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

[Plasmaball]

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.

that would hurt GQ Materially by not putting it in..

 

[jc456]

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?

Yep! I will say this, my value system is being stepped on daily and no one who believes differently gives two shi___ts. It is about time those with different values than the politically correct squad to stand up for their beliefs.

 

[The T]

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?

Concept of True Liberty escapes far too many...and why we are where we are...is it even taught any longer? Obviously not.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Nothing? Cool.

 

[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".

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?

Sorry. That is silly.

You believe the earth is flat? You are wrong.

You believe that evolution is just a theory? You are wrong.

You believe that Sean Hannity is an honest person? You are wrong.

Simple.

 

[The T]

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?

Sorry. That is silly

. EXPLAIN.

You believe the earth is flat? You are wrong.

NEVER stated that, did he?

You believe that evolution is just a theory? You are wrong.

Didn't state that either, did he?

You believe that Sean Hannity is an honest person? You are wrong.

Never mentioned Hannity...Do you have a fixation? WHY can't YOU stay on topic? EVER?

Simple.

Only for subject changing freaks like you Lunger. NOW get back on TOPIC.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

. EXPLAIN.

NEVER stated that, did he?
Didn't state that either, did he?

You believe that Sean Hannity is an honest person? You are wrong.

Never mentioned Hannity...Do you have a fixation? WHY can't YOU stay on topic? EVER?

Simple.

Only for subject changing freaks like you Lunger. NOW get back on TOPIC.

I wonder why the most condescending nutters are also the least intelligent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

That's funny coming from you, what with all your attempts to dictate to people exactly what they should or shouldn't be expressing their opinions about in this thread.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Allowing people to be wrong?

If ANYTHING is PC......that is it.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

That's sort of my point.

Phil Robertson and A&E can certainly be upset about GLAAD putting pressure on to have him fired. Robertson's friends and family as well.

The rest of us? Why are any of us going to get particularly upset about it? It's not a personal matter for us, and I'm pretty confident that Mr. Robertson's security and livelihood would not have been destroyed had he actually been fired rather than sort of suspended.

I'm not saying anyone should keep their mouth shut about it. I'm just saying that we have this giant thread, many, many other threads, and I don't think it was such an usual, terrible thing that it deserves so much attention. The man wasn't put in the poorhouse. No one has made any accusations of illegal acts. One organization may have been dicks to a guy who made somewhat controversial comments in a magazine.

I realize you were making a broader point in the OP than just this situation. However, as you have pointed out yourself, it is this specific situation that has gotten the vast majority of the discussion. People are polarized by things that the media gives attention to.

I am far more outraged when I see things like children being suspended for drawing a picture of a gun, or Facebook posts getting every day people fired, things of that nature. Those are the more worrisome issues with political correctness IMO.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Allowing people to be wrong?

If ANYTHING is PC......that is it.

No, that is a very classical liberal aka modern American conservative concept. The right to ones own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, convictions--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as my rights require no participation by or contribution from you. It means that GLAAD is allowed to believe that Phil Robertson is a religious bigot but will leave him alone and will not seek to actively punish him for his beliefs. It means that Phil Robertson is allowed to believe homosexuals won't make it into heaven but he doesn't do anything to physically or materially hurt gays.

It means allowing people--people who are not violating the rights of others--to be who and what they are without fear that the government or the Church or some mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically or materially harm them.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

Allowing people to be wrong?

If ANYTHING is PC......that is it.

No, that is a very classical liberal aka modern American conservative concept. The right to ones own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, convictions--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as my rights require no participation by or contribution from you. It means that GLAAD is allowed to believe that Phil Robertson is a religious bigot but will leave him alone and will not seek to actively punish him for his beliefs. It means that Phil Robertson is allowed to believe homosexuals won't make it into heaven but he doesn't do anything to physically or materially hurt gays.

It means allowing people--people who are not violating the rights of others--to be who and what they are without fear that the government or the Church or some mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically or materially harm them.

I get it now. The goal is to allow people to be wrong. It's OK. Being wrong is as American as apple pie.

 

[Foxfyre]

Allowing people to be wrong?

If ANYTHING is PC......that is it.

No, that is a very classical liberal aka modern American conservative concept. The right to ones own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, convictions--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as my rights require no participation by or contribution from you. It means that GLAAD is allowed to believe that Phil Robertson is a religious bigot but will leave him alone and will not seek to actively punish him for his beliefs. It means that Phil Robertson is allowed to believe homosexuals won't make it into heaven but he doesn't do anything to physically or materially hurt gays.

It means allowing people--people who are not violating the rights of others--to be who and what they are without fear that the government or the Church or some mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically or materially harm them.

I get it now. The goal is to allow people to be wrong. It's OK. Being wrong is as American as apple pie.

Well if that is what you got out of it, I am willing to allow you to be wrong.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

I've seen plenty of hateful, spiteful, childish and unAmerican - coming from the TPM in Congress. This? Does not begin to compare.

 

[BDBoop]

if one remembers that fascism is just a variation of the left, that fits perfectly well.

you must love me, or else - is a motto of all the totalitarian regimes of the past century, which ALL happened to be left at it's economic base.

'You must accept or be destroyed..."

That would have made a great title for this thread. It embodies the entire issue I've been trying to address here.

It would. And I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you did to the lefties in this thread, in this post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8375092-post1812.html

 

[BDBoop]

No, that is a very classical liberal aka modern American conservative concept. The right to ones own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, convictions--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as my rights require no participation by or contribution from you. It means that GLAAD is allowed to believe that Phil Robertson is a religious bigot but will leave him alone and will not seek to actively punish him for his beliefs. It means that Phil Robertson is allowed to believe homosexuals won't make it into heaven but he doesn't do anything to physically or materially hurt gays.

It means allowing people--people who are not violating the rights of others--to be who and what they are without fear that the government or the Church or some mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically or materially harm them.

I get it now. The goal is to allow people to be wrong. It's OK. Being wrong is as American as apple pie.

Well if that is what you got out of it, I am willing to allow you to be wrong.

Please tell me that was sarcasm?

 

[GreenBean]

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.

Foxfyre, that is the most intelligent post I've read regarding the Robertson/Duck Dynasty debacle to date.

 

[BDBoop]

Yes, that's usually what happens when an intelligent person agrees with you.

Now point out the same thing on the other side.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Allowing people to be wrong?

If ANYTHING is PC......that is it.

No, that is a very classical liberal aka modern American conservative concept. The right to ones own thoughts, beliefs, opinions, convictions--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as my rights require no participation by or contribution from you. It means that GLAAD is allowed to believe that Phil Robertson is a religious bigot but will leave him alone and will not seek to actively punish him for his beliefs. It means that Phil Robertson is allowed to believe homosexuals won't make it into heaven but he doesn't do anything to physically or materially hurt gays.

It means allowing people--people who are not violating the rights of others--to be who and what they are without fear that the government or the Church or some mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically or materially harm them.

Here’s your problem: you’re getting things all mixed up…

Civil law and First Amendment jurisprudence protect citizens from unwarranted restrictions placed on their right to free speech and free expression by government – one is at liberty to be as ignorant and as hateful as he wishes to a given class of persons with impunity, provided he doesn’t advocate for imminent lawlessness.

Criminal law protects citizens from physical attack or material harm; those seeking to physically or emotionally harm someone with whom they disagree can be charged with assault, battery, aggravated stalking, or other similar credible threats, depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the crime.

None of the above, however, have anything to do with the Duck Dynasty nonsense in particular or the myth of ‘political correctness’ in general; private citizens are at liberty to call for boycotts, petition sponsors, and demand that people be fired for any reason they want, free of government interference. Private society is at liberty to observe the boycott or ignore it as it sees fit.

And should a private citizen cross the line and stalk the person with whom he disagrees, he can be subject to criminal prosecution; or if the offended person seeks to deny someone his right to speak freely by advocating for a law to punish him for his speech, the courts will invalidate such a law in accordance with First Amendment jurisprudence.

In essence, you need to get over it – and simply accept the fact that in a free and democratic society people are going to say and demand things you consider inappropriate and unreasonable, and in a free and democratic society you’re at liberty to express your displeasure, as you’ve done in this very forum.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, that's usually what happens when an intelligent person agrees with you.

Now point out the same thing on the other side.

If you have thus far missed how I have pointed it out on ALL sides, you too really need a remedial reading course.

Those of you who think what GLAAD did, what the AFA did, is just fine and dandy because they weren't doing anything ILLEGAL, you are entitled to your opinion. I am just very happy that you are also in a very small, narrow minded, tunnel visioned minority. And I'm hoping there are far more people who choose to do the RIGHT thing instead of the merely 'legal' politically correct thing.