Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well thank you for being honest about it. Because your point of view, if there is no push back, will destroy every unalienable right and liberty we enjoy, you can understand why I find your point of view really scary.
Everything goes in cycles. There will be a push back. My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.
But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem. And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back. And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves. It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent. Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.
Sorry but insisting that members stay on the thread topic is not suppression of speech. It is suppression of bad manners in a forum with rules. Thanks for understanding.
Now then, do you or do you not believe Delta has the right to his opinion about Republicans--to express that opinion--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after him to take away his livelihood and otherwise ruin his life as much as they can?
Do I or do I not have the right to defend Republicans--and believe me I won't be doing that all that often--without fear that some angry mob, group, or organization will come after me to get me fired and/or otherwise ruin my life as much as I can?
You have the right to express what you want to but people also have the right to financially ruin you for expressing it as long as they do not break any laws. There are consequences to voicing your opinion. You have to weigh which is better for you.
Do they? Do they have a right to ruin me purely for who I am or what I believe? Or can they just do that legally?
The point is not what they CAN do.
The point is what is the right, honorable, ethical, moral thing to do.
Do you condone an angry mob, group, or organization trying to ruin somebody purely because of who and what he/she is and/or because of a belief that he/she holds?
I am not finding many conservatives who can't answer that with a simple yes or no.
I'm not finding many left of center who will even admit the question is asked, much less answer it straight up or down.
Which is making that video Mojo posted early in the thread more and more pertinent here I think.
This is the thing. Oldfart's post was very well stated--one of the better of the day--but I disagree with him emphatically. He sees the Left as the pragmatic and circumspect ones and the Right as the crazies. I'm pretty much the polar opposite of that point of view.
But if I was going to debate the topic, I would choose him for an opponent in a heartbeat because it would probably be a good debate.
Tolerance means that ALL points of views can be expressed with impunity. That way people have all perspectives from which to make their choices. Tolerant people trust those who are fully informed and educated to make better choices than those who are indoctrinated with intolerance and who do their damndest to shut up anybody with a different point of view.
I respectfully disagree. I have defended the right of conservatives to speak on a college campus when protestors tried to silence him by demonstrating in the hall. I have severe misgivings about measures regarding "hate speech" on many college campuses. But people who demand a captive audience, refuse to share the podium for rebuttal or take questions, and then cry that they are being oppressed are simply silly. I know people who were beaten up for saying things that today are in Supreme Court rulings. Whiners who want to be insulated from the rigors of actual public debate or the consequences of their statements and actions when those who oppose them exercise their rights is a travesty.
You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people. You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings. You are fair game if you started the intolerance.
Everything goes in cycles. There will be a push back. My stance will not destroy our illusions of our rights. The simple law of supply and demand will self regulate those that do not conform with popular opinion. If more people hate your opinion, the more you will feel it in your pocketbook depending on how educated your consumers are.
But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem. And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back. And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves. It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent. Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.
You are assuming I view it is a problem. I don't. There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others. It will all come out in the wash.
But the fact that you condone it, in my opinion makes you part of the problem. And if there are enough who condone it, there won't be enough to push back. And it won't be long before those who try to push back become targets themselves. It is how every totalitarian nation takes control--by removing the power of the people to dissent. Which is exactly what physically and materially hurting people for who they are or what they believe is.
You are assuming I view it is a problem. I don't. There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others. It will all come out in the wash.
No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
You are assuming I view it is a problem. I don't. There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others. It will all come out in the wash.
No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned. And I am not talking about people responding negatively either. I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid. I have no right to approval. But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.
Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.
I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
This is not a constitutional, First Amendment, or legal issue so far as I am concerned. And I am not talking about people responding negatively either. I certainly respond negatively when somebody here, in the media, or in the newspapers etc. says something offensively stupid. I have no right to approval. But I should have a right to be able to express my opinion without an angry mob, group, or organization descending on me with the intention to physically and/or materially hurt me.
Do you see a different between telling somebody off and punching him/her in the face?
You should also see a difference between somebody responding negatively and intentionally hurting somebody.
I'd hurt some people physically for the things I read here on this message board if they said those things in my presence if I could get away with it legally. I'm big on being respectful. If you cannot be respectful in your expression then you deserve to be dealt with IMO. I think that is just human nature. Why should you be allowed to say hurtful things without dealing with the consequences?
Technically speaking I am intolerant of his appalling lack of critical thinking skills.
However it is readily apparent that you didn't watch it yourself. Within the first 3 minutes the speaker was expressing absolute intolerance of everything that the Dems stand for. It was the epitome of intolerance and yet Mojo was raving about how good it was. So the irony here is your accusing me of intolerance without knowing that you were defending intolerance.
I appreciate you helping me understand what you were being intolerant of in your post.
I watched about 5 minutes of it.
But, the point, you are given and opportunity to hear his ideas and judge for yourself and accept it or reject it. That's what tolerance is all about...not that you have to agree with him, only that you allow him his opportunity to express his ideas.
You cant be afraid of uprisings if you are not enslaving people. You dont get to be intolerant first while harming others then have an issue with others shutting down your intolerance via uprisings. You are fair game if you started the intolerance.
Thanks for giving me such a clear position to extend my comments from. What passes for conservative political economy today seems nothing more than a rationalization of the use of force to redistribute income more unequally and pretend that this result is merely some kind of universal law. As stated the argument goes like this:
1. If I have economic power I can use it to capture the political system and the regulatory organs of government. I call this "representative democracy".
2. I use this control to encourage monopolistic and monopsonistic combinations and suppress actual market solutions and threats of actual competition. Of course this increases and centralizes economic power. I call this doctrine "free markets".
3. I use political and economic power to counter any attempt to frustrate my ambitions through the ballot box. This is called "free (corporate) speech" and "protecting the integrity of the vote".
4. If there is any intellectual opposition to this corporatist system, I will use economic power to buy off sufficient "scholars" to muddy the scientific waters, control what gets published, justify my actions, and discredit those who disagree with me. This I call "academic freedom".
5. I create an ideology that denigrates public service, deifies unbridled greed and civic irresponsibility, and identifies public welfare with the exclusive interests of my class. I hire legions of hacks to promote these ideas in every forum available. I insure that opposing voices will be overwhelmed by my PR organs and that schools of law, business, journalism and the like teach this new ethos to the rising generation of professionals. This I call "higher education".
I have been so successful with this system that I only rarely need to bring out the goons, like in the old days, to bust up printing presses and union organizers, or have a few "educational" lynchings (deportation works so much better). I have convinced the common people to fight among themselves as their living standards deteriorate. This I call the "American Way" and despite massive evidence to the contrary, declare it the best and most righteous society in the world. That way, I label everyone who disagrees with me or has differing ideas of how to improve society as "UnAmerican".
And of course, this is the system ordained by God, or at least my friends in the clergy, and therefore is ungodly to protest.
I think that true tolerance is an idea that will never be achieved. It simply is against human nature. No one is going to be tolerant of say someone wishing to oppress them. They are going to do everything in their power to nip that sort of thinking in the bud.
Before there is action there is a thought. If people with certain thoughts that are detrimental to society as a whole are allowed a platform, they can and will influence others to take up those same thoughts. A good example of that is Hitler. People were tolerant of Hitler and look what happened.
I am not advocating tolerance for anything and everything. Many things should be intolerable to freedom loving and fair minded and good people.
It was not Hitler's thoughts, however, that created the Holocaust. It was Hitler's INTENT and his ACTIONS. And yes those were tolerated by good people until it was too late for them to stop him without a terrible bloody cost of many millions of lives.
The tolerance I am looking for is to allow people to be who they are who aren't intending or actively trying to coerce others. Again from the op:
I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
In your first statement wouldn't that be the very definition of intolerant? Some thoughts are ok but others are not?
Before Hitler took action he expressed thoughts that influenced people. His thoughts were the impetus and his actions were the fulfillment of those thoughts.
If you voice your opinion you are actively contributing to moving people to think about your opinion be it a good or bad reaction. If what you think remains inside your head and is not expressed in your actions that is the only way it does not involve contribution, participation, or affect others.
The topic is tolerance in government, in politics, in society, in the workplace, in media, in living our lives, in participating as members at USMB.
This can be a whole new discussion or a continuation of one started in the Politics thread but alas was not able to stay on topic there.
I am not so interested in discussing what we should tolerate or allow of what people DO that affects others physically or materially--those things that require contribution or participation by others.
I am interested in discussing tolerance for what people THINK, BELIEVE, and/or who people ARE that requires no contribution or participation by others--that does not affect others in any way. Allowing people to be what and who they are even if we disagree with them or dislike them intensely.
That kind of tolerance seems to be in short supply in modern day American society--I don't know whether it is better in other developed countries or not. There seems to be a compulsion to punish people physically and/or materially--even to the point of trying to destroy people entirely--if we don't like something they say or they express a belief we don't share.
We see it manifested in the media every day, expressed in Congress, expressed by the President, expressed by angry mobs or mobilization by powerful organizations to go after somebody, and even in neg reps at USMB for no other reason than somebody expressed a point of view or opinion that another member doesn't share. And it is not an exclusively partisan phenomenon as we see it manifested both from the left and the right.
I think it is a dangerous trend that could cost us most or all of our unalienable rights and liberties if we don't nip this in the bud.
What do you think?
You are assuming I view it is a problem. I don't. There are plenty of people that feel like you do. I'm sure they will march with you to censor people that wish to censor your right to say negative things about others. It will all come out in the wash.
No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
Rush Limbaugh, for example.
Westbrook Baptist Church.
They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
We HAVE that RIGHT.
No I assume nothing about you other than what you tell me about yourself. I am the one who sees it as a problem. And I also see it as tragic that it might come to down to whether there are more of me or more of you that will determine whether we will all remain free to be who and what we are.
I think you are being overly dramatic. Unless the first amendment is rescinded you have nothing to worry about. No one is the thought police. However everyone is potentially the thought expression police. You say something negative you should expect people to react negatively to your expression no matter how much of a right you have to express yourself. It sounds to me like you want a free pass to say something without facing the consequences. That is not logical when considering human nature.
Exactly. And I perceive GLAAD to be necessary. Not a necessary evil, just necessary. Like paying taxes because we-the-many can work together to affect change, or provide a social safety net, or WHATEVER we put our minds to, than we-the-solitary.
And yes. To me it sounds like the OP wants to undermine the right to essentially peaceably assemble to affect change.
Rush Limbaugh, for example.
Westbrook Baptist Church.
They have the right to be hatemongers. We have the right, by whatever legal means necessary, to make it difficult for them to be heard.
We have the right to match their volume, effectively.
We HAVE that RIGHT.
Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.
Can prove everything I ever say. Just didn't think anyone'd challenge "the sky is blue." But ok...Gimme a few.
As I recall upon your arrival, you were more of a moderate/independent. Now you are starting to appear liberal only because on this board, the right is so fringe that you appear left by way of pushback.
How's I doing.
"Tolerance" is a meaningless phrase.
Most of the examples of "intolerance" that you've mentioned in the OP are simply people disagreeing.
"Tolerance" doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, and the act of disagreeing, even being vocal with my disagreement, isn't being "intolerant".
Some great contributions guys and I am appreciating reading every one. Mojo that video was brilliant and whether or not we agree with everything the guy said, he has done his homework and offers something really substantive to provide food for thought.
But I have to disagree that 'tolerance' is a meaningless phrase. I am not speaking about disagreement or our voicing our disagreement. And I didn't GIVE any examples in the OP.
But here are some examples of intolerance of people for no other reason than they are who and what they are. These are by no means the ONLY examples:
A demand that Phil Robertson be fired from A&E due to his answer given to a GQ Magazine interviewer.
A demand that Chick-fil-a be boycotted for no other reason than the CEO supports traditional marriage.
A demand that Ellen Degeneres be dumped from J.C. Penney ads for no other reason that she is gay.
An effort to financially ruin a talk show host for characterizing Sandra Fluke as a 'slut'.
A demand to censure Trent Lott by accusing him of supporting segregation when he was extemporaneously praising a colleague on his 100th birthday.
A campaign to intimidate advertisers of Saturday Night Live to dump the show due to 'offensive' content.
Shouting down or refusing to allow somebody to speak on a college campus who was invited to do so.
Note that none of the targets of these campaigns were doing anything to anybody. They were not requiring contribution or participation by anybody. The targets were being targeted purely for being who and what they are.
It was not sufficient for the attacking organizations to urge their membership to register their disagreement with or boycott the 'offending' parties. They were out to physically and/or materially harm/punish those parties--actively hurt them--anyway they could. For no other reason than they expressed an opinion the attacking organization didn't like and/or are who they are.
Even if such attacking organizations were not politically motivated--they never go after their own who behave or say things badly--this is not something any freedom loving person should allow. Yes, we all are subject to certain protocols required of our immediate associations, employers, etc. But none of us should be afraid to be who and what we are out of fear that some unrelated angry mob, group, or organization will come after us and attempt to physically and/or materially punish us.
