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

[whitehall]

Liberals like to play the tolerance game. Michael Savage might be right when he calls liberalism a mental illness (is that intolerant?). Libs make a big show of being tolerant of sodomy, hairy men in dresses and boys using the girls room but they reserve the right to be intolerant of Christians and people who disagree with them.

 

[Asclepias]

Liberals like to play the tolerance game. Michael Savage might be right when he calls liberalism a mental illness (is that intolerant?). Libs make a big show of being tolerant of sodomy, hairy men in dresses and boys using the girls room but they reserve the right to be intolerant of Christians and people who disagree with them.

Now look who is labeling and avoiding my question to boot.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Liberals like to play the tolerance game. Michael Savage might be right when he calls liberalism a mental illness (is that intolerant?). Libs make a big show of being tolerant of sodomy, hairy men in dresses and boys using the girls room but they reserve the right to be intolerant of Christians and people who disagree with them.

If "liberalism a mental illness" then so are religion and conservatism by the same definition. If you want to believe someone with zero credibility when it comes to the facts then you are off on a tangent all on your own.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

.

yeah thats neat and all. This was never a first amendment issue to begin with so thats not a tangent we really needed to go down.
But i'll humor you and put you in your place with assuming what i think with the first amendment.

you should be able to say whatever you like and be protected under the first amendment. What the 1st does not do is protect you from people having opinions that disagree with you, mock you, shun you, and outright insult you.

They have he right to boycott you and request that people not follow or watch you. They have the right to demand advertisers not sponsor programs.

See you and Fox missed the problem on whats going on. Its not the fact that people are demanding firings. Its the fact for the most part these companies cave and do it. Which empowers these groups even more. Think of it like this. You state something and Fox agrees with it, even reps you. You are now reinforced with your opinion that yours is the right way. Same goes for these groups.

The reality is these companies should be ignoring these demands. They will see nothing will happen and the general public will move on to the next fight. This wont always be the case because sometimes people need to be fired.

You and Fox are treating this as if its the Spanish Inquisition when its not. again thats the extreme end of what could happen. Sure it makes for a neat headline, but the reality is its not.

Again something you both want to ignore. I have the right to ask the mods to ban you from this forum,because of something you stated. the mods in turn have the right to tell me No.

What you and Fox seem to want are no consequences for peoples actions. We dont live in that type of world, and we never will.

There is nothing more fundamentally more American than rising up and removing problems from our society. Has we had it your ways, We would still be under British rule. Because what the hell do you think the revolutionary war was? It was a group of people disliking what someone was doing and demanding they basically be fired from their position of ruling us. ]

In fact i find the Opinion the Op has been carrying to highly unamerican to the fullest.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

GLAAD did nothing wrong.

 

[BillyZane]

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.

This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.

I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.

I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.

That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.

We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.

I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.

What do you think?

I think you're exactly right. More people need to learn to just mind their own business. If you don't like what someone else says or does, oh well.Life goes on.

Some , slash that , many, people need to learn what actual harm means

 

[Asclepias]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

 

[R.D.]

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

 

[Asclepias]

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

 

[R.D.]

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

No, I didn't contradict myself at all. If you offer the housing to the public for rent, then anyone who is part of the public should be allowed to rent it, unless there's some reasonable reason (bad credit or a history of trashing rental properties) to say no. Being a same sex couple is not a reasonable reason.

 

[BillyZane]

Let's see...trying to take the Dixie Chicks livelyhood away is okay, bashing to no end Michelle Obama is okay, bashing Barbara Streisand is okay, bashing John Kerry is okay and Teresa Heinz is okay, and Obama is okay, and Hillary when first lady is okay and Alec Baldwin is okay and the guy fired on Msnbc martin bashir is okay, And trying to take Michael Moore's livelihood away is okay.....and bashing the Reverend Wright and trying to take his livelihood away for his different opinion is all okay....

The list goes on and on and on and on, on both sides of the aisle, yet this Robertson thing surprises you all and makes you want to draw up "what is Fair" rules all of a sudden?

Sure it's a great discussion, yet won't change a thing....

Sadly, in this internet world where everyone has an opinion and can express their opinion anonymously in writing, I don't see the bashing and lies and trying to take someone's livelihood away because you differ with them.... ever changing...we crossed the tipping point and unfortunately there is no going back....unless a miracle from God.

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

If a contract violates federal law it is invalid.

Now I happen to believe that an employer ought be able hire/fire and or serve anyone he likes, but that is not the case, and you can not sign a contract which violates that law.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

But, perhaps as you listen to the "backwards" thinking, you'll be able to point out the flaw in the argument and sway people away from that sort of thinking. The only people I put on ignore are those who are so dogmatic that they can't listen to an opposing viewpoint and those I'm sure are trolling to disrupt a conversation. I tolerate everyone else's opinions and try to discuss things.

 

[Plasmaball]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

Damn right i do, and if such company decides to hear my voice then so be it. If they decide to ignore it then so be it.

Not all opinions are valid, and the fact in this day in age that all opinions must be heard because thats the set-up we have now. You damn right i will mock, insult, shun any opinion i deem moronic.

See i was Tolerant of Phil saying what he said. I am also tolerant of Glaad asking for A&E to fire him. I am also tolerant of A&E not firing him.

Opinions are a wonderful thing. But this is what you are doing. You are taking a Scientist who says the data shows Global warming is an issue,a person on a random message board, and giving them equal weight because you think they both have valid opinions.

this is everything wrong with the current set-up. You legitimize invalid arguments.

Lastly thats the response you give me? I never want to see you complain about nobody giving you answers back in your threads.

 

[Asclepias]

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

 

[hunarcy]

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

If a contract violates federal law it is invalid.

Now I happen to believe that an employer ought be able hire/fire and or serve anyone he likes, but that is not the case, and you can not sign a contract which violates that law.

The contract argument would be so much more effective if Robertson HAD a contract with A&E.

 

[Asclepias]

There is a huge difference. Robertson wasn't bashed and/or threatened by pundits, consumers or loudmouths causing the uproar. He was fired for his religious beliefs in violation of civil rights laws and many people could care less.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. SEC. 2000e-section 703

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

If a contract violates federal law it is invalid.

Now I happen to believe that an employer ought be able hire/fire and or serve anyone he likes, but that is not the case, and you can not sign a contract which violates that law.

It was not invalid. Embarrassing the company is not specific to religion.

 

[hunarcy]

Someone pointed out that was not applicable on another thread due to his contractual obligation to not give A&E a black eye.

Suspended, not fired. My bad

He has already been reinstated, so much for that load of silly 'black eye' defense.

It wasn't silly, it was a preemptive move on the part of A&E. Once they realized the only people that watched the show were like minded ignorant people they unsuspended him. Money speaks more than morals.

Is calling people names to marginalize and belittle them intolerant and bigoted?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

GLAAD did nothing wrong.

Correct.

It responded as it saw fit, where the merits of its argument will be evaluated by private society.