, whites and ALL citizens. No man or woman could not have been more defamatory, incendiary and used words in a more despicable way than Phil Robertson's did describing a group of people.

What Phil Robertson said should be roundly criticized by everyone, liberal or conservative.

I don't like what he said. I don't agree with what he said.

So?

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You "don't care"? And you would "much rather concentrate on the issue"??

REALLY???

Then WHY did you start and dedicate a whole thread to PC police?

Glad you asked.

Because it is my firm belief that (as you can see on my signature) PC is used as a tactical weapon to control the conversation, to divert from the issue with hypersensitivity over words and phrases. As a result, it stops us from solving our problems.

That's all I really give a crap about, solving our problems. Whether it was my idea or your idea or someone else's. I don't care. And we can't do that unless and until we can have free, open, honest discussions at all times. Right now we simply are not, and PC is one of the primary culprits.

.

YOU are the one using it as a tactical weapon. You are using it to deflect what SHOULD be the topic and what is the CORE of the problem....WHAT Phil Robertson said and HOW he said it. What Phil Robertson said and how he said it should be denounced by liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, blacks, whites and ALL citizens. No man or woman could not have been more defamatory, incendiary and used words in a more despicable way than Phil Robertson's did describing a group of people.

What Phil Robertson said should be roundly criticized by everyone, liberal or conservative.

But......but.....but......if we don't applaud Phil for saying those things......because he was being honest....then how can we ever hope to have an honest discussion about ............wait.....er........what was the issue again?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Glad you asked.

Because it is my firm belief that (as you can see on my signature) PC is used as a tactical weapon to control the conversation, to divert from the issue with hypersensitivity over words and phrases. As a result, it stops us from solving our problems.

That's all I really give a crap about, solving our problems. Whether it was my idea or your idea or someone else's. I don't care. And we can't do that unless and until we can have free, open, honest discussions at all times. Right now we simply are not, and PC is one of the primary culprits.

.

YOU are the one using it as a tactical weapon. You are using it to deflect what SHOULD be the topic and what is the CORE of the problem....WHAT Phil Robertson said and HOW he said it. What Phil Robertson said and how he said it should be denounced by liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, blacks, whites and ALL citizens. No man or woman could not have been more defamatory, incendiary and used words in a more despicable way than Phil Robertson's did describing a group of people.

What Phil Robertson said should be roundly criticized by everyone, liberal or conservative.

I don't like what he said. I don't agree with what he said.

So?

.

So you agree with the stance that GLAAD has taken regarding his comments. But....in the interest having honest and civil discussion leading to unity, you would like GLAAD to just not respond.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Glad you asked.

Because it is my firm belief that (as you can see on my signature) PC is used as a tactical weapon to control the conversation, to divert from the issue with hypersensitivity over words and phrases. As a result, it stops us from solving our problems.

That's all I really give a crap about, solving our problems. Whether it was my idea or your idea or someone else's. I don't care. And we can't do that unless and until we can have free, open, honest discussions at all times. Right now we simply are not, and PC is one of the primary culprits.

.

YOU are the one using it as a tactical weapon. You are using it to deflect what SHOULD be the topic and what is the CORE of the problem....WHAT Phil Robertson said and HOW he said it. What Phil Robertson said and how he said it should be denounced by liberals, conservatives, gays, straights, blacks, whites and ALL citizens. No man or woman could not have been more defamatory, incendiary and used words in a more despicable way than Phil Robertson's did describing a group of people.

What Phil Robertson said should be roundly criticized by everyone, liberal or conservative.

I don't like what he said. I don't agree with what he said.

So?

.

Your OWN words say you are a liar. You want to blame the people Phil defamed.

Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story
.

Those of us who have had enough BS from the PC Police are making it easy for them to wiggle out of this story on the hairy southern duck guy.

By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance.

Plus, this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's just the latest in a long, long line of examples of their bigotry and intolerance. Holy crap, some of the things I've seen them say here about people who live in that area, wow.

The pushback is absolutely great and terribly overdue. They've jumped the shark with their race-baiting, language-manipulating, phony self esteem-building, forced inclusion silliness and it's clear that the pushback has begun. Yay!

This isn't (or shouldn't be) about the 1st Amendment or television contracts or religion. It should be about the hypocritical, paranoid, intolerant narcissism of the PC Police, and how they want to punish and intimidate people and businesses.