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

[Mertex]

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.

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.

First of all, they are not chopped up, they are divided into smaller separate statements so that each can be addressed directly without causing confusion as to which specific comment one is addressing. Lumping everything into one long paragraph or paragraphs sometimes causes confusion as to which statement the responder is addressing. Just a matter of choice.

I did NOT lavish praise on the video. I commented on it, yes. But praise it? No.

You are being disingenuous here.....you have already denied having said that you believe what Glaad did should be considered a crime, even after the exact post was produced, and then tried to claim you meant something else.

Saying the video is "brilliant" is lavishing praise on it, unless you meant it was shining bright like a light, which would make it even more disingenuous.

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.

Only after you made positives claims about it and complimented him on doing his homework, which is remarkable, because most of what he said was not backed up with links to facts. It appears the only reason you made that statement was to preclude some of us from refuting it, and sure enough, you castigated those of us who brought it up, and claimed that it was not relevant to your OP.

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.

Yet when I presented the video of Pat Robertson, proving that someone on the right was actually claiming that America deserved to be punished i.e. 9/11, you immediately told me that it had nothing to do with the OP. Then Tinydancer provides another example of someone saying the same thing and you say nothing to her, but when I respond, you tell me that what we are discussing has nothing to do with the OP. It seems pretty clear that you are being partisan, and you are now taking exception to being told so.

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.

Are you making new rules? I've never seen that being the rule in other threads. People bring something up and their discourse will continue in that direction until someone else brings up a point of the OP and others follow on and the topic of the OP is restored. I've never seen the OP make such a claim (to start another thread) except for clear troll comments that are not remotely related to the topic. The video that has been discussed was not related to your topic at all....it was a video of someone dissing Liberals...didn't mention any group dissenting it. Only those of us who found his comments offensive dissented it, but I don't think we're forming a campaign to bring the dude down.

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.

Well, it appears that the ones most admonished for taking the thread off topic (in your opinion) were those who were disagreeing with something that you agreed with.

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.

You may not have agreed with what he said, but your positive comments about it was very clear that you were being partisan, because like I said before, the video was not addressing any of the points in your OP.....all it was doing was blaming Liberals for the obvious hostility between parties, when you know as well as I do, that it happens on both sides.

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.

I know what the topic is, you've pointed it out to me several times....and I have already given you my opinion, which you might have missed, the other comments I've made were in reference to others going off topic, which remarkably you haven't pointed out to them.

I've nothing more to say.....I'm done with this thread.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

.

omg...lol....i needed that

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

First of all, they are not chopped up, they are divided into smaller separate statements so that each can be addressed directly without causing confusion as to which specific comment one is addressing. Lumping everything into one long paragraph or paragraphs sometimes causes confusion as to which statement the responder is addressing. Just a matter of choice.

You are being disingenuous here.....you have already denied having said that you believe what Glaad did should be considered a crime, even after the exact post was produced, and then tried to claim you meant something else.

Saying the video is "brilliant" is lavishing praise on it, unless you meant it was shining bright like a light, which would make it even more disingenuous.


Only after you made positives claims about it and complimented him on doing his homework, which is remarkable, because most of what he said was not backed up with links to facts. It appears the only reason you made that statement was to preclude some of us from refuting it, and sure enough, you castigated those of us who brought it up, and claimed that it was not relevant to your OP.


Yet when I presented the video of Pat Robertson, proving that someone on the right was actually claiming that America deserved to be punished i.e. 9/11, you immediately told me that it had nothing to do with the OP. Then Tinydancer provides another example of someone saying the same thing and you say nothing to her, but when I respond, you tell me that what we are discussing has nothing to do with the OP. It seems pretty clear that you are being partisan, and you are now taking exception to being told so.



Are you making new rules? I've never seen that being the rule in other threads. People bring something up and their discourse will continue in that direction until someone else brings up a point of the OP and others follow on and the topic of the OP is restored. I've never seen the OP make such a claim (to start another thread) except for clear troll comments that are not remotely related to the topic. The video that has been discussed was not related to your topic at all....it was a video of someone dissing Liberals...didn't mention any group dissenting it. Only those of us who found his comments offensive dissented it, but I don't think we're forming a campaign to bring the dude down.

Well, it appears that the ones most admonished for taking the thread off topic (in your opinion) were those who were disagreeing with something that you agreed with.

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.

You may not have agreed with what he said, but your positive comments about it was very clear that you were being partisan, because like I said before, the video was not addressing any of the points in your OP.....all it was doing was blaming Liberals for the obvious hostility between parties, when you know as well as I do, that it happens on both sides.

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.

I know what the topic is, you've pointed it out to me several times....and I have already given you my opinion, which you might have missed, the other comments I've made were in reference to others going off topic, which remarkably you haven't pointed out to them.

I've nothing more to say.....I'm done with this thread.

You are the fourth person now to say you're done with the thread. But so far everybody who has said that keeps coming back.

Sorry I am not meeting your standards Mertex--I simply don't have the time or energy to respond to every single post nor am I sufficiently omnipotent to be able to meet everybody's expectations. I really am trying to do the best that I can here.

The thread topic is whether a person should be able to express even an unpopular opinion without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after that person and attempt to physically and/or materially hurt him or her. Do you believe a person should be able to do that?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

.

We're into another gray area re that mosque near ground zero. I have struggled with my own conscience re what I think about that. The argument is compelling that the people who would be attending that mosque, so far as we know, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and should not be punished or accept the consequences of somebody else's actions who happened to be of the same religion. And on the other side are those who are sensitive to the feelings of the people who lost loved ones due to bad acts prompted by that religion being subject to a permanent in their face reminder of that. The pros and cons of that are well debated on other threads and should be left to other threads.

I am more interested in how we allow people to express their opinions about it. Shouldn't those who favor the mosque be able to say so without fear of the angry mob, etc. trying to hurt them because they favor it? Shouldn't those who oppose it be able to say so without fear of that angry mob?

It still really comes down to a tolerance that allows people who aren't hurting anybody else being allowed to be who and what they are, even if who and what they are is seen as intolerance by others. And again, who gets to make up the list about what it is okay to say and what is not okay to say?

 

[BillyZane]

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.

Tolerance isn't a belief in nothing or lack of convictions. It is simply the realization that we don't have the right to silence others based on OUR convictions

So, actually tolerance is the ULTIMATE conviction. Above all else I hold the right of all Americans to have their own opinions dear. Whether I agree with those opinions or not is irrelevant to that fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Tolerance isn't a belief in nothing or lack of convictions. It is simply the realization that we don't have the right to silence others based on OUR convictions

So, actually tolerance is the ULTIMATE conviction. Above all else I hold the right of all Americans to have their own opinions dear. Whether I agree with those opinions or not is irrelevant to that fact.

Thanks Billy. That's pretty close to where I am at this time, though I hope I have an open mind if somebody has a a good argument against that concept.

The original thread title for this topic in the Politics Forum was a concept of the intolerance of intolerance that is in itself a worse intolerance.

David Duke, for instance, was used in an example in an earlier post in this thread. Nobody would describe David Duke as a guy who expresses a lot of tolerant views. Most of us have a pretty negative opinon of Mr. Duke. But as long as he isn't acting out his views, if we don't allow a David Duke his views, however wrong they appear to us, how can we demand the right to express our own views without fear of that angry mob etc.?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Why is it only in organization that you find fault?

As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem. It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not. Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.

 

[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.

Why is it only in organization that you find fault?

As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem. It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not. Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.

Of course I am concerned with the end result. You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person. And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack. They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it. I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said. But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts. And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest. But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different. And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.

 

[hunarcy]

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?

Society WAS tolerant of the Dixie Chicks. However, their customers stopped buying their albums.

Their customers never "researched them" to prepare to be blackballed, which is why GLAAD's actions toward Robertson was different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Why is it only in organization that you find fault?

As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem. It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not. Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.

Of course I am concerned with the end result. You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person. And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack. They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it. I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said. But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts. And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest. But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different. And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

 

[hunarcy]

Why is it only in organization that you find fault?

As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem. It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not. Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.

Of course I am concerned with the end result. You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person. And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack. They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it. I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said. But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts. And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest. But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different. And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me. FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few. In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious. I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why is it only in organization that you find fault?

As I've said before, it seems to me you are more concerned with the end results than intent when you continue to harp on organization being the problem. It makes your argument appear to be that hurting someone 'physically and/or materially' is evil, but trying to is not. Either that, or somehow you are opposed to people doing things as a group.

Of course I am concerned with the end result. You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person. And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack. They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it. I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said. But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts. And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest. But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different. And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

I as an individual would be as hateful and intolerant as GLAAD or the American Family Association or any other such group if I demand somebody be fired for no other reason than I don't like the person or don't like something he/she said.

My intent if I choose not to listen to Rush Limbaugh, which usually IS my choice, or not to buy the albums of the Dixie Chicks, which usually also IS my choice, is because I do not wish to listen to Rush or the Dixie Chicks on any given day. WHY i choose not to do that is pretty irrelevent, but if it is because one or both offended me, the outcome is the same. My intent is not to hurt them. My intent is that I choose not to patronize them. It is no different than me choosing not to go back to a restaurant that had lousy food and/or service or choosing not to patronize a business that offers shoddy products or service or in which I was treated rudely.

The same, in my opinion, can apply to my group. We as a group may decide not to patronize that business or not invite so and so to speak at our event or whatever. I would have no problem whatsoever with the members of GLAAD agreeing as a group not to watch Duck Dynasty or the members of the American Family Association encouraging their membership to shop somewhere other than Penneys that they think runs bad ads.

But again the difference is in going after somebody--threatening them personally or their employer or their advertisers or their suppliers or their customers with the specific intention of physically and/or materially hurting that somebody for no other reason than the somebody expressed an 'offensive' opinion or used an 'offensive' word.

EDIT: One more time let's draw a distinction between those who would boycott somebody who is doing bad ACTS that hurt people and those who would try to punish somebody for nothing more than expressing a personal opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course I am concerned with the end result. You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person. And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack. They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it. I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said. But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts. And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest. But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different. And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me. FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few. In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious. I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.

Okay Hunarcy, you know I appreciate you a lot, but you're giving Montrovant some grief he doesn't deserve here. I have encouraged and invited differences of opinion and welcome having my point of view challenged and he is doing that competently, objectively, and without malice. If I can't competently defend my point of view, it is probably flawed, yes?

I honestly welcome the mental workout.

You two would likely be good friends in a different setting.

 

[Montrovant]

Of course I am concerned with the end result. You see protest after protest, organized attack after organized attack on this business, that group, that person. And more often than not more than half the people enlisted in the protest won't have any clue what the entity or person did or said to merit such attack. They are just attacking as a pack of dogs thrills to the attack regardless of the purpose of it. I don't see how any freedom loving person can condone that.

GLAAD was especially reprehensible when they intentionally distorted and misrepresented Phil Robertson's remarks on GQ Magazine and stirred up their ranks with a flat out lie about what Robertson said. But even if they had not, they were still demonstrating that they were Robertson' judge and jury and he would not be allowed to express his opinion without being punished while they hold themselves up as immune to any form of intolerance expressed in any way by anybody.

That is a vastly different thing than me being offended by something Rush Limbaugh said and choosing to turn to a different radio station or me being offended by something the Dixie Chicks said and choosing to not buy any more of their albums or go to any more of their concerts. And there is nothing wrong with me expressing my opinion and intent in a Letter to the Editor or any other forum made available to me.

To vote with our pocketbook or vote or rebuttal to what somebody said is a valid form of protest. But to intentionally and deliberate organize to hurt somebody physically and/or materially is something quite different. And if it is for no other reason than we don't like somebody or don't like what they say or how they say it, it is evil.

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me. FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few. In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious. I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about boycotts. I was trying to find out why there seemed to be a difference in Foxy's opinion when an individual or when a group does the same thing.

That said, we also have a difference of opinion about just what a boycott is, I think. I consider a boycott a form of expression, an opinion that a person or group is attempting to get others to share. Foxfyre, while she has clearly stated that she has no problem with boycotting because of acts and has, in fact, contributed to such, is opposed to boycotts merely because of who or what a person is.

I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx. I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.". So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.

But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you change the actions when you are talking of a group or an individual?

It's fine if you change radio stations or decide not to buy more of their albums. Is it fine if a group of people decide to do that?

Is it fine for you to do that as an individual if your intent is to hurt the person(s) who has the radio show or sells the albums?

What if you, as an individual, intentionally misrepresent or lie about what someone says?

What if you, as an individual, demand that someone lose their job because of who and what they are?

You make it sound as though both the intent and the actions taken by an individual and by a group are never the same. A rich, prominent individual can do pretty much the same things GLAAD can do, correct? A poorly organized or funded group cannot. But they can all be attempting to physically and/or materially hurt someone for being who and what they are. Why you only seem to consider it a problem when it's an organization confuses me.

Why in the world you folks get your panties in a wad over boycotts is beyond me. FF has repeatedly said she's not opposed to boycotts per se and has even participated in a few. In fact, she's said it often enough that your deliberate ignoring of the fact is obvious. I think she's shown an awful lot of patience by repeatedly trying to explain that which you chose to overlook.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about boycotts. I was trying to find out why there seemed to be a difference in Foxy's opinion when an individual or when a group does the same thing.

That said, we also have a difference of opinion about just what a boycott is, I think. I consider a boycott a form of expression, an opinion that a person or group is attempting to get others to share. Foxfyre, while she has clearly stated that she has no problem with boycotting because of acts and has, in fact, contributed to such, is opposed to boycotts merely because of who or what a person is.

I believe that a boycott, for whatever reason, is perfectly fine because it is, in essence, a person saying, "I dislike xxx. I think you, too, should dislike xxx and show it by not purchasing/watching/reading/listening to xxx.". So I think we have a bit of a gap in our views of boycotts.

But my post was really intended to find out if there are specific things that groups cannot ethically do that individuals can, or vice versa.

It is pretty simple for me and my sense of ethics. An organized boycott of something purely because you don't like an opinion expressed by somebody - not okay.

An organized boycott of something or somebody doing bad ACTs that hurt people - okay.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was society showing tolerance to the Dixie Chicks ten years ago?

Society WAS tolerant of the Dixie Chicks. However, their customers stopped buying their albums.

Their customers never "researched them" to prepare to be blackballed, which is why GLAAD's actions toward Robertson was different than what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

I think you're probably right, but I didn't research it a lot so I honestly don't know if there were any organized boycotts against the Dixie Chicks or not. As I recall however, boycotts were mentioned and also some death threats that should never be acceptable to anybody. That many of their fans were angry at the remarks--both their remarks given in London and even worse remarks they made trying to 'fix' the bruhaha--is legitimate. But organizing in an effort to drive them out of country music--not legitimate or okay as I see it. I honestly don't know if anybody did that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I look at it like this:

I don't care who you are, what you do (within the bounds of law), what you stand for or how you stand for it. So long as you don't force that on me, my tolerance will be numbered as the stars in the sky. The Constitution gives you all the right in the world to believe what you want and do what you want (once again within the bounds of the law). That tolerance, however, goes away when you decide to tell me what I am, what I should do, what I stand for or how I stand for it, and threaten action against me because you yourself are intolerant of it. As long as you walk my fine line of tolerance, I'll walk yours. It's that simple.

 

[Foxfyre]

In looking up something else, I saw this cartoon that pretty well sums up tolerance in the USA these days I think:

 

[TemplarKormac]

To add to Fox's above post:

 

[R.D.]

Evander Holyfield sparks anger with homophobic comments | Mail Online