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

[hunarcy]

I know what you've said you want this to be about. I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked. I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation. I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.

And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.

We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are. That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.

I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people. Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to. Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.

But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever. Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products? Not to me. To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Let me give a hypothetical example.

Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive. I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen. I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air. If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?

Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural. I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin. I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program. Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?

Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?

If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?

Thanks for answering the politician question.

The difference, IMO, is that with a boycott, you are refusing to support an entity that you don't agree with and I support that with all my heart.

However, to blackball someone so they never work again is wrong...and that's what GLAAD was aiming at when they began to "research" Robertson to find all of his former and current employers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know what you've said you want this to be about. I pointed out an area where the issue can become clouded : when a person's livelihood and expressed opinion are inseparably linked. I am curious if your opinion is at all different in such a situation. I'm also curious how you feel about 'going after' a politician because of their opinions, as that is also a murky point.

And I also would like to know if you think there can be a distinction between striking out to hurt others and trying to keep their opinions from being broadcast or supported publicly.

We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are. That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.

I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people. Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to. Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.

But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever. Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products? Not to me. To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Let me give a hypothetical example.

Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive. I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen. I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air. If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?

Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural. I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin. I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program. Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?

Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?

If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?

Thanks for answering the politician question.

Obviously you’re just trying to promote your own programming choices and you are simply expressing your opinion on the station's programming.

Moreover, this determination is not yours alone to make.

The radio station and the show’s sponsors could simply ignore you and continue with their scheduled programming. Likewise the private community could ignore your call for a boycott having determined such an action is not warranted.

 

[whitehall]

Tolerance works both ways. Tolerance should include long standing religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and an aberration and devout religious Americans should not be forced to contribute to sodomy by renting or selling property to overt homosexuals or hiring them. Why not?

 

[Plasmaball]

In which case it comes down to the definition of "hurt". In the instance of the OP Foxy is alleging that PR did not "hurt" anyone with his homophobic opinion. However from the perspective of GLAAD they obviously perceived his opinion to be "hurting" gays by egregiously lumping them in with terrorists. Does that justify GLAAD retaliating with their own intention to "hurt" PR? Do 2 wrongs make a right? At what point does the escalation cease?

Technically if GLAAD were to apply the standard stipulated above they should not have called for retributive "hurt". Equally so PR should have applied the standard and done some serious thinking before he made his "hurtful" comment. But that is an ideal situation. We are dealing with reality instead.

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.

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.

.

you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.

 

[hunarcy]

Tolerance works both ways. Tolerance should include long standing religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and an aberration and devout religious Americans should not be forced to contribute to sodomy by renting or selling property to overt homosexuals or hiring them. Why not?

Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible. You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly. You contribute to making this world a better place. It's not up to you to judge.

 

[Foxfyre]

We should all push back on those who do harm to others and/or encourage harm be done to others purely because of who or what those others are. That is an iron clad principle and is a very different thing than physically and/or materially hurting somebody for nothing more than expressing an unpopular opinion.

I myself have participated in active boycotts against corporations that I believed were engaged in practices that were hurting people. Nestle was one such corporation back in the 70's and the boycott was effective and persuaded Nestle to stop the indefensible marketing practices we objected to. Once Nestle stopped, we all resumed buying Nestle products.

But lets say the CEO of Nestle made a negative comment about Republicans, Christians, conservatives, New Mexicans, or whatever. Is that justification to organize a boycott of Nestle products? Not to me. To me to try to hurt them for nothing more than expressing an opinion is morally and ethically wrong.

To go after a politician and attempt to materially and/or physically hurt him/her purely because he/she expresses an opinion I don't share is also morally and ethically wrong. To campaign for and use my vote to replace a politician with somebody who I believe will represent me/us more ethically, honestly, and competently is perfectly moral and ethical.

Let me give a hypothetical example.

Let's say I find Alex Jones's radio show offensive. I think he is rude and insensitive to victims of various incidents, I think he's promoting a culture in which people's privacy is meaningless, I think he's promoting a mentality where people are unwilling to accept that sometimes bad things just happen. I decide that I want to try and get his radio show cancelled so his messages are no longer promoted on the air. If I organize a boycott, am I attempting to hurt him, or am I just trying to promote my own programming choices?

Now let's say I don't like the television show Supernatural. I think it promotes a godless life, it idealizes witchcraft and sin. I organize a boycott to get it cancelled and replaced with a better program. Am I attempting to hurt the cast and crew, or am I simply expressing my opinion on the station's programming?

Is the intent of an attempt to get a person fired or program cancelled or product shelved the important factor, or is it the end result that matters?

If it is the intent, can you see how it would be possible to hurt someone without that being the goal?

Thanks for answering the politician question.

The difference, IMO, is that with a boycott, you are refusing to support an entity that you don't agree with and I support that with all my heart.

However, to blackball someone so they never work again is wrong...and that's what GLAAD was aiming at when they began to "research" Robertson to find all of his former and current employers.

Exactly. We all have a personal choice of what we watch on television or listen to on the radio, what newspapers and magazines we read, what websites we visit on the internet, or what movies we watch. I simply don't buy or watch or read or otherwise patronize a publication, program, or entity that I find offensive. That is my choice and in some case my moral and ethical obligation. If the medium offends enough people he or she will likely lose all his/her audience and the forum in which to be offensive.

But I don't have the moral or ethical license to tell YOU or anybody else what you are allowed to watch or not watch and punish you if you don't bow to my will. And for me to go after and try to physically and/or materially hurt somebody for no other reason than he or she expressed an opinion I don't like is, in my opinion, morally and ethically wrong. And I will continue to do what I can to promote a culture in which enough people agree that it is morally and ethically wrong so that bullies who now do that sort of thing will choose not to do it.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

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.

.

you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.

What a strange point. Well of course it has.

That doesn't make it right, does it? Or perhaps you think it does?

The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.

Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure tolerance and diversity of opinions.

Clearly not all do. This is one of the big lies of the American Left: They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

Because denying someone quality housing based on their sexual preference is vile and reprehensible. You aren't "contributing to sodomy" by treating people fairly. You contribute to making this world a better place. It's not up to you to judge.

You just contradicted yourself. If someone truly finds homosexuality disgusting why should your morality fore them to rent to a same sex couple? You are saying your definition of vile is superior to theirs.

I would agree with you if you are talking about a government job or housing since gays pay taxes as well. But you didn't buy the property so you shouldn't decide if a guy wants to rent to a young black heterosexual couple instead of two white lesbians.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

.

you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.

What a strange point. Well of course it has.

That doesn't make it right, does it? Or perhaps you think it does?

The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.

Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure tolerance and diversity of opinions.

Clearly not all do. This is one of the big lies of the American Left: They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either.

.

Just as the American Right lies about "religious freedom", "individual rights" and "privacy" when they are the first to stomp on them when it suits their agenda.

Neither side has "clean hands" which is why the 1st amendment protects both sides from each other.

In essence it is the pragmatic implementation of the "tolerance" that the OP wants while being blind to the faults on their own side.

 

[editec]

The Masters are obviously ratcheting up the fear and hate levels on purpose.

Tolerance is discouraged, dismissed as weakness or moral shortcoming.

Victims of systemic forces far beyond their control are faulted as self destructive and/or parasitic and written off as worthless losers.

The insanity of Old Testament values is revered and New Testament values are reviled.

This zeitgeist is NOT by accident. This is contrived for some grand scheme that is unfolding before our very eyes in living color via 24/7 propaganda coverage.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Masters are obviously ratcheting up the fear and hate levels on purpose.

Tolerance is discouraged, dismissed as weakness or moral shortcoming.

Victims of systemic forces far beyond their control are faulted as self destructive and/or parasitic and written off as worthless losers.

The insanity of Old Testament values is revered and New Testament values are reviled.

This zeitgeist is NOT by accident. This is contrived for some grand scheme that is unfolding before our very eyes in living color via 24/7 propaganda coverage.

The only problem with riding the hate and fear tiger is that at some point the masters have to get off.

And that is when the tiger leaps upon the closest prey...the masters themselves.

 

[editec]

The Masters are obviously ratcheting up the fear and hate levels on purpose.

Tolerance is discouraged, dismissed as weakness or moral shortcoming.

Victims of systemic forces far beyond their control are faulted as self destructive and/or parasitic and written off as worthless losers.

The insanity of Old Testament values is revered and New Testament values are reviled.

This zeitgeist is NOT by accident. This is contrived for some grand scheme that is unfolding before our very eyes in living color via 24/7 propaganda coverage.

The only problem with riding the hate and fear tiger is that at some point the masters have to get off.

And that is when the tiger leaps upon the closest prey...the masters themselves.

The Masters are invisible, my friend.

Its their tools that might suffer.

But in their case not until they are no longer useful.

 

[Mac1958]

you are joking right? this has been going on long before America was a thought.

What a strange point. Well of course it has.

That doesn't make it right, does it? Or perhaps you think it does?

The First Amendment was a stroke of brilliance -- at least to those of us who don't believe in a powerful, highly authoritarian central government, maybe not someone like you -- and its natural and unofficial cousin freedom of expression are (in my humble opinion) more instrumental than any other right in making America the amazing country that it is/was.

Whether it's an official First Amendment issue or a more simple, culture-based freedom of expression issue, I cherish those rights, I rejoice in an environment of freedom of expression, I treasure tolerance and diversity of opinions.

Clearly not all do. This is one of the big lies of the American Left: They proudly claim ownership of "tolerance" and "diversity", when in fact they do not truly practice either.

.

Just as the American Right lies about "religious freedom", "individual rights" and "privacy" when they are the first to stomp on them when it suits their agenda.

Neither side has "clean hands" which is why the 1st amendment protects both sides from each other.

In essence it is the pragmatic implementation of the "tolerance" that the OP wants while being blind to the faults on their own side.

Good points. I have, however, seen many conservatives proudly say that they're not tolerant. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the Left trumpets "tolerance" and "diversity" as part of their very DNA, when that just isn't true, not even close.

I like your notion that "the 1st amendment protects both sides from each other."

.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good points. I have, however, seen many conservatives proudly say that they're not tolerant.

And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.

 

[Asclepias]

If you have been reading my posts, you know that 'hitting' is the term I'm using for anything that physically or materially hurts somebody else. And I see my opinion as more defensible than yours because if we become a society that settles all differences of opinion by hitting, the biggest bully will be able to force everybody else to conform to what the bully wants. And it is a near certainty, based on history over thousands of years, that such a bully will be one that pretty much nobody but the bully's toadies will want to be the dominant bully. And none of us will have any rights other than what the bully wants to allow.

I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer. Who determines if bullies should rule or not? Where does this directive come from?

My hope is that it will come from a free people governing themselves and establishing a societal norm of liberty and freedom to be who and what we are without fear that the bully will beat us up if we are who and what we are.

Do you feel that in order for this to be achieved then acceptance of all parties involved needs to be accomplished first? To me it doesn't make sense that this would work for the following reasons:

Some parties are looked down upon due to propaganda.

Some are looked down upon due to fear.

Some are seen to be intellectually or physically inferior.

Some are seen to be evil.

How can you achieve such a utopian society with those existing elements?

 

[Asclepias]

Good points. I have, however, seen many conservatives proudly say that they're not tolerant.

And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.

I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

I understand your point but I dont feel that is an answer. Who determines if bullies should rule or not? Where does this directive come from?

My hope is that it will come from a free people governing themselves and establishing a societal norm of liberty and freedom to be who and what we are without fear that the bully will beat us up if we are who and what we are.

Do you feel that in order for this to be achieved then acceptance of all parties involved needs to be accomplished first? To me it doesn't make sense that this would work for the following reasons:

Some parties are looked down upon due to propaganda.

Some are looked down upon due to fear.

Some are seen to be intellectually or physically inferior.

Some are seen to be evil.

How can you achieve such a utopian society with those existing elements?

There is no utopian society without absolute tyranny of even the most mundane and trivial matters.

 

[whitehall]

Good points. I have, however, seen many conservatives proudly say that they're not tolerant.

And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.

I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.

The fact that you lump a segment of society under a convenient label and call (only) conservatives "intolerant" indicates bigotry and intolerance on your part.

 

[Iceweasel]

And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.

I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.

Exactly. Hypocrisy is natural. Not good but perfectly natural. Not tolerating what you think is intolerance (defined by disagreeing with the left) is like saying you hate haters.

 

[Asclepias]

And I've never seen a liberal say they are not tolerant. They say they are but what they mean is they tolerate opinions like their own.

I think they mean they are tolerant of everyone except those that are intolerant. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. Its against human nature to patiently listen to something that you see as backwards thinking because you see no benefit from listening to it other than reinforcing your conviction that you are right and the backwards speaker is wrong.

The fact that you lump a segment of society under a convenient label and call (only) conservatives "intolerant" indicates bigotry and intolerance on your part.

I think you are being sensitive as evidenced by seeing "conservative" in my post where there is no mention. From a Liberals viewpoint Conservatives or any other group that espouses intolerant ideas such as being against gay marriage is in fact intolerant. Are you trying to say such a stance is tolerant?