Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[G.T.]

A boycott is perfection.

Freedom of speech is a legally protected construct.

A boycott of yourself or your company as a result of your freedom of speech is not illegal. It also does not infringe on your freedom of speech.

It is others using their power of speech, or in most cases their speech through consumerism, in order to try to shape society towards THEIR views using THEIR tools under the constitution to do so. This is why we HAVE freedom of speech. To dissent against that which we find disagreeable.

The problem is: you can organize counter boycotts. You can still use your VOICE to kick down the boycott and if people SUPPORT YOU, then it worked. If they DONT SUPPORT YOU, it still worked.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone has to accept what you say and take no action, inside of the law. It doesn't mean getting your own way, untouched. And when you are boycotted, that does not equal losing your freedom of speech because you can use that SAME freedom to win all or more of your support back, be you as correct as you may think that you are.

It worked for Phil.

Juan Williams took his speech over to another channel.

This is much ado over NOTHING, in my humble.

Literally NOTHING. And regarding TOLERANCE of others' speech, we are FAR more tolerant nowadays than historically. I can't even fathom how any could find that debatable. Read some detailed US history, and compare it to today. Back of the bus, segregation, women's rights, racism, Japanese internment camps, censorship on tv, elvis' "hip gyrations" being "outrageous!"

Really?

 

[oldfart]

Not to say that the op is hyperbole just to be mean, but as a society we are WAY more tolerant today than historically.

Shit, just listen to music watch movies and television. 3/4 of it would not have historically been tolerated.

Being black used to not be tolerated.
Being gay.
Marrying interracially.
Being a woman in the workforce.
Being a woman in politics.


So you might buy into the hype of political heads making gross political statements and the "other side" organizing protest, but you're out of your mind and being brainwashed by sensationalism if you feel we're on a dangerous trend of intolerance.

The trend is on a STEEEEEEEEEEEEP downward cycle headed away from intolerance.

I fervently hope you are correct, and in many respects believe you are correct. I'd just add a couple of counterpoints. First, the progress achieved has come at a great human price and that price will continue to be paid if we are to retain those improvements, much less advance them. Second, the use of violence has decreased and adapted its forms, but a great many are still looking for opportunities to bring back the "good ol' days". Our achievements are not irreversible.

 

[G.T.]

Not to say that the op is hyperbole just to be mean, but as a society we are WAY more tolerant today than historically.

Shit, just listen to music watch movies and television. 3/4 of it would not have historically been tolerated.

Being black used to not be tolerated.
Being gay.
Marrying interracially.
Being a woman in the workforce.
Being a woman in politics.


So you might buy into the hype of political heads making gross political statements and the "other side" organizing protest, but you're out of your mind and being brainwashed by sensationalism if you feel we're on a dangerous trend of intolerance.

The trend is on a STEEEEEEEEEEEEP downward cycle headed away from intolerance.

I fervently hope you are correct, and in many respects believe you are correct. I'd just add a couple of counterpoints. First, the progress achieved has come at a great human price and that price will continue to be paid if we are to retain those improvements, much less advance them. Second, the use of violence has decreased and adapted its forms, but a great many are still looking for opportunities to bring back the "good ol' days". Our achievements are not irreversible.

I wouldn't call those counterpoints, I'd call them "additional points."

 

[Gagafritz]

For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business. There are far, far too many busybodies. Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self. I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine. A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.

 

[Mac1958]

For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business. There are far, far too many busybodies. Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self. I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine. A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.

Yep, agreed, and that goes to my posts about narcissism. If you say something I don't like, I just HAVE to find a way to PUNISH you for it, otherwise I'm just CHEATED in some way. I just HAVE to DEMONSTRATE to you PRECISELY how OFFENDED I am.

Maybe if we all just calmed down and got over ourselves a bit, people would be less motivated to bloviate in the FIRST place.

.

 

[G.T.]

For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business. There are far, far too many busybodies. Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self. I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine. A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.

Yep, agreed, and that goes to my posts about narcissism. If you say something I don't like, I just HAVE to find a way to PUNISH you for it, otherwise I'm just CHEATED in some way. I just HAVE to DEMONSTRATE to you PRECISELY how OFFENDED I am.

Maybe if we all just calmed down and got over ourselves a bit, people would be less motivated to bloviate in the FIRST place.

.

This sounds nice, and works well in personal circles -> but it ignores reality. If people who were being subjugated by law just sat quietly about it, and didn't say a peep when people were publicly making it "normal" to speak of them as 3rd rate human beings - things would never change.

When a particular type of person has been a party to ridicule for quite some time, drawing attention to it when it occurs is the best resolve.

 

[Mac1958]

For the most part, I think we need to get back to the concept of Minding Your OWN Business. There are far, far too many busybodies. Everyone is responsible to stand before God for His or Her Self. I am not accountable for your life nor are you accountable for mine. A whole lot more minding your own business and whole lot less TMI would make for a better world in my opinion.

Yep, agreed, and that goes to my posts about narcissism. If you say something I don't like, I just HAVE to find a way to PUNISH you for it, otherwise I'm just CHEATED in some way. I just HAVE to DEMONSTRATE to you PRECISELY how OFFENDED I am.

Maybe if we all just calmed down and got over ourselves a bit, people would be less motivated to bloviate in the FIRST place.

.

This sounds nice, and works well in personal circles -> but it ignores reality. If people who were being subjugated by law just sat quietly about it, and didn't say a peep when people were publicly making it "normal" to speak of them as 3rd rate human beings - things would never change.

When a particular type of person has been a party to ridicule for quite some time, drawing attention to it when it occurs is the best resolve.

I would never advocate sitting quietly and not saying a peep. But -- in least in my mind, anyway -- there is a clear and significant distinction between honest, civil, passionate public debate and going out of one's way to purposely punish someone for daring to have opposing (legal) beliefs.

I'm far more interested in fixing the root cause than punishing the end result.

.

 

[Asclepias]

This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned. And I am not talking about people responding negatively either. I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid. I have no right to approval. But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.

Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.

I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature. Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?

Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended. Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies. It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say. It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so. It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.

But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty. Even liberty to be awful people. We can demand certain protocol in our own business. We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes. We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with. But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else. Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.

But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed. But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight. Good night.

None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well. True we dont have to punch people. However, they don't have to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical. I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions. Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does. Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change. There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.

 

[Asclepias]

There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.

Here's the difference: I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.

I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit. My approach has been consistent:

I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated. It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.

Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever -- knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds. Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.

.

You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking. I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech. I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits? I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression. I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run. They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction.

 

[kaz]

The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.

The problem with many intolerant, particularly liberals, is that their intolerance involves the removal of my own choice.

With conservative Christians, I can just avoid them. Well, except those in my family, but that's a different issue...

In the former category, intolerance does need to be challenged. In the latter, not necessarily.

 

[Mac1958]

There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others.

Here's the difference: I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.

I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit. My approach has been consistent:

I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated. It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.

Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever -- knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds. Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.

.

You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking. I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech. I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits? I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression. I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run. They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction.

What you're doing here is playing judge, jury and executioner. You and those who think specifically like you are deciding what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, who is perpetrating the offenses, who is not, and you're condoning the punishment, whatever that may be.

To use your own word, you're doing the "forcing".

I have no designs on such power. I'd rather just try to change their minds with respect, humility and reason.

.

 

[Asclepias]

.

GT, first of all, seriously, thanks for directly answering my question, which is pretty freakin' RARE around here.

We both want our children to grow up in a better place. I wonder if you think that firing the guy is actually doing that. He hasn't been executed, so he's still around, and no doubt his racists views have been exacerbated by this firing. No doubt the racist views of those around him have, as well.

I'd think your response would be something like, "yes, but now they know they need to keep their mouths shut or they're next." This is where we part company, because I don't want my kids to grow up in a country where, if they say the wrong thing, someone who disagrees with them will go after them in some way.

I'd much rather have them grow up in a country where differences of opinion can be brought out and discussed. They'll win some, they'll lose some, but at least they won't be afraid to say what's on their mind. In my mind, openness to other ideas is a positive, not a negative. Say what you're thinking, and let's discuss it.

.

You are not thinking about the lesson that your children should learn from such a situation. Actions have consequences. It is a natural law. Teaching otherwise thumbs your nose at this law and will have serious consequences later. Sometimes its simply better to keep whats on your mind....on your mind. Its arrogant to instill the thought you can say what you want without consequence.

 

[hunarcy]

This sounds nice, and works well in personal circles -> but it ignores reality. If people who were being subjugated by law just sat quietly about it, and didn't say a peep when people were publicly making it "normal" to speak of them as 3rd rate human beings - things would never change.

When a particular type of person has been a party to ridicule for quite some time, drawing attention to it when it occurs is the best resolve.

To my mind, it's not drawing attention to ridicule when it happens that is intolerant. It's demanding a pound of flesh because you're offended that moves into intolerance.

 

[hunarcy]

You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking. I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech. I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits? I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression. I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run. They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction.

Excellent!

 

[hunarcy]

No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.

I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.

Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.

And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.

Rush Limbaugh, for example.

Westbrook Baptist Church.

They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.

We have the right to match their volume, effectively.

We HAVE that RIGHT.

Of course you do. But, do you have the right to go beyond their "volume" and impose your views on them?

 

[Asclepias]

Here's the difference: I don't want to censor you, I am in no way trying to intimidate you from saying what you're thinking or calling you names or trying to get you fired.

I'm trying to use civility and reason and maturity to change your mind, even if just one tiny little bit. My approach has been consistent:

I have said a zillion times that I want to know who the crazies are, what they are thinking, and (most importantly) who agrees with them. I can't know that if people are attacked when they say things that I don't like, and they will not say those things if they are intimidated. It is then, at that point, that perhaps we can open lines of communication to heal wounds.

Unlike those who have this narcissistic personal need to shout "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever -- knowing quite well that such behavior accomplishes absolutely nothing positive -- I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of trying to calmly change hearts and minds. Those who just want to attack and punish people who dare to say something they don't like -- in America! -- clearly have no such goals.

.

You make a good point about knowing what the crazies are thinking. I listened to Rush for about a week before my wife made me stop. I dont have a problem with people thinking whatever as it usually comes out in their actions. I full well think people have a right to free speech. I just dont subscribe to the theory that "free speech" is actually free. Everything you do in the real world has a consequence even if it is not readily apparent. Why should speech be deemed off limits? I too am willing to do heavy lifting to change hearts and mindsets provided they are respectful in their expression. I think forcing people own up to their consequences does more help for them in the long run. They learn the natural law of all actions having a reaction.

What you're doing here is playing judge, jury and executioner. You and those who think specifically like you are deciding what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, who is perpetrating the offenses, who is not, and you're condoning the punishment, whatever that may be.

To use your own word, you're doing the "forcing".

I have no designs on such power. I'd rather just try to change their minds with respect, humility and reason.

.

Humans are social animals. There is a group dynamic where you don't get to act as if you live alone. You have to adhere to the standards of the group and leave your perceived personal freedom to act as you wish on the shelf or face the groups chosen mode of punishment for transgression. Thats how we developed and survived as a species. Its not about you, its about the group. It is incumbent on the person trying to change the mindset of the group to find a way to do that without offending people. Not the other way around.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature. Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?

Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended. Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies. It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say. It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so. It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.

But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty. Even liberty to be awful people. We can demand certain protocol in our own business. We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes. We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with. But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else. Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.

But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed. But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight. Good night.

None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well. True we dont have to punch people. However, they don't have to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical. I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions. Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does. Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change. There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.

But the OP is not addressing one on one interpersonal relationships. The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay. I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else. For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk. There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.

Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else. Short of inciting to riot or encouraging harm to other people, we all should be able to hold and express our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.

You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you. I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things. You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you. But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.

 

[Asclepias]

Because none of us have an unalienable right to not be offended. Because grown ups don't punch people out because they are insensitive jerks or verbal bullies. It doesn't mean we have to accept what they say. It doesn't mean we don't tell them off when appropriate to do so. It doesn't mean that we don't remove them from our Christmas Card list or whatever.

But if we value liberty, that means that we have to allow liberty. Even liberty to be awful people. We can demand certain protocol in our own business. We can demand certain protocol in our families or in our homes. We can expect a certain conduct from those we associate with. But otherwise we have no right to dictate to anybody else how they must think, believe, speak or else. Because if we assume that right, then we should expect to be at the mercy of a bigger, stronger bully than we are.

But it is very late and I'm weary and I'm headed for bed. But I will no doubt be back to fight the good fight. Good night.

None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well. True we dont have to punch people. However, they don't have to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical. I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions. Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does. Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change. There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.

But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships. The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay. I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else. For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk. There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.

Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else. We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.

You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you. I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things. You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you. But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.

I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free. Its not. It has consequences.

My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences. I understand and accept that. I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.

 

[Foxfyre]

None of us have the unalienable right to offend without consequence as well. True we dont have to punch people. However, they don't have to express things that wound far deeper than anything physical. I don't subscribe to the sticks and stones theory because words can and often do more damage than physical actions. Everyone tries to pretend it doesn't matter but it does. Have someone tell you that you are worthless for years and see where you would be mentally. It would gradually destroy your self esteem and potentially affect later generations. I assert the right to demand respectful treatment. That right cannot be given to me as it is just a part of me. if someone comes along stronger than me they better pack a lunch because that would not change. There is no need to fight. I understand your position but respectfully I just disagree.

But the OP is not addressing one on one interrelationships. The OP is not suggesting that interpersonal violence--physical, emotional, psychological, verbal--is okay. I think that is where the tolerance issue gets so confused when some are unable to distinguish the difference between holding a belief or opinion and doing something to somebody else. For example there is a difference between believing the Bible condemns drunkenness, and trying to hurt or destroy somebody because he or she got drunk. There is a difference between believing that adultery is a sin and demanding that somebody be branded with a scarlett letter and stoned.

Holding a belief or opinion is NOT doing something to somebody else. We all should be able to hold our beliefs and opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after us to hurt or destroy us.

You expressed an opinion that you think it is okay to strike somebody if they sufficiently offend you. I think you are very wrong about that as I believe anger and hitting are two very different things. You should not be allowed to strike another purely because that person offended you. But you should be allowed your opinion that you think punching him/her out would be okay.

I don't think there is much difference in one to one relationships and one to many relationships except you get to offend more people and influence more people in the one to many.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and doing something because of that opinion. There is a third element which is expressing that opinion and influencing or offending others. i have a problem with this element more than the others in our society because of this concept of free speech being actually free. Its not. It has consequences.

My opinion of striking someone is a personal issue I have to work on but indicative of just how much it angers me when someone talks down to a woman, berates a child, or uses a slur. Me hitting someone could have consequences. I understand and accept that. I dont think people who believe free speech is actually free understand it.

Free speech is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear of retaliation from the federal government. The premise of the OP is NOT a free speech issue.

Tolerance is a concept of allowing people to believe, think, and express their opinions without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come after them and try to hurt, ruin, and/or destroy them because they express an opinion somebody else disagrees with or doesn't like. It is not a constitutional or legal issue. It is a moral, ethical, and right and wrong issue. So long as they do not tread on the rights of others, it is allowing people to be who and what they are.

My purpose for this thread, for instance, is to do some consciousness raising. I am alarmed, saddened, and even frightened at the trend of some, both right and left, who would intentionally, and will malice and forethought, try to hurt and ruin people for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion not shared by or resented by somebody else. I have enough sense of history to know how dangerous this is to all our liberties as well as being immoral and shameful from an ethical perspective. I have no illusion that it will have much affect on anybody. But I hope it does.

Should I be forbidden to post this thread at USMB because it just might influence somebody's thinking?

If your concern is that expressed opinions might influence the thinking of somebody else, how do you presume to govern that? Who gets to decide who will be allowed to influence people with impunity and who will be punished for attempting to influence people? Who gets to choose whether the pro-traditional marriage or the pro same sex marriage people are the group allowed opportunity to influence others? Will the freedom of choice people or the pro-government mandated healthcare people be allowed a forum to express their views with impunity? Will the Ladies Temperance League be silenced while the Eat Drink and Be Merry people are allowed full license to promote the party spirit?

And is this just limited to people expressing their opinions? Or shall we start censoring the media, books, magazines, movies, television shows, music lyrics, and video games that also have power to influence?

In this case the slippery slope concept is very much a reality.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Because sometimes what people believe, and then say in public, harms others (bullying, bigotry, etc. et al.) going after such people is warranted and just. Wiccan Rede's a good standard to go by, "If it harms none, do as you will." But if you're hurting someone with what you're saying, expect to be hurt in return.