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

[Mertex]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

I'll take you on any given day.

I don't think you are qualified but it's funny that you even think so. Your post does not even make it clear what you are trying to prove with your comments and link, but maybe you are not aware of that.

You obviously missed one of my fave guys statements. You know that old Ward Churchill?I can give you so many more.

First of all, does the statement by Ward prove that the dude on the video can read Liberal minds? Does it prove that "all" liberals hate America and claim that it deserved 9/11? That was his opinion, and like you are entitled to it, but that doesn't mean that because you have an opinion you can read other people's minds.

But here is Ward's and by the way I helped get this fake Indian fired. So if you want to dance let me know the time and place.

First of all, it doesn't appear that you are even able to dance, you are not even keeping up with the music. Foxfyre has already tried to censor some of us for saying what she thought didn't pertain to the topic at hand, and I truly don't see where your statement/link does either. All it proves is that people were intolerant of what he said, and got him fired, something that the OP is trying to dissuade.

I rejoice daily that this mother fucker has no voice as a member of a first nation.

I'm certain that this has no reference to the OP, but am happy that you can rejoice. I hope Foxfyre is able to take notice that a "conservative" has actually voiced an opinion of having rejoiced over someone having been fired over something they said, which is exactly what her OP is trying to go against. She has quoted a Liberal as having said they were glad that someone got physically/materially hurt - and here you are providing her with a conservative saying the same thing. Thank You.

So, maybe you are saying that Pat Robertson should also be fired for making accusations against Americans? Please clarify....your post doesn't make clear what you are trying to accomplish.

 

[Statistikhengst]

first bolded: guaranteed, I am going to ask the mods about this.

second bolded: if it ends up I was in error, I will apologize immediate. But then again, you absolutely ruined any spirit of cooperation with the last bolded sentence or yours. Hey, we are in the CDZ, remember?

Why even have people contribute to a thread if all you are really interested in hearing confirmation of what you want to hear?

Oh, and gotta minute and second marker for me? Did you even watch the video?

This is now the SIXTH time I have asked you. Fascinating. You talk about people needing to be grown up. Perhaps you can also be grown up enough to answer two very simple, easy to answer questions.

And in closing, you only reprimanded Liberals, not Conservatives. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes.

Ask the mods anything you wish. I did not ask the mods to review or close the thread.

You obviously are not reading the thread or you would have seen several times now that I clearly said I did watch the video and all of the video. And you were not paying attention if you think I reprimanded only liberals for introducing content that was off topic. One of my frustrations with you is that you aren't reading what is written and keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered.

I would be crazy wow happy if any of you would quote the OP accurately and as written, and provide a good argument for why you disagree with it. When any of you do, you will find I am maybe the most tolerant of opinions I don't agree with as anybody on this board. But if you expect me to be tolerant of inadvertent or deliberate attempts to change the subject or derail the thread, yep I can be pretty damn intolerant.

You definately are. They are now just toying with you I suspect. Proving you right while trying to get you to trip up. Silly, isn't it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-kKDaFXR9I]Julie Andrews-crazy world - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mertex]

Yes I have asked people to quote from the video anything related to the thread topic and rebut it if they can. Nobody has done that I don't believe--if somebody did I missed it. All they have done is accuse the guy of not providing any facts, accused him of being partisan, called it drivel or whatever, but not one rationale or fact has been offered to rebut his opinion.

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that. I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con. I did understand the analogy as he used it. But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.

But you derailed the thread yourself when you lavished compliments on his speech - which appears to me that you agreed with much of what he said, irrelevant of the fact that he provided no links to prove his assertions. Surely, you don't expect those he derided and you agreed with, to just remain quiet and not try to offer rebuttal against his specious statements.

Nor does it matter whether somebody is able to read a liberal's mind. The guy was invited to give a lecture on a particular topic and he gave that lecture. Agree or disagree with him at will, but I have said and I say again that I now wish MOJO had not posted the Heritage Foundation video in this thread. It did have some pertinent material appropriate for this discussion, but all it accomplished was to divert the attention of a lot of members who wanted then to talk about the video and not the thread topic.

In spite of the diversion, I do believe that most of us have offered our opinion as to why your suggestion (OP) would not work, cannot work, because it does exactly what you are trying to do away with.....censor.

I'm trying to keep the focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with the video or Pat Robertson or any of a dozen other topics some have tried to introduce into the thread.

I'm quite happy to drop it, but if others (tinydancer) are going to comment on my posts that talk about it, surely you either have to tell her to stop, or at least let me respond.

Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent. Did he do that in that video?

Well, neither did the dude on the video do that, yet you praised the poster who posted it and then complimented the dude for his speech. That certainly wasn't in keeping with your rigid determination to stay on topic.
I'm not sure that Pat Robertson could identify the people whose faith was lacking....maybe he was addressing atheists? I suppose some people were offended by his comment - the point I was trying to make is that if the dude on the video can claim that Liberals said they hated America and America deserved the attack, then it should be fine for someone to say that conservatives hate America and claimed it deserved to be attacked because a conservative said so.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hmmmmm, still more more acceptance and understanding than for just tolerance.

Can anyone else support this position?

 

[Foxfyre]

That is not a true statement. I have done that, twice, I believe. He claimed that Liberals hated America and thought that it deserved 9/11. He didn't provide any facts/links to some liberal saying that, and yet I posted a link and an excerpt of what Pat Robertson said - he was the one that in essence blamed 9/11 on Americans.....in other words Americans deserved 9/11, and Pat Robertson is a Republican/conservative. If you don't believe that is refuting, then you are changing the definition of it, because what the dude on the video blamed Liberals of saying/doing is on record that a Republican/conservative actually said it.

How can you offer any proof that "he can't read a Liberal's mind"? It is common sense to know that you can't put all liberals in a box and say they think the same way...no more than you can say that about conservatives. Do you really believe there is a statistic or reference out there to back him up on that?

And, the fact is that you didn't even respond to my posts where I did that.....maybe you are the one that didn't have a comeback?

His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that. I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con. I did understand the analogy as he used it. But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.

But you derailed the thread yourself when you lavished compliments on his speech - which appears to me that you agreed with much of what he said, irrelevant of the fact that he provided no links to prove his assertions. Surely, you don't expect those he derided and you agreed with, to just remain quiet and not try to offer rebuttal against his specious statements.


In spite of the diversion, I do believe that most of us have offered our opinion as to why your suggestion (OP) would not work, cannot work, because it does exactly what you are trying to do away with.....censor.

I'm trying to keep the focus on the thread topic which has nothing to do with the video or Pat Robertson or any of a dozen other topics some have tried to introduce into the thread.

I'm quite happy to drop it, but if others (tinydancer) are going to comment on my posts that talk about it, surely you either have to tell her to stop, or at least let me respond.

Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent. Did he do that in that video?

Well, neither did the dude on the video do that, yet you praised the poster who posted it and then complimented the dude for his speech. That certainly wasn't in keeping with your rigid determination to stay on topic.
I'm not sure that Pat Robertson could identify the people whose faith was lacking....maybe he was addressing atheists? I suppose some people were offended by his comment - the point I was trying to make is that if the dude on the video can claim that Liberals said they hated America and America deserved the attack, then it should be fine for someone to say that conservatives hate America and claimed it deserved to be attacked because a conservative said so.

First I HATE debating with chopped up posts because it too often separates somebody's thoughts from other comments that modify or qualify an initial comment. That isn't a mandate of any kind, but is just my explanation for why I so rarely do it except when responding to clearly unrelated things.

I did NOT lavish praise on the video. I commented on it, yes. But praise it? No. And I have subsequently been pretty clear I wish it had not been posted purely because it has been used as a distraction for the thread instead of as an argument for some points of the OP as I think MOJO intended it.

The dude in the video, in part, was providing a rationale for why some angry mobs, groups, or organizations go after a Phil Robertson or somebody else who 'offends' them. Which is what I commented on and why I thought MOJO was appropriate in posting it at the time.

And yes, I expect--okay hope for--people to ignore off topic content. If they object to it sufficiently, report it as an off topic post, but otherwise help keep the thread on topic. If they feel it is important to denounce off topic content, excise the offending post and take it to a new thread. But I very much appreciate those who don't participate in the intentional or unintentional derails any more than absolutely necessary. At the same time, it is inevitable that any of us, including me, can slip.

My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest. I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said, but very much appreciated the competent argument they put together and the audience friendly nature of a presentation. I was also clear that I didn't agree with everything in that video and that only some of the content was pertinent to this thread.

I have tried to be even handed and consistent in not allowing off topic content, but I am human with feet of clay like everybody else, and sometimes I won't get the job done in every single case. Sometimes it is smart to just ignore the occasional off topic comment and hope everybody will let it slide. Doesn't always work though.

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

 

[blackhawk]

I show people as much tolerance and respect as they show me. Do to others as you would have them do to you something more of us should remember.

 

[Kosh]

The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.

 

[Foxfyre]

The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.

That isn't fair either Kosh because there are some on the right who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't right, even far right. I have liberal friends in real life and here on USMB who have the ability to be objective and honest and who will allow me my beliefs. And that is all I ask, i.e. to be allowed to be who and what I am. I don't require anybody to agree with me.

And that is what I am hoping for an American culture--a new tolerance that will allow people to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I show people as much tolerance and respect as they show me. Do to others as you would have them do to you something more of us should remember.

That is the simplest concept I think I'm asking for with this topic. If we aren't violating the right of others, we each want the ability to be who and what we are without fear. We can respect each other having that right without agreeing with the other person.

 

[Kosh]

The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.

That isn't fair either Kosh because there are some on the right who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't right, even far right. I have liberal friends in real life and here on USMB who have the ability to be objective and honest and who will allow me my beliefs. And that is all I ask, i.e. to be allowed to be who and what I am. I don't require anybody to agree with me.

And that is what I am hoping for an American culture--a new tolerance that will allow people to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.

Actually it is fair. the far left are not liberals so to compare the two is an unfair assessment.

If liberals were smart they would distance themselves from the far left instead of embracing them.

Then would you allow a neo-Nazi to be themselves and spam the boards with their propaganda?

And what "rights" are being violated on a chat board?

 

[Mac1958]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

His comments on 9/11 have nothig to do with the thread topic and even if they did, he did provide a rationale for why he used that analogy. Agree or disagree with him, I have no problem with that. I actually have no opinion about the accuracy of that statement pro or con. I did understand the analogy as he used it. But I did not want to derail this thread into yet another shopworn thread on 9/11 nor did the Robertson video that you characterized as not 'Christian love' have anything to do with the thread topic.

But you derailed the thread yourself when you lavished compliments on his speech - which appears to me that you agreed with much of what he said, irrelevant of the fact that he provided no links to prove his assertions. Surely, you don't expect those he derided and you agreed with, to just remain quiet and not try to offer rebuttal against his specious statements.


In spite of the diversion, I do believe that most of us have offered our opinion as to why your suggestion (OP) would not work, cannot work, because it does exactly what you are trying to do away with.....censor.


I'm quite happy to drop it, but if others (tinydancer) are going to comment on my posts that talk about it, surely you either have to tell her to stop, or at least let me respond.

Now I didn't watch the Robertson video but if it includes an EXAMPLE of organizing or encouraging people to physically or materially hurt somebody because of who he/she is or an opinion he/she expressed, then it is pertinent. Did he do that in that video?

Well, neither did the dude on the video do that, yet you praised the poster who posted it and then complimented the dude for his speech. That certainly wasn't in keeping with your rigid determination to stay on topic.
I'm not sure that Pat Robertson could identify the people whose faith was lacking....maybe he was addressing atheists? I suppose some people were offended by his comment - the point I was trying to make is that if the dude on the video can claim that Liberals said they hated America and America deserved the attack, then it should be fine for someone to say that conservatives hate America and claimed it deserved to be attacked because a conservative said so.

First I HATE debating with chopped up posts because it too often separates somebody's thoughts from other comments that modify or qualify an initial comment. That isn't a mandate of any kind, but is just my explanation for why I so rarely do it except when responding to clearly unrelated things.

I did NOT lavish praise on the video. I commented on it, yes. But praise it? No. And I have subsequently been pretty clear I wish it had not been posted purely because it has been used as a distraction for the thread instead of as an argument for some points of the OP as I think MOJO intended it.

The dude in the video, in part, was providing a rationale for why some angry mobs, groups, or organizations go after a Phil Robertson or somebody else who 'offends' them. Which is what I commented on and why I thought MOJO was appropriate in posting it at the time.

And yes, I expect--okay hope for--people to ignore off topic content. If they object to it sufficiently, report it as an off topic post, but otherwise help keep the thread on topic. If they feel it is important to denounce off topic content, excise the offending post and take it to a new thread. But I very much appreciate those who don't participate in the intentional or unintentional derails any more than absolutely necessary. At the same time, it is inevitable that any of us, including me, can slip.

My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest. I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said, but very much appreciated the competent argument they put together and the audience friendly nature of a presentation. I was also clear that I didn't agree with everything in that video and that only some of the content was pertinent to this thread.

I have tried to be even handed and consistent in not allowing off topic content, but I am human with feet of clay like everybody else, and sometimes I won't get the job done in every single case. Sometimes it is smart to just ignore the occasional off topic comment and hope everybody will let it slide. Doesn't always work though.

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Bolded 1: yes, you did.

Bolded 2: no, it is not, and I have already proven it.

Bolded 3: no, you have not, but you do not have to be. Nobody here required it of you in advance. That is why there are mods, they are there to do this kind of thing. But I do feel quite strongly that you, as a partisan, and in this case, imo, a hyper-partisan, should not try to put on the sheep's clothing, for that really fools no one.

So, minute marker? Ready any time you are. No presentation can be even half-way reasonable without at least some facts and some logic, NEITHER of which are present in that video.

I am well aware of the content of your OP, but then you use this terrible video to support your claims and then when there is a very much to be expected blowback from people you already know will disagree, you stamp them as intolerant. Kind of kills the entire purpose of the thread, don't you think?

But it's ok, I cherish your right to do this. Just wish you would cherish my right as well. Maybe one day, that just might happen.

Either a person supports the 1st amendment, with all it's potential pockmarks and blemishes, or he does not. That sounds like a pretty sanguine, sane statement, if you ask me.

 

[Plasmaball]

My comment that the guy was brilliant was in admiration for a very well thought out, well organized, and well constructed lecture that held the viewer's interest. I have praised others likewise when I didn't agree with ANYTHING they said,

but you did agree with him.

 

[Darkwind]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

I find your signature line very apropos and intend to add it to My new year resolutions.

Happy New Year Mac

 

[Foxfyre]

The far left has zero tolerance for anyone that is not far left.

That isn't fair either Kosh because there are some on the right who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't right, even far right. I have liberal friends in real life and here on USMB who have the ability to be objective and honest and who will allow me my beliefs. And that is all I ask, i.e. to be allowed to be who and what I am. I don't require anybody to agree with me.

And that is what I am hoping for an American culture--a new tolerance that will allow people to be who and what they are so long as they aren't violating the rights of others.

Actually it is fair. the far left are not liberals so to compare the two is an unfair assessment.

If liberals were smart they would distance themselves from the far left instead of embracing them.

Then would you allow a neo-Nazi to be themselves and spam the boards with their propaganda?

And what "rights" are being violated on a chat board?

Okay, I was thinking of liberals in general and not the 'far left' or 'hard left', but while I think your point of view might still be a bit extreme, our experience seems to affirm that it isn't unacceptably extreme. Intolerance for the point of view of others seems to be epidemic in society and far too often manifests itself right here on USMB. And it represents all sides of the sociopolitical spectrum.

But I think if there is enough societal expectations, we can make those 'far left' extremists or 'far right' extremists understand that they don't win any friends or influence people when they are hateful and intolerant of the opinions of others to the point that they think it is okay to hurt people physically and/or materially for no other reason than those people expressed an opinion somebody didn't like.

We're in a gray area on 'rights' on a message board, but I have a hard time respecting people who intentionally and maliciously refuse to respect the request for civility and who refuse to allow others to enjoy a discussion of an interesting topic. But that is part of the intolerance this thread addresses I suppose.

And would I allow a neo-Nazi to spam the board withhis propaganda? Yep. So long as he is not inciting to riot and is not encouraging others to act on his propaganda and/or is not attacking other members personally in forums where that is not allowed. And I would also expect 99% of intelligent members here to fully express their contempt for his point of view and why it is destructive, hateful, and wrong.

 

[Nosmo King]

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago? Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?

Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes? Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?

Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?

I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right. But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?

Can the offended go too far? I guess it depends on the offense. Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions? Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'? Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

Best post of the day!!! Best post of the thread!!! Maybe best post of the year!!!

Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:

“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.”--The Dali Lama

"I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi

"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris

"Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​

But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing. There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others. There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.

In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago? Is society showing intolerance to the Duck guy today?

Has society extended the olive branch of tolerance to Rush Limbaugh after his many gaffes? Does Ed Schultz bask in the glow of tolerance after his pronouncements?

Should outrageous claims about any person or group be tolerated, or merely excused as 'opinions'?

I'm not speaking in terms of litigation as speech is a protected right. But can the offended call for boycotts or public apologies?

Can the offended go too far? I guess it depends on the offense. Should the parents of a fallen hero be offended by the Westboro Baptist Church file suit to restrain Fred Phelps and his minions? Or does the Reverend Phelps have every right to voice his 'opinions'? Does the duck fellow have a right to voice his opinions, or does he have the right to offend?

Was society tolerant of the Dixie Chicks? Some were. Some were not. Some expressed their contempt of what the Dixie Chicks said and that they would buy no more Dixie Chicks albums or attend no more Dixie Chicks concerts. This is acceptable in my world. We all should have the right to speak out about what we believe is wrong. Or right.

But any who tried to ORGANIZE a protest of the Dixie Chicks for the purpose of hurting them physically and/or materially--who tried to run them out of the music industry--those people were wrong and just as wrong as GLAAD was going after Phil Robertson for no other offense that he expressed a belief they don't share. The Dixie Chicks did not encourage anybody to do anything. One of their members expressed her contempt for the President of the United States and did that on foreign soil. Was that worthy of criticism? Maybe yes or maybe no, but we all should be allowed our opinions about that. Does that justify organizing to materially or physically harm the Dixie Chicks. No way.

The principle is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody encouraging others to harm somebody. The prnciple is whether it is somebody just expressing an opinion or somebody ACTING out hate against others as the Westboro Baptist Church does.

A lot of folks seem to be having trouble making a distinction between those two things. The right to offend? Who gets to decide who has the right to not be offended? Who gets to make the list of what is or is not offensive to speak? Who gets to make the list of what is and what is not politically correct? Much better to encourage the right of people to speak their opinions without fear of physical or material retaliation and focus our activism against those who are actually physically or materially hurting people.

 

[Mac1958]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

Best post of the day!!! Best post of the thread!!! Maybe best post of the year!!!

Reminds me of some other significant comments on tolerance from some great minds:

“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.”--The Dali Lama

"I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance."--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause."--Mahatma Gandhi

"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting."--Sidney J. Harris

"Pass no rash condemnation on other peoples words or actions.--Thomas P. Kempis​

But there is the opposite side of that coin when we know that tolerance of everything is belief or conviction in nothing. There are valid reasons for boycotts and doing what we can to stop people who are literally hurting or threatening other people and/or who are treading on the rights of others. There is nothing wrong with those who speak their own opinions in rebuttal to the 'wrong' opinions of others.

In the much more narrow confines in this thread, I hope to raise consciousness in our sociopolitical cultural that will allow people to express their opinons, right or wrong, without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will go after them and try to physically and/or materially hurt them.

I would add one thing:

In general, these are the same people who would passionately defend a Muslim group if that group wanted to open a new mosque in an area that would be very sensitive to some people, such as near to Ground Zero.

"We have freedom of religion in this country," they would scream. "Leave them alone to practice their freedom of religion, you must stay out of their way." They're very, very tolerant about that.

Yet they're not quite as tolerant when someone wants to question someone or something protected by their PC.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread topic is about allowing a person his her belief or opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will hurt him physically and/or materially for no other reason than he expressed it.

Yeah, threads do tend to get pushed entirely off the rails, we tend to let our minds wander a bit.

I think your question has been answered pretty clearly. There are obviously people in our society who have taken it upon themselves to do exactly what you're talking about. They feel that, based on their own code, they will use every legal means necessary to control the very words we use. Threats, intimidation and punishment are all perfectly legitimate means for them.

There are plenty of examples just on the various PC-related threads here. And now there is even a thread on which they have gathered to convince themselves that, since (in their minds) tolerance simply isn't going to happen, they may as well proudly run with intolerance. Then they all pat themselves on the back for reaching this foregone conclusion and continue on.

This behavior - leveraging freedom of speech to stop others from speaking - uses our own cherished freedoms against us.

Seems to me that it takes a very cynical mix of narcissism and paranoia to think this way.

.

I find your signature line very apropos and intend to add it to My new year resolutions.

Happy New Year Mac

I like Mac's sig line too. And was thinking about that when I signed off late last night.

So in that spirit, I want to apologize to the serious debaters/discussion people here for getting sucked into defending myself earlier in the thread. That was foolish of me and I knew better. I'm going to do my best to now allow that to happen again.

I will not engage in conversation further with those who want to make the thread about me. I will relish going one on one with those who disagree with me or exploring concepts with anybody who are able to focus on the thread topic.

I honestly do think this is important people. And I fully realize I may be missing something or have it wrong about something. And I would rather get it right than think I am right about somethng.

I fully believe that it is fair game to rebut any opinion that is put out there for the public to see. But don't you think anybody should be able to express his/her opinions, beliefs, convictions, thoughts without fear that some mob, group, or organization will come down on him/her with the intent to hurt physically and/or materially?