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

[Montrovant]

Okay, I've done my damndest to keep this thread non partisan and on point, but alas, the more sensible people here just can't help themselves. You wouldn't put the trolls on ignore when I requested and you just can't resist responding to them when requested. So I can't report the off topic posts without nailing the rest of you. LOL. Ah well. At least world peace or the eradication of hunger or who wins the Super Bowl doesn't hinge on this thread.

But what seems crystal clear in all of this:

1. With one or two exceptions it is the Lefties--and I can say unequivocably now that it is ONLY the lefties on this thread--who are unable to be objective, honest, fair, or any form of reasonable. They have accused those of us who are trying to debate the topic with every slur and insult short of us being Hitler, and I'm not sure that wasn't in there somewhere, and have accused us of being blindly partisan and much worse. I still say it is something in the water they drink that makes them unable to discuss anything without being personally insulting or partisan or ad hominem and keeps them from being able to understand what the point of the topic is.

Yes, some of those on the right are equally as insulting, but at least everybody on the right at some point in all of this has addressed the point of the topic.

2. With one or two exceptions, those on the left have not been willing or capable to address the topic itself. They are focused strictly on Phil Robertson as being the devil personified and/or any of us who think what GLAAD did was reprehensible. When asked if they think GLAAD and the AFA were right to do what they did, they will not answer that question with a yes or no. They go off into some other tangent or accuse me for asking the question.

In fairness to those on the left, so far very few on the right have commented that the AFA was every bit as reprehensible as GLAAD. I have now mentioned that several times and yet some, even some I consider friends, still accuse me of being partisan among a number of other unflattering adjectives. They also accuse me of defending Phil Robertson though I now numerous times have said I don't agree with his interpretation of scriptures in this issue and I didn't like the way he expressed it.

Nevertheless, amidst all the childishness, pettyness, hatefulness, deliberate derails, and other nonsense, whether you have agreed with me or not, I hope the intelligent few who have understood the point of the OP and were grown up enough to actually discuss it, have been able to raise the consciousness a bit of those who have been reading in.

At some point, if good people do not begin demanding that we push back against those who demonstrate nothing but hate in the name of political correctness and who would demand that everybody share their views and opinions or else, we will lose all of our unalienable right to be who and what we are. Maybe the GLAAD and Phil Robertson bruhaha is the place where we start turning that around.

I don't use ignore. If I don't want to read someone's posts, I skip them.

Most of the fun in any given thread comes from the side conversations that come up.

Is this a 'if you can't beat them, join them' post? Other people haven't stuck to discussing only the specific points of the OP in a non-partisan fashion, so you are going to make an insulting partisan post?

I can't say I've noticed any kind of stranglehold on objectivity, fairness, honesty or reasonableness from any particular political ideology in this thread. To be fair, I don't know the political affiliations of all of the posters.

 

[Montrovant]

You have highlighted one of the clearest examples of hypocrisy and double standard that exists in the topic.

Phil Robertson has encouraged nobody to be vindictive toward gay people. He has encouraged just the opposite. He doesn't hate or even dislike gay people. He is clearly on the record that he loves his gay brothers and sisters as much as anybody else and wishes no harm come to them or anybody. His ONLY sin is that he interprets the Bible as including homosexuality with a whole bunch of other 'sins' and, when asked a specific question by a GQ interviewer, he expressed his interpretation honestly and without vindictiveness. He did so crudely, but then as his family describes him, he is a crude guy. A lot of people are.

So some are okay with going after Phil Robertson, okay with getting him fired, okay with physically and materially punishing him, because he expressed an opinion they don't like.

So would our friends here who have described Christianity in crude, unkind, and erroneous ways be okay with us going after them? Getting them fired? Physically and materially punished them because they describe Christianity in a way we see as intolerant, crude, and unkind?

What is the difference between these two things?

The big difference would be that this is an anonymous message board, making any sort of action against a poster of that sort difficult, and Phil Robertson being a public figure making statements under his own name. It leaves a person much more open to criticism and attack when they are a celebrity.

But yes, if it is ok for GLAAD to threaten harmful but legal acts because of what Phil Robertson says, it is ok for anyone here to do the same.

I'm going to ignore all of you, left or right, who can't seem to focus on a topic without making it something personal against everybody else. Sigh. The need to be hateful, accusatory, and spiteful from so many of you is indeed frustrating. The inability to focus on a concept instead of attacking each other seems to be epidemic lately. You'll no doubt get your wish soon and the mods will shut down the thread or bust it to the flame zone where it will disappear. And I'm sure you'll all glad hand each other and celebrate when that happens. That is your intent after all isn't it?

So thank you Montrovant for focusing on the topic and not joining in on the schoolyard food fight. Maybe we can get in a bit more grown up discussion before that happens.

So okay. Your statement I would see is fair and equitable. What's good for the goose and all that. And yes, my analogy was hypotheticl because I do not have the ability to identify those posting here, nor do I have any desire to attack anybody in real life any more than I want to attack people on message boards. I personally have a hard time respecting anybody who attacks and insults people for no other reason than they hold an unpopular opinion or because they represent some group some think are unacceptable. I don't think that is what grown up, intelligent, freedom loving people do.

But that is what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson.
That is what American Family Association did to Ellen Degeneres.

Is that okay?

In a legal sense, in the sense they should have the right to do those things, yes, it's okay.

In a personal, moral sense, no, not really. On the other hand, I wouldn't categorize as evil, either. It's a bit extreme, it's not something I would do based on the comments made, but I don't feel a need to get excited about it, either.

However, I feel I am pretty low on specifics. I've not read anything (yes, I've done a little looking) that tells me exactly what GLAAD did to pressure A&E. There are different gradients of wrongness possible in what they did. If they threatened just a boycott, it's no big deal. If they threatened to apply some kind of 'insider' pressure on advertisers to get them to drop A&E, that's more insidious. If they threatened anything illegal, that's pretty bad.

In my opinion this whole topic has been blown way out of proportion. Sure, GLAAD appear to have acted like asses. Honestly I think Phil Robertson has come off as a bit of an ass as well. GLAAD shouldn't have gotten so up in arms about his interview, A&E shouldn't have suspended him (although they have gotten a lot of publicity, so maybe by their standards they should have) and Robertson probably should have been more circumspect in his comments if he wanted to avoid any hooplah.

People get too sensitive about these kinds of things.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Okay, I did miss that. It disappoints me though that you would think it is fine that these two organizations or anybody else do that. Because I think it is hateful, spiteful, childish, and unAmerican. But that's just me.

 

[Foxfyre]

The big difference would be that this is an anonymous message board, making any sort of action against a poster of that sort difficult, and Phil Robertson being a public figure making statements under his own name. It leaves a person much more open to criticism and attack when they are a celebrity.

But yes, if it is ok for GLAAD to threaten harmful but legal acts because of what Phil Robertson says, it is ok for anyone here to do the same.

I'm going to ignore all of you, left or right, who can't seem to focus on a topic without making it something personal against everybody else. Sigh. The need to be hateful, accusatory, and spiteful from so many of you is indeed frustrating. The inability to focus on a concept instead of attacking each other seems to be epidemic lately. You'll no doubt get your wish soon and the mods will shut down the thread or bust it to the flame zone where it will disappear. And I'm sure you'll all glad hand each other and celebrate when that happens. That is your intent after all isn't it?

So thank you Montrovant for focusing on the topic and not joining in on the schoolyard food fight. Maybe we can get in a bit more grown up discussion before that happens.

So okay. Your statement I would see is fair and equitable. What's good for the goose and all that. And yes, my analogy was hypotheticl because I do not have the ability to identify those posting here, nor do I have any desire to attack anybody in real life any more than I want to attack people on message boards. I personally have a hard time respecting anybody who attacks and insults people for no other reason than they hold an unpopular opinion or because they represent some group some think are unacceptable. I don't think that is what grown up, intelligent, freedom loving people do.

But that is what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson.
That is what American Family Association did to Ellen Degeneres.

Is that okay?

In a legal sense, in the sense they should have the right to do those things, yes, it's okay.

In a personal, moral sense, no, not really. On the other hand, I wouldn't categorize as evil, either. It's a bit extreme, it's not something I would do based on the comments made, but I don't feel a need to get excited about it, either.

However, I feel I am pretty low on specifics. I've not read anything (yes, I've done a little looking) that tells me exactly what GLAAD did to pressure A&E. There are different gradients of wrongness possible in what they did. If they threatened just a boycott, it's no big deal. If they threatened to apply some kind of 'insider' pressure on advertisers to get them to drop A&E, that's more insidious. If they threatened anything illegal, that's pretty bad.

In my opinion this whole topic has been blown way out of proportion. Sure, GLAAD appear to have acted like asses. Honestly I think Phil Robertson has come off as a bit of an ass as well. GLAAD shouldn't have gotten so up in arms about his interview, A&E shouldn't have suspended him (although they have gotten a lot of publicity, so maybe by their standards they should have) and Robertson probably should have been more circumspect in his comments if he wanted to avoid any hooplah.

People get too sensitive about these kinds of things.

Well if it is your job somebody goes after and it is your security and livelihood that somebody tries to take away from you, then tell me whether you think it is blown way out of proportion and you're being too sensitive about it.

 

[jc456]

the question is--How can someone's belief be wrong?

 

[LoneLaugher]

the question is--How can someone's belief be wrong?

Easily......if you believe there are such things as "right and wrong" and "fact and fiction".

 

[Mac1958]

the question is--How can someone's belief be wrong?

Great question.

I guess the answer is, "when their belief dares to contradict that of a narcissist".

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm going to ignore all of you, left or right, who can't seem to focus on a topic without making it something personal against everybody else. Sigh. The need to be hateful, accusatory, and spiteful from so many of you is indeed frustrating. The inability to focus on a concept instead of attacking each other seems to be epidemic lately. You'll no doubt get your wish soon and the mods will shut down the thread or bust it to the flame zone where it will disappear. And I'm sure you'll all glad hand each other and celebrate when that happens. That is your intent after all isn't it?

So thank you Montrovant for focusing on the topic and not joining in on the schoolyard food fight. Maybe we can get in a bit more grown up discussion before that happens.

So okay. Your statement I would see is fair and equitable. What's good for the goose and all that. And yes, my analogy was hypotheticl because I do not have the ability to identify those posting here, nor do I have any desire to attack anybody in real life any more than I want to attack people on message boards. I personally have a hard time respecting anybody who attacks and insults people for no other reason than they hold an unpopular opinion or because they represent some group some think are unacceptable. I don't think that is what grown up, intelligent, freedom loving people do.

But that is what GLAAD did to Phil Robertson.
That is what American Family Association did to Ellen Degeneres.

Is that okay?

In a legal sense, in the sense they should have the right to do those things, yes, it's okay.

In a personal, moral sense, no, not really. On the other hand, I wouldn't categorize as evil, either. It's a bit extreme, it's not something I would do based on the comments made, but I don't feel a need to get excited about it, either.

However, I feel I am pretty low on specifics. I've not read anything (yes, I've done a little looking) that tells me exactly what GLAAD did to pressure A&E. There are different gradients of wrongness possible in what they did. If they threatened just a boycott, it's no big deal. If they threatened to apply some kind of 'insider' pressure on advertisers to get them to drop A&E, that's more insidious. If they threatened anything illegal, that's pretty bad.

In my opinion this whole topic has been blown way out of proportion. Sure, GLAAD appear to have acted like asses. Honestly I think Phil Robertson has come off as a bit of an ass as well. GLAAD shouldn't have gotten so up in arms about his interview, A&E shouldn't have suspended him (although they have gotten a lot of publicity, so maybe by their standards they should have) and Robertson probably should have been more circumspect in his comments if he wanted to avoid any hooplah.

People get too sensitive about these kinds of things.

Well if it is your job somebody goes after and it is your security and livelihood that somebody tries to take away from you, then tell me whether you think it is blown way out of proportion and you're being too sensitive about it.

What could someone in your place of employment say that would prompt you to sign a petition for their dismissal? Anything?

 

[koshergrl]

If they were voicing opinions that reflected the opinions that earned them their employment in the first place...that is not grounds for dismissal. As A&E determined, quickly.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they were voicing opinions that reflected the opinions that earned them their employment in the first place...that is not grounds for dismissal. As A&E determined, quickly.

Correct. It was not as if the A&E management didn't know who and what Phil Robertson is. It is who and what he and his family are that have attracted the huge fan base they enjoy.

But my quarrel was not with A&E though I was disappointed that they so quickly caved in from threats and demands from a hateful organization. And I am not even part of the Duck Dynasty audience. But I can't fault any business for a legal business decision they feel is in their best interest. I might point out that they might want to rethink what their best interest is which is what millions of Duck Dynasty fans did. By the fans expressing their support of Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty, A&E could see that they had much more to lose from dumping Phil than anything GLAAD could likely do to them. And I'm sure their advertisers were telling them that too.

As well as just about every interview program out there was trying to get Phil on it, and each time he went on one of those shows, it was making GLAAD and A&E look worse and worse.

But the problem was never A&E. They simply got caught in the crossfire. The problem was that GLAAD deliberately, and with forethought and malice, went after Phil Roberson to hurt him as much as they legally could. To hurt him for nothing more than expressing an opinion they didn't like. If GLAAD really was offended by the statement, however, they would have gone after GQ who published the statement and made it public. But they didn't say boo to GQ.

This has never been about what is legal to do. It has never been about what we are or are not allowed to do. The whole point of the OP was that in our politics, in our socioeconomic lives together as Americans, in the media, and in commerce and industry, freedom loving people should make it socially and politically unacceptable to attack ANYBODY for no other reason than who they are or for the opinions they hold. Fight back when they try to force who they are or what they believe on the rest of us, yes.

But formally punishing people for just stating their opinions or living their lives in a way that doesn't require contribution or participation from the rest of us? That we should make culturally and socially unacceptable everywhere whether it is the White House, Congress, any department in government, any business, any organization, or any individual doing it.

 

[The T]

If they were voicing opinions that reflected the opinions that earned them their employment in the first place...that is not grounds for dismissal. As A&E determined, quickly.

The REAL Americans spoke...A&E heard it loud and clear.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If they were voicing opinions that reflected the opinions that earned them their employment in the first place...that is not grounds for dismissal. As A&E determined, quickly.

Correct. It was not as if the A&E management didn't know who and what Phil Robertson is. It is who and what he and his family are that have attracted the huge fan base they enjoy.

But my quarrel was not with A&E though I was disappointed that they so quickly caved in from threats and demands from a hateful organization. And I am not even part of the Duck Dynasty audience. But I can't fault any business for a legal business decision they feel is in their best interest. I might point out that they might want to rethink what their best interest is which is what millions of Duck Dynasty fans did. By the fans expressing their support of Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty, A&E could see that they had much more to lose from dumping Phil than anything GLAAD could likely do to them. And I'm sure their advertisers were telling them that too.

As well as just about every interview program out there was trying to get Phil on it, and each time he went on one of those shows, it was making GLAAD and A&E look worse and worse.

But the problem was never A&E. They simply got caught in the crossfire. The problem was that GLAAD deliberately, and with forethought and malice, went after Phil Roberson to hurt him as much as they legally could. To hurt him for nothing more than expressing an opinion they didn't like. If GLAAD really was offended by the statement, however, they would have gone after GQ who published the statement and made it public. But they didn't say boo to GQ.

This has never been about what is legal to do. It has never been about what we are or are not allowed to do. The whole point of the OP was that in our politics, in our socioeconomic lives together as Americans, in the media, and in commerce and industry, freedom loving people should make it socially and politically unacceptable to attack ANYBODY for no other reason than who they are or for the opinions they hold. Fight back when they try to force who they are or what they believe on the rest of us, yes.

But formally punishing people for just stating their opinions or living their lives in a way that doesn't require contribution or participation from the rest of us? That we should make culturally and socially unacceptable.

Maybe you have stated this already.....but I ask:

What should GLAAD have done? Exactly.

 

[koshergrl]

If GLAAD wants to take on the bible, they should say they're taking on the bible...instead of pretending it isn't an attack on the bible when they attack individuals for stating their religious beliefs (WHEN ASKED).

 

[The T]

If GLAAD wants to take on the bible, they should say they're taking on the bible...instead of pretending it isn't an attack on the bible when they attack individuals for stating their religious beliefs (WHEN ASKED).

Which is their deception. I'd say they should be ashamed...but then they'd have to know shame.

 

[The T]

If they were voicing opinions that reflected the opinions that earned them their employment in the first place...that is not grounds for dismissal. As A&E determined, quickly.

Correct. It was not as if the A&E management didn't know who and what Phil Robertson is. It is who and what he and his family are that have attracted the huge fan base they enjoy.

But my quarrel was not with A&E though I was disappointed that they so quickly caved in from threats and demands from a hateful organization. And I am not even part of the Duck Dynasty audience. But I can't fault any business for a legal business decision they feel is in their best interest. I might point out that they might want to rethink what their best interest is which is what millions of Duck Dynasty fans did. By the fans expressing their support of Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty, A&E could see that they had much more to lose from dumping Phil than anything GLAAD could likely do to them. And I'm sure their advertisers were telling them that too.

As well as just about every interview program out there was trying to get Phil on it, and each time he went on one of those shows, it was making GLAAD and A&E look worse and worse.

But the problem was never A&E. They simply got caught in the crossfire. The problem was that GLAAD deliberately, and with forethought and malice, went after Phil Roberson to hurt him as much as they legally could. To hurt him for nothing more than expressing an opinion they didn't like. If GLAAD really was offended by the statement, however, they would have gone after GQ who published the statement and made it public. But they didn't say boo to GQ.

This has never been about what is legal to do. It has never been about what we are or are not allowed to do. The whole point of the OP was that in our politics, in our socioeconomic lives together as Americans, in the media, and in commerce and industry, freedom loving people should make it socially and politically unacceptable to attack ANYBODY for no other reason than who they are or for the opinions they hold. Fight back when they try to force who they are or what they believe on the rest of us, yes.

But formally punishing people for just stating their opinions or living their lives in a way that doesn't require contribution or participation from the rest of us? That we should make culturally and socially unacceptable.

Maybe you have stated this already.....but I ask:

What should GLAAD have done? Exactly.

Accepted the VOICE of a fellow American...but KNOW...their AGENDA was stronger than the First Amendment.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Warm and welcoming. That is the feeling one gets from lovely Christians like KG and T. Makes me want to head on down and pop a wafer.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they were voicing opinions that reflected the opinions that earned them their employment in the first place...that is not grounds for dismissal. As A&E determined, quickly.

Correct. It was not as if the A&E management didn't know who and what Phil Robertson is. It is who and what he and his family are that have attracted the huge fan base they enjoy.

But my quarrel was not with A&E though I was disappointed that they so quickly caved in from threats and demands from a hateful organization. And I am not even part of the Duck Dynasty audience. But I can't fault any business for a legal business decision they feel is in their best interest. I might point out that they might want to rethink what their best interest is which is what millions of Duck Dynasty fans did. By the fans expressing their support of Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty, A&E could see that they had much more to lose from dumping Phil than anything GLAAD could likely do to them. And I'm sure their advertisers were telling them that too.

As well as just about every interview program out there was trying to get Phil on it, and each time he went on one of those shows, it was making GLAAD and A&E look worse and worse.

But the problem was never A&E. They simply got caught in the crossfire. The problem was that GLAAD deliberately, and with forethought and malice, went after Phil Roberson to hurt him as much as they legally could. To hurt him for nothing more than expressing an opinion they didn't like. If GLAAD really was offended by the statement, however, they would have gone after GQ who published the statement and made it public. But they didn't say boo to GQ.

This has never been about what is legal to do. It has never been about what we are or are not allowed to do. The whole point of the OP was that in our politics, in our socioeconomic lives together as Americans, in the media, and in commerce and industry, freedom loving people should make it socially and politically unacceptable to attack ANYBODY for no other reason than who they are or for the opinions they hold. Fight back when they try to force who they are or what they believe on the rest of us, yes.

But formally punishing people for just stating their opinions or living their lives in a way that doesn't require contribution or participation from the rest of us? That we should make culturally and socially unacceptable.

Maybe you have stated this already.....but I ask:

What should GLAAD have done? Exactly.

Personally, I think they should have done nothing. They were not targeted. They were not attacked. They were not threatened. They were not mentioned. To get all incensed and combative purely because Phil Robertson is a Christian and interprets the Bible fundamentally makes GLAAD look small, petty, and hateful.

If they felt he had somehow defamed gays and lesbians, they should have objected to GQ publishing the article. And they could have done that with a strongly worded Letter to the Editor. Stating that you strongly disagree with somebody is A-okay. But presuming to physically or financially blugeon them into being politically correct is not okay.

 

[Plasmaball]

the question is--How can someone's belief be wrong?

Great question.

I guess the answer is, "when their belief dares to contradict that of a narcissist".

.

seeing how my post was XXXXXfor whatever reasons.

Again you want to explain this a little more deeply?

 

[jc456]

the question is--How can someone's belief be wrong?

Easily......if you believe there are such things as "right and wrong" and "fact and fiction".

I believe in the lone ranger, doesn't mean he existed. Who are you to say what is right or wrong? I don't impose my rights on you so why do you feel the need to impose yours on me?

 

[Foxfyre]

the question is--How can someone's belief be wrong?

Easily......if you believe there are such things as "right and wrong" and "fact and fiction".

I believe in the lone ranger, doesn't mean he existed. Who are you to say what is right or wrong? I don't impose my rights on you so why do you feel the need to impose yours on me?

And isn't that the whole concept of tolerance in the first place? Allowing others to be different? Allowing others their opinion, belief, convictions so long as they don't force them on others? Allowing people to be wrong?