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

[Mertex]

I don't understand what your problem is.

None. As I said, I never expect straight answers here.

If you don't have a problem, then why did you claim that you didn't like someone being called racist? Obviously you do, but you don't realize it.

Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.

I read that as a concession.....if you can't debate, don't.

 

[Mertex]

I don't understand what your problem is.

None. As I said, I never expect straight answers here.

Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.

.

you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.

I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.

I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....

 

[Foxfyre]

Thats not true. If that was true there is no need to place people in prison or put them to death. We would just apply your prefered method of correction. Some people are going to hate others regardless no matter how nice you are to them. You cannot convince someone not to be racist. They have to do that on their own. If they are too dense and or stubborn to see how crippling racism is right in this moment then you are not going to change their hearts. Thats something they have to understand themselves by looking at all the evidence to the contrary all around them and accepting that they are flat out wrong.

The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.

That's true, but racism used to extend to the point where people were not allowed to sit in the same area as others, go to the same public schools, drink from the same fountains, or sit where they chose on a bus, etc. That could and has been avoided, due to the Civil Rights Act.

Since you don't know me personally, you have no idea how much faith I have or don't have in people, and whether or not it is more than yours. Your comment is inane.

I think that people can grow and improve. I have no need to punish people with whom I disagree, unless they break the law.

I do too, unfortunately, they do so at their own pace and when it comes to public facilities, we don't have time to wait until everybody changes. Everybody is entitled to the same rights under our Constitution, and to deny some their rights based on race is not only against the Constitution, it is also unChristian.

People that discriminate based on race are breaking the law, and they should be punished accordingly.

I think we all have potential. One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.

That's rich, since it is the right that believes and supports Capital Punishment....

While you are entitled to your opinion on all these things, this thread is not about racism or capital punishment or any other social issue or what is or is not legal. This thread is not about those who unethically, immorally, or illegally discriminate against other people purely based on who or what they are--I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay.

This thread is about your unalienable right to hold the opinions you do about these things or anything withut fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after you and try to physically and/or materially hurt you because of the opinions you hold. You should be able to hold the opinions you hold and I should be able to hold the exact opposite opinions from your beliefs without fear that somebody will try to physically or materially attack us.

It would be nice if we would grow up as a society and be able to disagree without making each other evil. But that may be asking too much. I will settle for a society that considers it evil to physically or materially hurt people for no other reason than they express an opinon we don't share and/or are who they are.

 

[Plasmaball]

None. As I said, I never expect straight answers here.

Thanks for justifying that for me. Again.

.

you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.

I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.

I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....

he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.

The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.

 

[Asclepias]

But again, and this is maybe the third or fourth or more time I have asked you to answer the question, who gets to decide what is an intolerant idea or opinion?

Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant?
Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes same sex marriage intolerant of those who value the traditional definition of marriage?
Is the guy who wants civil unions but to leave the traditional definition of marriage intact intolerant?
Is the guy who speaks out against the welfare state intolerant?
Is the guy who objects to dissolving the welfare state intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks the Bible says certain things are sin intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales and promotes hate intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks black people are mostly dumb as rocks intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks white people are mostly racist intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes passing out free condoms to kids intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes abstinance for kids intolerant?
Is the guy who promotes legalization of recreational drugs intolerant?
Is the guy who see legalization of recreational drugs as more dangerous than good intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks Republicans are terrible intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks Democxrats are terrible intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks women should be allowed to do anything men do intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks women should have to meet the same standards as the men do in order to do the same things men do intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks nobody should oppose free contraceptives to those who want them intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks people should buy their own contraceptives intolerant?
Is the guy who wants the traditional creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmas intolerant?
Is the guy who wants that creche removed from the courthouse lawn intolerant?
Is the guy who thinks historical religious symbols have a place on city, county, and state seals intolerant?
Is the guy who wants all religious imagery, symbolism, and expression removed from the public sector intolerant?

The list could go on and on and on and on.

Would you trust me to make up those things that society will consider tolerant and intolerant? Who will be allowed to be who and what they are?
Or do you consider yourself competent to make up a list of what society will consider tolerant and intolerant? Who and what they are?

I get the feeling you are not being sincere. There is no way i am going to answer all those questions and you know it. You appear to just want to be right which is fine by me but just let me know.

Is the guy who promotes traditional marriage intolerant? Yes if he is denouncing other marriages.

Is the guy who speaks against traditional marriage intolerant? Yes. He is denouncing something that does not affect him and hurts those who want to be traditionally married.

In my opinion, anybody who is unwilling to see the logic in those questions is not being sincere in this discussion. I accept that you think those who speak against traditional marriage are intolerant. But how does somebody hurt anybody purely with that opinion? How is that any different than the guy who speaks against same sex marriage? How does he hurt anybody with nothing other than expressing an opinon?

If you would disallow anybody to express an opinion that MIGHT offend or be disagreed with by somebody else, nobody would be allowed any opinions at all about much of anything.

But if you are serious in this discussion, you will be willing to answer the last two questions in my post. Who should be the authority in which opinions are okay to express and which opinions are not? Who decides which opinions are okay to physically and materially punish people who express them? You? Me? Who?

I'm not unwilling to see the logic. I think your logic is wrong but I'm tolerant and discussing it with you.

I had to quote this.

If you would disallow anybody to express an opinion that MIGHT offend or be disagreed with by somebody else, nobody would be allowed any opinions at all about much of anything.

I do not care to know what your opinion is if its intolerant. I dont care if you don't get to express it publicly. Go to your room and scream it into your pillow. Learn self control. You are not a child.

As for you last questions I already told you I am fine with our current system of public ostracism or boycotting. I could be the only person that hates what someone says in public. I can form a one man boycott and do everything within my power to hurt you financially. Thats how it works. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Plasmaball]

The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided.

That's true, but racism used to extend to the point where people were not allowed to sit in the same area as others, go to the same public schools, drink from the same fountains, or sit where they chose on a bus, etc. That could and has been avoided, due to the Civil Rights Act.

Since you don't know me personally, you have no idea how much faith I have or don't have in people, and whether or not it is more than yours. Your comment is inane.


I do too, unfortunately, they do so at their own pace and when it comes to public facilities, we don't have time to wait until everybody changes. Everybody is entitled to the same rights under our Constitution, and to deny some their rights based on race is not only against the Constitution, it is also unChristian.

People that discriminate based on race are breaking the law, and they should be punished accordingly.

I think we all have potential. One of the issues on which I regularly disagree with the Left.

That's rich, since it is the right that believes and supports Capital Punishment....

While you are entitled to your opinion on all these things, this thread is not about racism or capital punishment or any other social issue or what is or is not legal. This thread is not about those who unethically, immorally, or illegally discriminate against other people purely based on who or what they are--I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay.

This thread is about your unalienable right to hold the opinions you do about these things or anything withut fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after you and try to physically and/or materially hurt you because of the opinions you hold. You should be able to hold the opinions you hold and I should be able to hold the exact opposite opinions from your beliefs without fear that somebody will try to physically or materially attack us.

It would be nice if we would grow up as a society and be able to disagree without making each other evil. But that may be asking too much. I will settle for a society that considers it evil to physically or materially hurt people for no other reason than they express an opinon we don't share and/or are who they are.

stop telling people what they can talk about, seriously, Mac and Mert are having a decent back and forth about the subject at hand. We get what you are trying to say and yes what they are talking about is an extension of your OP.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Mertex]

While you are entitled to your opinion on all these things, this thread is not about racism or capital punishment or any other social issue or what is or is not legal. This thread is not about those who unethically, immorally, or illegally discriminate against other people purely based on who or what they are--I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay.

I was responding to Mac's comment that "The continued presence of racism cannot be denied and cannot be avoided" - which implies that we should accept racism. I certainly don't agree that just because some thing is, we need to accept it, and I know you don't either. And, as for your last comment, "I don't know of a soul who thinks that is okay" - maybe you are not aware of the many negative and pejorative comments that are routinely made about people of other races

This thread is about your unalienable right to hold the opinions you do about these things or anything withut fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after you and try to physically and/or materially hurt you because of the opinions you hold. You should be able to hold the opinions you hold and I should be able to hold the exact opposite opinions from your beliefs without fear that somebody will try to physically or materially attack us.

You can't always control crazy people, and to expect that crazy people will not act out their craziness is inane. People who are sensitive to an issue and feel offended about something being said by another person will sometimes try and avenge themselves and that is to be expected in a free democracy. I'm not so sure that a world where everyone is allowed to say whatever they want is really Utopia.....as can be seen by visiting the "Flame Zone" - where a simple comment can turn the conversation into an uncivil, name-calling, poop slinging competition - and apparently some of that goes on in our society.

It would be nice if we would grow up as a society and be able to disagree without making each other evil.

That will only be experienced in Heaven. As long as there are people who don't believe in God and His teachings, we will have controversy.

But that may be asking too much.

Christian don't give up, no matter how hopeless it may look.

I will settle fora society that considers it evil to physically or materially hurt people for no other reason than they express an opinon we don't share and/or are who they are.

But, I think we do, otherwise we wouldn't have laws. As for materially, those who are offended or sensitive to what is said have a right to act out their discontent, that's democracy, sometimes it works and and sometimes it backfires.

 

[Mertex]

you keep saying this, but everyone knows you have been.

I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.

I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....

he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.

The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.

I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it. And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.

People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws). Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.

 

[R.D.]

Thank you for conceding that your allegation about rights is utterly baseless. Have a nice day.

No such thing. You're hard core need to ignore a simple fact is awe inspiring.

You don't get to play by your own set of rules.

Failure to substantiate your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto concession of your position.

But I did twice. You just disagree. Which is fine by me, you seem to have trouble tolerating a difference of opinion

 

[Foxfyre]

I think he got tripped up in his own controversy.......he doesn't want people calling others racists because he wants to know who the racists are (which implies that he thinks calling them racists is going to quiet them) - then he goes on to claim that racists won't change just because they are called racists, which contradicts his first statement.

I don't think he knows what he wants to say.....

he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.

The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.

I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it. And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.

People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws). Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.

Yes. Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with. While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that. While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like. Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.

You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that. Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases. There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.

Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal. Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

 

[Mac1958]

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

Yep. Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.

 

[Montrovant]

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

Yep. Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

 

[Mac1958]

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

Yep. Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

Y'know, I wonder about that. I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it. There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange. And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.

They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

Yep. Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

Which is the whole purpose of conciousness raising isn't it? Teaching something in hopes that the concept will catch on? As I see no way to accomplish tolerance for the beliefs of others through legal means, and I see blugeoning people to punish them for their beliefs as morally and ethically destructive and evil, my hope is to change the culture. One attitude at a time. I want it to be as culturally unacceptable in America to try to physically or materially hurt people for their beliefs as it is culturally unacceptable to serve cat meat for dinner.

 

[oldfart]

he and the OP want you to play by their rules, and if you dont, nobody is listening to what they are saying. Even though numerous people have taken on what they've said and had nice back and forth's with them. Yet they still feel nobody gets what they are saying.

The problem is people are blowing holes in their arguments as wide as the Atlantic ocean and they can handle it. thus this is the problem with the Clean debate zone, it legitimizes opinions that should have been put in their places long ago. It tolerates absurd opinions without consequences. Which i guess is perfect for the OP when i think about it.

I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it. And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.

People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws). Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.

Yes. Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with. While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that. While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like. Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.

You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that. Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases. There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.

Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal. Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

I would respectfully suggest that the poster child for this issue is Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center he founded including Klanwatch and Teaching Tolerance. He has in the last twenty years become the foremost spokesman against hate groups and their violence in the United States, and he is constantly and viciously attacked by those he has targeted. There currently six individuals in prison for attempts on his life. He has financially ruined the largest Klan organization in America and shut down several neo-Nazi skinhead organizations. Check out what Stormfront has to say about him.

My point is this: the SPLC has achieved much to use the law to counter hatred when it results in physical violence, and yet every conservative leader in America quakes in his boots if he stands with SPLC. Their "base" will completely ruin them if they did so.

So perhaps I am out of date. If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know. I have been hoping to find some.

If you find none, it should give you pause as it does me that the intellectual tradition that claims to champion individual rights has become a stalking horse for intolerance and violence.

 

[Mac1958]

So perhaps I am out of date. If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know. I have been hoping to find some.

The problem in today's binary, hyperpartisan environment is that if someone endorses one element of something, they're portrayed as endorsing the whole thing. I agree with the SPLC on some things, and I'd love to see them successful in reducing violence, but I also disagree with them on others. They and I have the same goals, just very different approaches. Dees is definitely a sharp guy.

Politicians? They're so consumed with their image that they will always avoid heat. We could use them to help heal racial wounds but fundraising is a higher priority.

.

 

[Asclepias]

So perhaps I am out of date. If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know. I have been hoping to find some.

The problem in today's binary, hyperpartisan environment is that if someone endorses one element of something, they're portrayed as endorsing the whole thing. I agree with the SPLC on some things, and I'd love to see them successful in reducing violence, but I also disagree with them on others. They and I have the same goals, just very different approaches. Dees is definitely a sharp guy.

Politicians? They're so consumed with their image that they will always avoid heat. We could use them to help heal racial wounds but fundraising is a higher priority.

.

Did you ever consider they like the racial tension? Makes for a polarized voting base and more predictable results.

 

[Mac1958]

So perhaps I am out of date. If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know. I have been hoping to find some.

The problem in today's binary, hyperpartisan environment is that if someone endorses one element of something, they're portrayed as endorsing the whole thing. I agree with the SPLC on some things, and I'd love to see them successful in reducing violence, but I also disagree with them on others. They and I have the same goals, just very different approaches. Dees is definitely a sharp guy.

Politicians? They're so consumed with their image that they will always avoid heat. We could use them to help heal racial wounds but fundraising is a higher priority.

.

Did you ever consider they like the racial tension? Makes for a polarized voting base and more predictable results.

Yes! Good and important (and troubling) point.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I get what they are trying to say....why I pointed out that people from any political party do it. And, there is no way that anyone is going to stop it because everyone thinks that their position is the "good" one and the other person's is the "evil" one.

People can say whatever they want and if they are physically hurt for it, there are recourses that can be taken (why we have laws). Unfortunately, material hurt depends on what side the majority of the people fall on, and it doesn't always work to the advantage of the ones trying to inflict the hurt.....regardless of which party it is.

Yes. Asclepias, a few minutes ago, said that he has no problem with physically and materially hurting people for no other reason than they express an opinion that he doesn't agree with. While I think his opinion about that is potentially far more dangerous than the most offensive but non threatening remark anybody might make, I will respect his opinion about that. While I will give him room that he didn't quite intend it that way, his opinion can be taken as advocating hurting other people who express opinions he doesn't like. Phil Robertson's 'objectionable' opinion, on the other hand explicitly extended love to everybody.

You, on the other hand, are not saying that it is okay to hurt people for their beliefs or you don't seem to be saying that. Perhaps there is a recourse for those who are materially or physically attacked by an angry mob, group, or organization for no other reason than they expressed an 'unpopular' point of view, but the cost to do that would likely be prohibitive for many and the negative additional publicity it would generate would make it impractical in most cases. There have been some successful suits filed and won by those who were maliciously attacked but those are rare.

Which is why I have not advocated for it to be made illegal to physically and/or materially attack people for their beliefs, but I wish it could be made illegal. Again I have not been able to come up with wording for such a law that could not be used to restrict all criticism of everything and everybody which I would see as violation of our First Amendment Rights.

But I think if enough good people, both left and right, choose liberty over oppression, we can make the phenomenon of hurting people for their beliefs a rare thing instead of commonplace as it is now.

I would respectfully suggest that the poster child for this issue is Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center he founded including Klanwatch and Teaching Tolerance. He has in the last twenty years become the foremost spokesman against hate groups and their violence in the United States, and he is constantly and viciously attacked by those he has targeted. There currently six individuals in prison for attempts on his life. He has financially ruined the largest Klan organization in America and shut down several neo-Nazi skinhead organizations. Check out what Stormfront has to say about him.

My point is this: the SPLC has achieved much to use the law to counter hatred when it results in physical violence, and yet every conservative leader in America quakes in his boots if he stands with SPLC. Their "base" will completely ruin them if they did so.

So perhaps I am out of date. If you know of a leader on the right who endorses SPLC efforts against violence, please let me know. I have been hoping to find some.

If you find none, it should give you pause as it does me that the intellectual tradition that claims to champion individual rights has become a stalking horse for intolerance and violence.

I know very little about the SPLC actually. I know they exist and I have taken note of some issues they have taken a position on, but I have not had reason to do any in depth research on them. If they are going after organizations, whether left or right, who are DOING bad things to other people, then good for them. However, I just now did a bit of reading on them and it appears they are very partisan and selective in who they put on their 'hate group' list. Lots of white supremacist groups, for sure, but also lots of other organizations that are guilty of nothing but promoting traditional family values, patriot groups such as the Tea Party, etc. And nary a leftwing group makes their list.

You won't find a single conservative leader of any stature who supports the skinheads or the Klan. But do you honestly think a conservative leader of any stature will stand with an organization who also attacks the Tea Party, pro-life groups, 2nd Amendment supporters, and other conservative causes? And who finds no issues of any kind with leftwing groups?

But is the SPLC okay when it goes after some group that is DOING harm to others, i.e. pro life groups who are picketing abortion clinics, harrassing women arriving at or leaving such clinics. or threatening Planned Parenthood? I don't really have a problem with that. But if SPLC goes after somebody for somebody purely because that person expresses a pro-life position and/or disapproves of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics, then it should list itself among those hate groups.

Do what we feel morally compelled to do to legally stop people from hurting people - okay. Hurting people because we don't share their beliefs? Not okay.

 

[Plasmaball]

Yep. Tolerance ain't easy, it requires humility and patience, two things in very, very short supply in our culture.

.

The problem is that not everyone sees the examples given as oppression. So they are not choosing oppression over liberty from their point of view.

Y'know, I wonder about that. I've spoken with people who communicated a clear desire for authoritarianism -- literally, not just inferring it. There are people who think that a society needs a heavy, centralized hand controlling it, and are therefore perfectly willing to give up what some people would call "liberties" in exchange. And they're just as passionate about that as you are in your beliefs.

They wouldn't refer to it as "oppression", of course, but they are comfy with it.

.

So then you are against the OP right?