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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I completely understand your point. You made it clear in your thread...CRYSTAL.

You have given us a textbook example of how the right has used 'PC police' as a shield, a deflection and a diversion from the REAL topic... WHAT Phil Robertson SAID, and HOW he said it.

I've already said that I disagreed with what he said.

Do I need to find a way to make that more clear to you?

.

So have I. And I don't like the way he said it. I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I am not the least bit homophobic.

But that isn't the point is it?

The point is that GLAAD is a very powerful, very well funded organization doing advocacy for gays and lesbians. It demands that gays and lesbians be allowed to be who and what they are no matter what anybody thinks or feels or believes or says. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is. And that is hypocritical and, in my opinion, evil.

And most of the folks posting here--there are one or two exceptions--who all happen to be on the left seem incapable of seeing that hypocrisy. They don't see anything wrong with a mob, group, or organization physically and/or materially harming somebody for the 'sin' of political incorrectness. But they will condemn the AFA for going after Ellen Degeneres. And so do I condemn that bad act of the AFA. It was also evil.

Why can't they see the hypocrisy is defending one group while condemning the other? I condemn the bad acts of both.

Incorrect.

There is nothing GLAAD or any other private sector entity can do to disallow any person from ‘being who he is.’ Robertson remains at liberty to be ignorant and hateful, and to exhibit his ignorance and hate.

The A&E program is not the only venue and means of communication afforded Robertson, the GQ interview is proof of that, and Robertson will continue to be ignorant and hateful, and express that ignorance and hate, whether the program airs or not.

Indeed, the fact that the network reinstated Robertson so quickly over the objections of GLAAD completely eviscerates your ‘argument’ that the organization is ‘very powerful’ or ‘evil.’ It also demonstrates the fact that this incident in particular, and ‘political correctness’ in general, are non-issues and contrivances of the partisan right.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I completely understand your point. You made it clear in your thread...CRYSTAL.

You have given us a textbook example of how the right has used 'PC police' as a shield, a deflection and a diversion from the REAL topic... WHAT Phil Robertson SAID, and HOW he said it.

I've already said that I disagreed with what he said.

Do I need to find a way to make that more clear to you?

.

So have I. And I don't like the way he said it. I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I am not the least bit homophobic.

But that isn't the point is it?

The point is that GLAAD is a very powerful, very well funded organization doing advocacy for gays and lesbians. It demands that gays and lesbians be allowed to be who and what they are no matter what anybody thinks or feels or believes or says. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is. And that is hypocritical and, in my opinion, evil.

And most of the folks posting here--there are one or two exceptions--who all happen to be on the left seem incapable of seeing that hypocrisy. They don't see anything wrong with a mob, group, or organization physically and/or materially harming somebody for the 'sin' of political incorrectness. But they will condemn the AFA for going after Ellen Degeneres. And so do I condemn that bad act of the AFA. It was also evil.

Why can't they see the hypocrisy is defending one group while condemning the other? I condemn the bad acts of both.

You can make that argument a thousand times. It will not make it a legitimate one.

What GLAAD does is promote the cause of people who have been discriminated against. What the AFA did was promote said discrimination. What Phil Robertson did was express his bigotry.

All have the right....but that does not mean that all will get praise from those of us who are for equality and justice.....and denounce bigotry. I am not being hypocritical in my stance here.....not in the least.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One question to the trolls and one question only:

Is it Phil Robertson you hate? Or is it Fox?

Who do you hate?

 

[Mac1958]

I completely understand your point. You made it clear in your thread...CRYSTAL.

You have given us a textbook example of how the right has used 'PC police' as a shield, a deflection and a diversion from the REAL topic... WHAT Phil Robertson SAID, and HOW he said it.

I've already said that I disagreed with what he said.

Do I need to find a way to make that more clear to you?

.

So have I. And I don't like the way he said it. I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I am not the least bit homophobic.

But that isn't the point is it?

The point is that GLAAD is a very powerful, very well funded organization doing advocacy for gays and lesbians. It demands that gays and lesbians be allowed to be who and what they are no matter what anybody thinks or feels or believes or says. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is. And that is hypocritical and, in my opinion, evil.

And most of the folks posting here--there are one or two exceptions--who all happen to be on the left seem incapable of seeing that hypocrisy. They don't see anything wrong with a mob, group, or organization physically and/or materially harming somebody for the 'sin' of political incorrectness. But they will condemn the AFA for going after Ellen Degeneres. And so do I condemn that bad act of the AFA. It was also evil.

Why can't they see the hypocrisy is defending one group while condemning the other? I condemn the bad acts of both.

Not many people, left or right, seem to get my point, nice to see that you do.

And again, whether it's hypocrisy or dishonesty, we can't fix our problems until and unless we can communicate freely and openly. And PC is one of the barriers to that.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I've already said that I disagreed with what he said.

Do I need to find a way to make that more clear to you?

.

So have I. And I don't like the way he said it. I don't have a problem with homosexuality and I am not the least bit homophobic.

But that isn't the point is it?

The point is that GLAAD is a very powerful, very well funded organization doing advocacy for gays and lesbians. It demands that gays and lesbians be allowed to be who and what they are no matter what anybody thinks or feels or believes or says. But they are not willing to allow Phil Robertson to be who and what he is. And that is hypocritical and, in my opinion, evil.

And most of the folks posting here--there are one or two exceptions--who all happen to be on the left seem incapable of seeing that hypocrisy. They don't see anything wrong with a mob, group, or organization physically and/or materially harming somebody for the 'sin' of political incorrectness. But they will condemn the AFA for going after Ellen Degeneres. And so do I condemn that bad act of the AFA. It was also evil.

Why can't they see the hypocrisy is defending one group while condemning the other? I condemn the bad acts of both.

Not many people, left or right, seem to get my point, nice to see that you do.

And again, whether it's hypocrisy or dishonesty, we can't fix our problems until and unless we can communicate freely and openly. And PC is one of the barriers to that.

.

I have asked this before......got no answer.

You have a meeting set up between Rachel Maddow ( a PC Police Chief ) and Phil Robertson. The goal is to try and bridge the gap between Phil and Rachel's ideology concerning homosexuals in America?

Of the two.....which one is more likely to say whatever comes to mind without regard for civility? Which will likely make every attempt to be respectful of the other's point of view?

Would both be honest in this discussion?

Going into this discussion, which of the two has had to endure greater hardship as a result of how homosexuals have been treated in this country?

 

[hunarcy]

B, B, B, B, bbbbbut that's different!! Christians are the "King's Kids"!! They can allow themselves to do anything they want, and they will be washed clean in the blood no matter what!!!!

Really, I heard a Christian say that to me once. Took a couple of minutes to pick my jaw up from the floor.

I have already taken exception with Foxfyre for constantly using the term "physical" harm. A boycott does not cause physical harm. That is just plain old bullshit.

I don't expect the Self Feeding Troll to understand what the difference is between a boycott and what GLAAD was threatening, but I was wrong. Sorry for expecting more than you could muster.

 

[hunarcy]

If I compared your lifestyle to bestiality, said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"

HOW would you take it? HOW would YOU label it if someone said that about you?

Perhaps YOU should reevaluate your position?

As you have shown repeatedly shown yourself to be of limited intelligence, I'd shake my head at your stupidity and move on to someone else's posts.

BTW, Robertson didn't compare your lifestyle to bestiality, and never said you "invent ways of doing evil", you are "full of murder, envy, strife, hatred." You are "insolent, arrogant, a God-hater." That you are heartless, faithless, senseless, and ruthless"..unless you are admitting you're an unrepentent sinner.

 

[hunarcy]

"
“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

THEY are sinners. Gays included, cuz we all sin. It just happens that homos IDENTIFY themselves by the sin they commit. So they think everyone should dump the bible to save them from having to hear about it.


Read more: ?Duck Dynasty? star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

You clipped off the words he said just before that. He was referring to gays and lesbians. Not unexpected of you.


But lets go it your way.

All sinners.

Everyone is

...full of murder

full of envy,

full of strife,

full of hatred

is insolent

is arrogant

is a God hater

is ruthless

is faithless

are heartless.

senseless.

ruthless.

and invent ways of doing evil.


Everyone.

Because everyone is a sinner.



You run with that.[/QUOTE]

That's true. Most of us try to live better lives, but we areweak. That's why we needed the Savior to come wash away our sins.

 

[hunarcy]

And again, whether it's hypocrisy or dishonesty, we can't fix our problems until and unless we can communicate freely and openly. And PC is one of the barriers to that.

.

I am not sure that people who support groups like GLAAD want to communicate. They are so extreme in their selfrigtheousness that instead of communicating, they want to browbeat and disrupt.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And again, whether it's hypocrisy or dishonesty, we can't fix our problems until and unless we can communicate freely and openly. And PC is one of the barriers to that.

.

I am not sure that people who support groups like GLAAD want to communicate. They are so extreme in their selfrigtheousness that instead of communicating, they want to browbeat and disrupt.

groups like GLAAD are extremists...they will destroy anybody in their way...

those at A&E must've done some tapdancing to get around GLAAD and continue the show......but then there must've been a couple smart GLAADs who realized they overreached this time....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whenever a traditionally oppressed group finds its way toward equality in this country, they are viewed as self-righteous and extreme by those who would continue the oppression.

And even those who support them in their goals....but are averse to change if it upsets too many of the oppressors.....will work against them in the arena of ideas.

Nuckin' futs.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If anybody has any doubt that GLAAD is an extremist group that uses fascist tactics they need to read this article....

this writer is a gay professor...raised by a lesbian even....who got bulldozed over by GLAAD for not toeing the line....talk about intolerance...

Articles: Life on GLAAD's Blacklist

 

[LoneLaugher]

If anybody has any doubt that GLAAD is an extremist group that uses fascist tactics they need to read this article....

this writer is a gay professor...raised by a lesbian even....who got bulldozed over by GLAAD for not toeing the line....talk about intolerance...

Articles: Life on GLAAD's Blacklist

I will believe that when I see the e-mail and the press release that the author references.

He never said why he was "blacklisted" either. Unless I missed it in the odd writing style and fucking odd font.

I gotta tell ya.....I had heard of GLAAD before a couple weeks ago....but they were hardly on my radar. There is no way that they have the power to blacklist anyone in the manner the author stated.

Not believable.

 

[Bfgrn]

And YOU ARE A LYING POS THAT QUOTES GOOD PEOPLE LIKE PHIL COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT

There IS no context that will make what Phil said any less defamatory, incendiary or a less despicable way of describing a group of people.

That is your opinion, is it not? Let him have his, and you can have yours. It doesn't change the meaning of either one. Just don't whine when he has opinions that don't match yours.

The REAL problem is your right wing thugs need to stop whining when people call out the scum you worship.

 

[RKMBrown]

There IS no context that will make what Phil said any less defamatory, incendiary or a less despicable way of describing a group of people.

That is your opinion, is it not? Let him have his, and you can have yours. It doesn't change the meaning of either one. Just don't whine when he has opinions that don't match yours.

The REAL problem is your right wing thugs need to stop whining when people call out the scum you worship.

You are nothing but a lying piece of shit.

 

[candycorn]

Did Foxy come out against those who were pressuring A&E to reinstate this guy? Obviously, they are in her words..."pure evil".

I tried that line of questioning about 20 pages ago.

The witness was alternately unresponsive and evasive.

lol

In my opinion she is a hypocritical piece of shit. Anyone who disagrees with me and tries to boycott me...better watch out because she says she'd be on my side regardless of my opinion of her.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If anybody has any doubt that GLAAD is an extremist group that uses fascist tactics they need to read this article....

this writer is a gay professor...raised by a lesbian even....who got bulldozed over by GLAAD for not toeing the line....talk about intolerance...

Articles: Life on GLAAD's Blacklist

I will believe that when I see the e-mail and the press release that the author references.

He never said why he was "blacklisted" either. Unless I missed it in the odd writing style and fucking odd font.

I gotta tell ya.....I had heard of GLAAD before a couple weeks ago....but they were hardly on my radar. There is no way that they have the power to blacklist anyone in the manner the author stated.

Not believable.

blind is as blind does....it's obvious the GLAAD people hate his gay guts.....he mentions in the article he was talking about gay adoption/parenting which stands to reason since he himself was raised in a 'gay family'......looking him up on the GLAAD website he is quoted with statements they probably consider 'hate speech' in order to blacklist him....obviously no free speech allowed in GLAADland....

-- Says that by siding with the majority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to connect the dots between same-sex parenting and slavery: "Incidentally, through my Puerto Rican roots I am also the descendant of African slaves, as I would guess Sotomayor might be as well. The scars inflicted on the survivors of slavery are tied to the fact that our ancestors were bought, sold, and robbed of a link to our biological roots. This is precisely what gay parenting does to kids through baby farming, adoption on demand, insemination, and surrogacy. You don't solve the historical trauma of such uprooting by vindicating the purveyor of the trauma -- in the case of slavery, white negreros, and in the case of same-sex parenting, gay activists who selfishly placed their desire for a family over children's needs for a mom and a dad. Slavery isn't the only past crime against humanity that offers warnings against shielding "parents" from scrutiny of their deprivation of children's roots. Did it protect the children born as slaves to keep slavery legal? Does it protect children deprived of their fathers to make it legal for the lesbians who have sequestered them to continue excluding them from contact with their fathers? Is the wise Latina awake? Paying attention? Just not connecting the dots? Hello!!"

-- In open letter to a theoretical lesbian couple with a child, refers to same-sex parenting as "this crime": "Why engage in debate with me at all if you are going to limit our vocabulary to brainless platitudes like "my family counts," "my family exists," and "I am as good as you"? Do you plan to keep your daughter in this Orwellian state of dumbed-down doublespeak for her entire life, lest she suddenly realize that you deprived her of a dad and spent much of her childhood trying to deflect blame for this crime onto other people?" Adds: "Do you ever plan to apologize to the girl you are raising for violating her basic human rights, severing her from her father and denying her a father and controlling her for your own quest for validation?"

-- Equates same-sex adoption with "cultural genocide once used against blacks and Indians": "The gay community is now entirely allied to the cultural genocide practices once used against blacks and Indians, since they are determined to say that, in the words of Nancy Polikoff, genetics doesn't matter as long as an adoptive couple can sway the powers that be to award them children. It all feels new and shiny to the gay community, because to them it's a way to overcome past inequality. But they are repeating the same genocidal practices of the past."

Robert Oscar López | GLAAD

 

[Spoonman]

Why isn't it okay for bigots and the prejudiced to be intolerant of whomever they are intolerant of? Unless we have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced, we have no rights at all.

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.

BEING that way is UP to the individual, and acting upon it as to infringe, nay, PUNISH another merely FOR their speech is where it all goes awry, and precisely what GLADD did through his employer (A&E whom capitulated under their MINORITY pressure), as their INTENT was to stifle such speech OPENLY and SHOW their intolerance.

Exactly. Phil Robertson stated a personal belief/opinion in answer to a direct question. I believe he had no intent other than to be honest about what he believed. He made it very clear that he wished no harm or ill will on anyone. Is he intolerant of homosexuality? Yes. He is intolerant of anything he considers to be a sin. That does not mean he loves the 'sinners' any less.

GLAAD intended to physically and materially harm Phil Robertson and they wished him no good will of any kind.

AFA intended to physically and materially harm Ellen Degeneres not for the content of the Penney's ad she appeared in--they had no problem with the content--but they went after her for no other reason than she is gay--she is who she is. They wished her no good will of any kind.

And that is the difference between intolerance expressed--somethng that should be tolerated by all of us--and intolerance acted out which is something none of us should be okay with.

I think you have summed up the duplicity here very well. one man expressed an opinion and there is outrage over it. and the opposing side basically expresses a counter opinion and that is supposed to be accepted as gospel. it doesn't work that way. on top of it, the counter opinion comes with the attempt to directly negatively impact others. IMO, that is the action we should be expressing rage over

 

[kaz]

As a general principle, what's wrong exactly with hate or intolerance?

Answer that without any reference to what specifically one might hate or be intolerant of...

First, I'm going to go with the obvious, the targets of hate and intolerance. Which by definition is not based on fair evaluation.

More broadly, hate and intolerance are tools in politics utilized by liberals and socons to control people into supporting their side without questioning their logic or policies. For example, liberals target the old, saying those evil Republicans are going after your check, which is not true. You use hate and intolerance so much that by the time you get past manipulating blacks, women, gays, Latinos, the poor, the elderly, ... that you never get to any constructive policy at all, you just destroy. And that destruction includes the people you manipulated into supporting you with hate and intolerance.

Wrong answer. But kudos for being you.

The irony...

 

[BDBoop]

What set of facts have I put out there that have not been linked and supported again and again during the course of this thread? And as I have now repeatedly stated again and again--speaking of being 'ignored'--this is not a legal matter. It is a moral and ethical matter of what we should and should not tolerate in politics and society.

If you object to the term 'physical harm' as I have used it, then by all means offer us a better term. I was not using it in a legal sense--I was using it in the fact that Phil Robertson was physically removed from a television show and materially harmed by losing at least a portion of his livelihood. I was using it in the fact that AFA intended to persuade J.C. Penneys to physically remove Ellen DeGeneres from their advertising and materially harm her by costing her a portion of her livelihood. So if you don't like the words I use to describe what I mean, give me a better word to use.

Do you think it was okay for GLAAD to do that?
Do you think it was okay for AFA to do that?

What word would you use for the harm that GLAAD and AFA intended for those two individuals?

Seriously? I need to 'give' you a better word or phrase? I think not. Are you saying that if I don't, you'll just keep using 'physical harm,' whether it is logical, rational or not?

Go ahead.

Does GLAAD have a legal right to do what they did? Does AFA? Yes. I believe they do. And if they have a legal right, then yes, it is fine that they did so.

What word would I use? Why do I get the impression you're trying to overwhelm me into silence with a blizzard of test questions.

Allow me to repeat myself.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

/clears throat