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

[Montrovant]

Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.

Just be careful what you say. After all, this is America.

.

And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications. When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal. And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it. I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually. But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all. And the bullies of society will control it all. In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly. While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.

That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.

However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats. It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.

While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right. The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society. Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.

In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.

Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence. I think that has always been the case, though. The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.

So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are. They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion. A boycott is a collective expression of opinion. Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about. There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.

I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums. Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive. Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category? Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.

To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, since we have a group of people who have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner in terms what is acceptable, who is guilty and how punishment will be delivered, you and I don't have to bother ourselves with such reasonable points and issues.

Just be careful what you say. After all, this is America.

.

And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications. When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal. And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it. I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually. But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all. And the bullies of society will control it all. In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I don't agree with this at all. Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.

Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.

 

[Asclepias]

But we can return to a culture in which people are allowed their belief systems so long as they don't demand that others adopt them. We can, as a group, become a small nucleus that might be able to grow and persuade others to make political correctness bullying so socially unacceptable that it becomes a distant memory.

I dont have a problem with people having their own beliefs. I have a problem with them thinking they can say what they want to without consequences. I think its more important to teach people how to express their beliefs in a manner that is acceptable to those they may offend than try and correct PC. IMO, PC is a direct result of and reaction to people not having the ability to express their ideas without offending.

Really? Okay, then you have no problem that I DEMAND what words or opinions are acceptable for you to express about Christians? About Republicans? About conservatives? About AGW skeptics? About gospel or country music? About pro-traditional marriage advocates? About pro-lifers? And its okay with you if I physically and/or materially hurt you if you express any negative opinion about any of these folks or use any word that offends me ? Is that what you are saying?

No. I have no problem with you asking for me to be polite when addressing a topic that I may not know is sensitive to you. Your use of the word "demand" is disingenuous and clouds the issue. If I were to continue to do so then I am only being rude and the discussion will never work.

No. It is not ok if you try to physically or materially hurt me if I express a negative opinion. However, I would not be amazed you would want to do so as I understand that what I say has consequences.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it. But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse. The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody. Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say. The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else. The point is not that we object or rebut what somebody else says.

The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.

Robertson's own words do the conflating;

con•flate (kənˈfleɪt)

v.t. -flat•ed, -flat•ing.
to fuse into one entity; merge; combine.

If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things? What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins. That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

 

[Foxfyre]

And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications. When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal. And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it. I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually. But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all. And the bullies of society will control it all. In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly. While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.

That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.

However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats. It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.

While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right. The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society. Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.

In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.

Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence. I think that has always been the case, though. The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.

So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are. They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion. A boycott is a collective expression of opinion. Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about. There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.

I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums. Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive. Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category? Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.

To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.

Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right. I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with. For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it. But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.

 

[G.T.]

But again, who did he 'hurt' by expressing what he believes the Bible says? Did he snatch food from the mouths of babes? Violate their women? Burn crosses on their lawn? Accuse them of vile acts? Urge anybody to harm a gay person in any way? Even if he hadn't modified his remarks with his statement that he includes himself among the sinners and that he loves his gay brothers and sisters, exactly who did he 'hurt'?

Just as there is a difference between anger and hitting, there is a difference between an 'offensive' opinion and verbal assault. And there is a huge difference between stating an honest opinion or belief and in the malicious and dishonest way in which GLAAD manipulated and mischaracterized his remarks to make them appear much worse than they were.

The only group that intended 'hurt' and harm was GLAAD. And in my opinion GLAAD was the entity that came out of this looking small, petty, hateful, intolerant, unethical, and vindictive. Phil Robertson at worst comes out of it as holding an indefensible opinion, but he didn't 'hurt' anybody.

Morally, ethically, and practically, a free people is allowed their beliefs and opinions as an unalienable right. And they have an unalienable right to associate with those of like mind and character should they choose to do that. They have no unalienable right to not be offended by the opinion of another. And it is that truth that we need to re-establish in our American culture.

With all due respect, Foxy, nowhere does the bible conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was PR's bizarre spin on it and he doesn't get a pass by blaming it on the bible in my opinion.

Nor did Phil Robertson conflate homosexuality with terrorism. That was GLAAD's dishonest and inexcusable spin they put on it. But even if he had, so do people equate people with strong religious beliefs as Nazis, terrorists, and worse. The issue is NOT that anybody is expected to agree with anybody. Nobody is expected to endorse or appreciate the point of view of anybody else or not comment on what others say. The point is not what anybody acts out against somebody else. The point is not that we not object or rebut what somebody else says. Nobody should be immune from criticism.

The issue is whether we should be able to hold the beliefs, opinions, convictions, perceptions, points of view that we hold, no matter how bizarre, wrong, intolerant, or stupid they are, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after us to physically and/or materially hurt us.

no, you shouldn't be able to.

save for the physically part.

if a neo Nazi worked for my company, I'd be fucking happy someone brought that up, and he'd be out on his ass where he should be.

 

[Montrovant]

And therein is the very real material danger in political correctness above and beyond the moral and ethical implications. When one side sets itself up as the judge, jury, and executioner to control what people are allowed to express as beliefs or opinions, it is only one small additional step to making certain speech enforcibly illegal. And when that happens, the government can do anything to anybody with impunity.

I'm not suggesting anybody should agree with Phil Robertson or appreciate what he said or how he said it. I didn't appreciate what he said or how he said it actually. But unless he has the right to say it without having some angry mob, group, or organization coming after him to physically and/or materially hurt him, we have no rights at all. And the bullies of society will control it all. In which case, if you value your liberty and ability to think, speak, and hold opinions freely, you better pray that you're on the same side as the bullies.

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I don't agree with this at all. Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.

Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.

Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?

For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer. If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are? Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive? Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason? Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?

This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.

And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder. Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).

This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Robertson's own words do the conflating;

If I say I am going to the store to buy corn flakes, radishes, and tomato soup and ya'll can decide what you want for supper, is that conflating those things? What Robertson did was provide a list of things that he believes are sins. That is NOT conflating the things that he listed.

Actually it is. You combined the things you are buying into a shopping list. PR combined homosexuality into a list of other despicable things. In essence he said that there is no difference whatsoever between the terrorists who murdered 3000 innocent people on 9/11 and the gay couple who live next door. How would you feel if someone lumped you in with mass murderers? You would have every right to be be offended and call out the person who did that to you irrespective of their belief that their "bible" was telling them that retired ladies in NM are plotting to fly planes into tall buildings using radishes and soup cans.

Well I respectfully say you are dead wrong with your opinion there sir, but I will fight to the death your right to hold it. And yes, I would be offended if somebody accused me of being a mass murderer. But would I be offended if I was included in a list of people they hate that included a generic term mass murderers? Not in the least. I think I am bright enough to understand that a list is not conflation unless it is specifically intended to do that. I do not have any more right to be loved, appreciated, or understood than GLAAD has a right to be appreciated and honored by Phil Robertson.

 

[Mac1958]

Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right.

Precisely. It's not as though these people are under some legal obligation to go after people who utter words they don't like. This is a choice they make. Certainly, it's much easier than doing the heavy lifting of changing hearts & minds, and no doubt it makes them feel relevant and powerful (back to my comments about narcissism), but they're not being forced to do it.

.

 

[Asclepias]

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly. While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.

That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.

However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats. It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.

While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right. The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society. Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.

In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.

Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence. I think that has always been the case, though. The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.

So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are. They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion. A boycott is a collective expression of opinion. Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about. There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.

I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums. Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive. Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category? Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.

To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.

Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right. I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with. For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it. But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.

Again i maintain that you lost your right to have a moral and ethic ground to stand on when you violated those same morals and ethics by denigrating whatever person or group you chose to speak on. Someone financially ruining you is the publics right to tell you we disagree with the method you choose to express yourself with. Its called boycotting and short of imprisoning you or hurting you physically its is the most humane option to deal with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I don't agree with this at all. Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.

Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.

Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?

For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer. If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are? Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive? Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason? Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?

This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.

And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder. Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).

This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.

Phil Robertson was asked a direct question by a GQ interviewer and he answered it as honestly as he could. GQ editors then edited his comments and printed them in the magazine. Phil Robertson's remarks had zero to do with Duck Dynasty, zero to do with A&E, zero to do with any of A&E's advertisers.

Did GLAAD go after GQ magazine for publishing the remarks? For making them public? Nope. Wouldn't that have been the logical target for what they characterized as 'defamation'? No, they went after Phil Robertson to punish him for stating his opinion when he was asked for it. And, even if they had not dishonestly and maliciously mischaracterized what he said, to attempt to physically and materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

As a public figure/entertainer, Mr. Robertson is open to retaliation for anything and everything he, or anyone else might say. If you don't want that kind of vulnerability, don't be a reality star. But if you are on tv or otherwise in the public light, you can't expect the same kind of protections whether in-law, or in theory as someone at a neighborhood picnic.

I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly. While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.

That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.

However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats. It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.

While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right. The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society. Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.

In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.

Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence. I think that has always been the case, though. The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.

So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are. They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion. A boycott is a collective expression of opinion. Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about. There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.

I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums. Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive. Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category? Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.

To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.

Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right. I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with. For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it. But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.

Certainly that is different. It depends on what those 'bullying tactics' are and what threats are actually used, though.

If the threat is a threat to boycott, I have no moral qualms with that.

If it is threats of frivolous lawsuits, I am opposed to that.

If it is threats of going to the CEOs of advertisers and telling them that GLAAD will run massive advertising campaigns against those companies if they don't fire an individual, I'm opposed to that as well.

I'm not really sure what other threats or tactics might be used, but I'd need to look at them individually to know how I feel about them.

I suppose my point is that I don't agree that it is always wrong to oppose someone for what they believe, even if that might lead to them losing a job.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think this is one of the most important points of this discussion.

There is a difference between holding an opinion and voicing it publicly. While anyone has the right to both, the more publicly one voices an opinion, the more likely they are to have people react negatively to it.

That has become more confused with the rise of social media, and could probably be a long discussion in and of itself.

However, what we don't generally see are groups or organizations going after people for voicing their opinions privately or in very limited formats. It is when someone, in effect, shouts it out for the world to hear that these kinds of situations arise.

While these groups may often be doing things I don't personally approve of, organizing to publicly condemn someone for their views or call for a boycott should remain their right. The only way they should be prevented, if at all, is through the ethics generally held by society. Just the same as the only way a person's opinions, however vile they might be, should be prevented is through those same ethics.

In other words, the only reason these kinds of expressions of opinion (and yes, a boycott is an expression of opinion) should be prevented is because the people expressing them know that society in general is opposed to them.

Now it is an unfortunate truth, IMO, that any kind of changing of social norms is going to be far more easily accomplished, or at least begun, but those with power, money, and influence. I think that has always been the case, though. The average person simply doesn't have that great an effect on the world around them.

So, [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION], I would say that people have the right to express their opinions and be who they are. They do not have the right to do so unopposed by conflicting expressions of opinion. A boycott is a collective expression of opinion. Lawsuits are different and, as I believe I've said in the other thread, I feel differently about. There are different ways to attempt to oppose or silence someone's opinion, and I have different thoughts about the morality of each.

I consider there to be a difference between attempting to harm someone and attempting to keep their voice out of public forums. Trying to get an individual fired because of their beliefs as expressed on a television show is very similar to trying to have an entire television show removed from the air because one finds it offensive. Would you consider an organization working to get a show cancelled to be in the same category? Doing so would cause material and/or physical harm to far more people than going after a single public personality.

To simplify it, I think anyone has the right to say what they want (within fairly obvious limits) and that includes trying to convince others not to buy or associate with any person for any reason.

Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right. I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with. For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it. But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.

Again i maintain that you lost your right to have a moral and ethic ground to stand on when you violated those same morals and ethics by denigrating whatever person or group you chose to speak on. Someone financially ruining you is the publics right to tell you we disagree with the method you choose to express yourself with. Its called boycotting and short of imprisoning you are hurting you physically its is the most humane option to deal with you.

Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between a decision to boycott somebody because of what that person DID and a decision to physically (remove from a position) or materially hurt somebody for an opinion the person holds? Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between objecting to what somebody said and striking that person--hurting that person--because you don't like who they are and/or don't like their point of view?

I suppose you aren't able to see the difference. But I'm hoping many here do.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't agree with this at all. Every American, regardless of their occupation or whether they are isolated hermits or whether or not their face is recognized by everybody or their name is a household word, whether they are Phil Robertson or Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump or Barack Obama or Miley Cyrus should be able to be who and what they are and speak their opinions without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them to physically and/or materially hurt them.

Nobody from the hermit to the President should be immune from criticism or even condemnation for their opinions, but as long as they are expressing their opinions and not acting on them, they should not have to fear for their persons, their property, or their livelihood.

Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?

For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer. If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are? Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive? Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason? Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?

This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.

And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder. Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).

This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.

Phil Robertson was asked a direct question by a GQ interviewer and he answered it as honestly as he could. GQ editors then edited his comments and printed them in the magazine. Phil Robertson's remarks had zero to do with Duck Dynasty, zero to do with A&E, zero to do with any of A&E's advertisers.

Did GLAAD go after GQ magazine for publishing the remarks? For making them public? Nope. Wouldn't that have been the logical target for what they characterized as 'defamation'? No, they went after Phil Robertson to punish him for stating his opinion when he was asked for it. And, even if they had not dishonestly and maliciously mischaracterized what he said, to attempt to physically and materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

I specified that my post did not have to do with any of the examples that have been given in these threads. I wasn't talking about Phil Robertson or GLAAD.

However, to comment on your point about GLAAD going after GQ, conducting an interview is not usually considered a form of support for the opinions in the interview. It's a bit closer to support to employ someone on a show based on showing them in 'real life' and expressing those kinds of opinions, which is why I can understand going after A&E and not GQ.

Not that I agree with it, but I can see the reasoning behind it. I would understand if someone wanted to boycott a company that broadcast a 'Charles Manson's afternoon lessons' show but not a magazine that interviewed him.

 

[G.T.]

If I were glaad, I'd have done what they did.

Straight up.

 

[Asclepias]

Having the legal right is different from a moral and ethical right. I will continue to believe it is morally and ethically wrong to form an angry mob or intentionally organize an effort to hurt somebody for no other reason than that person is somebody we don't like or said something we don't agree with. For GLAAD to inform its members that Phil Robertson is on their blacklist and therefore their members should boycott products he endorses and not watch A&E is their right, however small and petty they are exercising it. But that is a very different thing than going after A&E with threats and bullying tacts and threatening A&E's advertisers if A&E doesn't fire Phil.

Again i maintain that you lost your right to have a moral and ethic ground to stand on when you violated those same morals and ethics by denigrating whatever person or group you chose to speak on. Someone financially ruining you is the publics right to tell you we disagree with the method you choose to express yourself with. Its called boycotting and short of imprisoning you are hurting you physically its is the most humane option to deal with you.

Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between a decision to boycott somebody because of what that person DID and a decision to physically (remove from a position) or materially hurt somebody for an opinion the person holds? Are you intentionally refusing to see the difference between objecting to what somebody said and striking that person--hurting that person--because you don't like who they are and/or don't like their point of view?

I suppose you aren't able to see the difference. But I'm hoping many here do.

I think I outlined those differences in my response you quoted. I have no problem with what view you may hold. If you say something publicly that I do not like or agree with I can punish you for being rude with any method I see fit. All these methods have different consequences for both you and myself.

If I chose to boycott your firm I would lose use of your service or product. Your firm could lose money and you could lose your job. You could also lose future employment due to your views.

If I chose to go after you maliciously and file lawsuits you could be out of a financial amount or lose your home fighting it. You could also be seen as a liability and lose present or future employment. I could incur court costs due to losing the suit.

If I chose to attack you physically you could get hurt, I could get hurt or wind up in prison for assault.

 

[G.T.]

Exactly.

And it should be noted, glaad has no power to "materially" hurt phil. They only have the power to compel his company to do so. Of course, if there's a boycott of said company it's up to those who disagree with it to also use their first amendment rights, but the boycott is not wrong to do, to begin with.

They also don't have the freedom to harm him physically. that is illegal, they would be punished by the law.

This is all about being a big baby. It's exactly what it boils down to.

For all the people joining in protest, the counter protesters maintain their freedoms to counter protest louder.

Also - Tolerance is far greater today than throughout American history. That is a fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, but when that expression of their opinions IS their livelihood, doesn't it make things a bit more complex?

For a political pundit, or a movie reviewer, or anyone who's livelihood is so intrinsically tied to their opinion, things are a bit grayer. If you try to convince people to have their show cancelled, is it because of that person being who and what they are? Is it morally acceptable to work to have a fictional show cancelled because you dislike it, or find it offensive? Is it also acceptable to have a political show cancelled for the same reason? Can you do either of those things without actually intending to harm anyone, merely because you want to see different programming on the air?

This doesn't directly tie to any examples that have been given in these threads, I just thought it was an interesting point.

And I do wonder how you feel about organizing to have a politician removed from office in comparison to having a person fired from an entertainment job, or even organizing to support a political opponent because you disagree with the current office-holder. Those are different situations, but have some strong similarities, in that you could be said to be attempting to materially harm someone for being who and what they are (depending on what they actually do while in office, of course).

This is a discussion with a lot of layers to it.

Phil Robertson was asked a direct question by a GQ interviewer and he answered it as honestly as he could. GQ editors then edited his comments and printed them in the magazine. Phil Robertson's remarks had zero to do with Duck Dynasty, zero to do with A&E, zero to do with any of A&E's advertisers.

Did GLAAD go after GQ magazine for publishing the remarks? For making them public? Nope. Wouldn't that have been the logical target for what they characterized as 'defamation'? No, they went after Phil Robertson to punish him for stating his opinion when he was asked for it. And, even if they had not dishonestly and maliciously mischaracterized what he said, to attempt to physically and materially hurt him for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

I specified that my post did not have to do with any of the examples that have been given in these threads. I wasn't talking about Phil Robertson or GLAAD.

However, to comment on your point about GLAAD going after GQ, conducting an interview is not usually considered a form of support for the opinions in the interview. It's a bit closer to support to employ someone on a show based on showing them in 'real life' and expressing those kinds of opinions, which is why I can understand going after A&E and not GQ.

Not that I agree with it, but I can see the reasoning behind it. I would understand if someone wanted to boycott a company that broadcast a 'Charles Manson's afternoon lessons' show but not a magazine that interviewed him.

My purpose here is not to focus on any particular incident though we all are using known incidents as illustration. My purpose is to raise consciousness beween honest differences of opinion, objection, being able to express our opinion about what is and is not acceptable, without acting out to physically or materially hurt others. To express our opinions, positive or negative, was seen as an unalienable right by the Founders. To act out to violate the rights of others was not.

I was one of several who were instrumental in founding and developing the Domestic Violence Association of Central Kansas and my (different) agency was doing some intensive work to deal with and combat domestic violence well before we founded DVACK. One thing my agency did was to sponsor self help groups for domestic violence abusers. Many of the abusers had grown up to equate anger and hitting as inseparable. Whether via parents or siblings or others, anger was always expressed by striking out. But when we taught them that anger and hitting are separate things--that feeling anger is okay but hitting to express it is not--that had honestly never occurred to them. It was by no means effective with all, but more than once we would see a lightbulb go on. Such people who understand that can be rehabilitated and can be trusted to not be repeat offenders.

And I am hoping that we have more American citizens who can understand that disagreeing with, even objecting to and/or condemning the expressed opinions and beliefs of others is a separate thing from striking out to hurt others physically and/or materially. You can morally and ethically do one without doing the other. And in a free society, I believe freedom loving people will do one without doing the other.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.

Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

The fact that you endorse something as divisive and incendiary as Evan Sayet's diatribe says all I need to know about you. You are a hyper-partisan fraud.

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

So much for this being the Clean Debate Zone. Perhaps you should reconsider your words and speak more carefully.

There is no such thing as equality. Never will any man be exactly equal to another. There will always be differences. Superiority and inferiority will exist until the end of time. Equality as I understand it, will be when someone can tolerate the opinion of others without needing to exact their displeasure via deleterious means.

The fact you are intolerant of Fox's views means you aren't tolerant. Equality only exists when expressed views match yours.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.

But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.

But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:

A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.

A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.

A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.

An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.

A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.

A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.

Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.​

Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.

It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.

Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.

The fact that you endorse something as divisive and incendiary as Evan Sayet's diatribe says all I need to know about you. You are a hyper-partisan fraud.

Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater

So much for this being the Clean Debate Zone. Perhaps you should reconsider your words and speak more carefully.

There is no such thing as equality. Never will any man be exactly equal to another. There will always be differences. Superiority and inferiority will exist until the end of time. Equality as I understand it, will be when someone can tolerate the opinion of others without needing to exact their displeasure via deleterious means.

The fact you are intolerant of Fox's views means you aren't tolerant. Equality only exists when expressed views match yours.

the bolded: I concur with you.

And [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] - I think that TK is right in his advice to you. In the CDZ there are stricter rules. You can vigorously attack an idea or a concept with facts, but we are not allowed to attack a person. If you feel you have been attacked, as I was once counseled by a good member here, just report the posting and then forget about it.