Tolerance

[Nuclear Unicorn]

It seems to me the genuine virtues of tolerance would be more effectively communicated if it were demonstrated by those seeking tolerance rather than imposed by them through sanction such as boycott, loss of employment, ostracized from public discourse, etc.

[CJCRANE]

1. Free Speech + Free Market.

You are entiteld to say what you what you want, and the free market is entitled to react to what you say however it wants.

Also RW free speech is generally about preventing other people from getting something, whether it's getting married, getting healthcare, getting unemployment benefits etc.

LW free speech is generally about promoting other people's rights and disagreeing with those who try to restrict other's rights.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Yes, the free market is entitled to react as it wants.

But some people are abusing the meaning and principles of tolerance in an effort to impose their preference disguised as a market reaction.

Also RW free speech is generally about preventing other people from getting something, whether it's getting married, getting healthcare, getting unemployment benefits etc.

I'm not sure how this relates to matters of conscience except, I suppose, the RW may consider it a matter of conscience; but that's their argument to make, not mine.

[CJCRANE]

3. "God told me that conservatives shouldn't be able to get married or have equal rights under the law.

I love conservatives, I have a lot of conservative friends but my holy book tells me that their way of life is wrong. They can do whatever they like inside their churches but it shouldn't be recognized under the law in my opinion".

That statement was perfectly civil, but what kind of reaction do you think it would get?

ETA for visiting freepers: the words in quotes are not my opinion, just an example of an intolerant attitude said in a pleasant manner.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. "what kind of reaction do you think it would get?"

Should someone expressing such an opinion be hounded from public and have their livelihood threatened?

I'll answer, they should not.

If anyone were to say, "But that's exactly what the intolerant would demand!" would be missing the point. The intolerant aren't claiming the banner of tolerance. People demanding tolerance are demanding tolerance and as such they are responsible for demonstrating it, especially to those who have not previously experienced tolerance and thereby never learned to practice it.

Selective tolerance is merely discrimination by another name.

And, (because I've seen it before) if anyone were to suggest by tolerance I would unconditionally accept something as absurd as passively looking-on in the face of ethnic cleansing or some other violence or legalized discimrination I would tell such a person to keep their nonsensical strawmen to themselves.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. In 29 US States it is legal to discriminate against gay people in housing and employment

among other things. And here you are uring 'tolerance' for those who impose such legal injustices rather than doing a thing to oppose those injustices. You not only accept the injustice, you are promoting a mindset that says 'allow the injustice or you are intolerant'.
What State do you live in, other than denial?

[EOTE]

49. So, you're just saying that you thought the Montgomery Bus Boycotts were silly and misguided.

After all, we needed to be tolerant of the rights of others to discriminate. You ARE passively accepting legalized discrimination. Maybe not violence, but you're certainly projecting the ideal that people should promote values that they strongly disagree with. No one has a right to a stupid reality TV show. If you make insanely stupid and hateful comments when you've got a public job like that, you should expect to lose your job. Period.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. Well, there's a helluva reach.

First, you are comparing a private person to government. Since government is not a private entity it has no right to discriminate, form opinion, etc. That's why government has no right to decide which religions are acceptable.

Government has no rights. It is a servant to all and a master of none. When the law discriminates against citizens it is illegitimate and ceases to have authority and the people are relived of their obligations to adhere to it. Jim Crowe and other discriminatory laws violated constitutional law, hence were not legitimate and the people were not obligated to obey.

You ARE passively accepting legalized discrimination. Maybe not violence, but you're certainly projecting the ideal that people should promote values that they strongly disagree with.

I have repeatedly stated up and down this thread that people are entitled to vote with their feet and their dollar. I have noted where I myself have done likewise.

That some people do not accept homosexuality is a fact of life. We can't change that or criminalize it. We can appeal to their reason and humanity but at the end of the day you can only lead a horse to water. We can pass laws that say everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law regardless of sexual identity but nothing in the DD saga would not have violated the terms of such a law. As objectionable as that may seem it is still a fact.

If you make insanely stupid and hateful comments when you've got a public job like that, you should expect to lose your job. Period.

Who decides what is insane and stupid? Who should demand the firing? An angry mob or the business owner? What if, like Cracker Barrel, the democracy of the dollar demands no sanction against the offender be leveled?

My REPEATED statement has always been that it is one thing to vote with your dollar but to demand someone else strike something deemed offensive from the public venue so that no one else has access to it is to attempt enforce thought-conformity. That is unhealthy for a free society.

[EOTE]

57. So you're saying that it's fine to support private people advocating for hate, just not governments.

Seems like a fairly stupid distinction to me. The protests against Duck Dynasty ARE people voting with their feet and their dollars. A&E anticipated this backlash and that's why they suspended the asshole. This is really extremely stupid.

Who decides what is insane and stupid? In this case, A&E and the public are deciding that. And I'm utterly fine with that. No one is demanding that anyone strike anything. There are quite a few people, however, who are completely outraged that others are utilizing their free will to do so.

[Alittleliberal]

51. Their livelihood threatened?

Let's not pretend that Phil is going to have to get food stamps. He's still a millionaire even if he's going to lose 3 pay cycles worth of checks.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. But the fact that LGBT people can be fired for being who they are in 29 States seems to

go unmentioned.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. There's also the PR lady that made the tweet about HIV in Africa.

[kentuck]

4. But tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.

It is fake. If one is tolerant of something, they do not criticize it in public to sow dissension or to create division. To call it "tolerance" is deceitful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Intolerance should be criticized but third parties demanding people

lose jobs for expressing their beliefs or making stupid jokes smacks too much of the very social maladies we pretend to want to see diminished. It is the penalizing of speech, even if not by force of law. It is meant to stifle and suppress those things as judge by self-selecting parties.

Humanity will NEVER be a homogenous body of unified belief and values. Democracy itself says we vote to settle our differences and decide our social course but the mere act of voting proves that people hold different values and they are to be allowed a place at the political table.

I say this on the assumption there are inviolable baseline rights, such as the right to freedom of conscience, the right to due process and the right to not be discriminated against by force of law for one's inherent characteristics, i.e. race, sexual-identity. They must act concurrently if they are to act at all. We protect those baseline rights but there comes with those protections a body of permissions.

A person who discriminates on a basis of race would -- to my eyes -- be a morally repugnant person but he must also remain a free person if MY rights are to have any validity or protection because it is only a matter of time until one of my values is politically/socially/morally unpopular. Abolition, civil rights and gay marriage would not have been possible to achieve if unpopular speech that threatened another parties "deeply valued way of life" (as the slave owners once termed it) could be de facto criminalized. Certainly, many tried at those historical moments but those were the low points of our political and social discourse. It is when the racist moves beyond expression of his views to legislative action then the higher law of the inviolable right assumes precedence.

But even then codified rights, acts of law and social sanction will not relieve the racist of the poison of his belief. It will not make him a better person, it will only cause him to suppress himself, maybe. The superior solution, I would think, would be for him to realize that all people can be his neighbor, his friend and even his family in a common humanity. That can only be realized with greater openness, not the selective stifling of discussion even if it is at times coarse and ugly.

I understand what I am saying is perhaps unpopular but the question is -- is it my right to say it without sanction?

[kentuck]

9. But you can expect criticism if...

You hold up a sign calling someone an asshole at the same time you are calling yourself a Christian and claiming that you love everyone and are just exercising your right to free speech.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Except people aren't merely expressing criticism. They're demanding the object of their anger be

ruined. They aren't saying, "I won't shop there/watch that." (as if they ever did to begin with) they're demanding that the object of their ire be removed from public so that everyone else not be allowed to shop there/watch that until thought-conformity is enforced.

In some cases the fact that someone holds offensive beliefs can be very obvious but in other cases it is not. It is easy to recognize the inherent dehumanization of people based on race and sexual identity but our judgment is not infallible. The zero tolerance for intolerance will soon become as abused and misused as the zero tolerance for violence that sees children being suspended for firing a pretend bow and arrow (Yes, that really happened). What bigot wouldn't seize upon such a toxic environment to ostracize their hated other or those who are the outcast by social fashion?

We cannot bomb our way to peace or fornicate our way to chastity or demand silence in the name of openness of expression.

BTW -- thank-you for your thoughtful and considerate discussion.

[kentuck]

26. I'm reminded of Bill Maher's show, Politically Incorrect

That was on ABC but he was kicked off for something he said. Some folks didn't like it that he said the terrorist bombers were not "cowards". Not many of these duck people were defending him at that time. In fact, they were the ones calling for his removal. I call that rank hypocrisy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. We shouldn't make decrying their hypocrisy our own hypocrisy.

Natalie Maines, Martin Bashir, Bill Maher. People who are otherwise decent are being materially hurt and we should be setting the example if we want to claim we are the voice of openness and tolerance.

[kentuck]

44. If everything is equal, then you would be correct...

But I think you are making a false equivalency. I don't think the statements of Maher, Maines, or Bashir were the same as the Duck Butter guy. Their defenders were nowhere near as vocal or divisive, in my opinion. I'm sure that there is hypocrisy on both sides but they are not the same.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. "Their defenders were nowhere near as vocal or divisive"

Or, I think, as numerous. Many who are claiming they only wish to see the democracy of the dollar decide any sanction (a principle I actually agree with) seem upset that that same democracy is pushing back harder than they anticipated, i.e. Cracker Barrel reinstating the sale of DD merchandise in its stores.

Your reference to Maher is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I happen to think, on balance, Maher is an insulting ass but I understand the context of the remark he made about suicide terrorists. I disagree with his comment on its merits but I understand his context and what would lead him to consider such a statement.

Be that as it may, the idea that he would be fired -- especially from hosting a show called POLITICALLY INCORRECT, as if that weren't due warning -- by a media company is bone-chilling. That a howling mob could induce such a thing bodes ill for our free society. The people who hounded Maher off the air were wrong, plain and simple, period, full-stop, end if discussion.

We're better than that or at least we should be especially since we're the "liberals" i.e. more open. Did the close-minded disregard that principle? Yeah, they did. It's part of that whole close-minded thing they do. How could we expect them to be any different? Unless we seek nothing more than to collect one of their scalps for every one of ours they claim I see neither purpose nor end to the ever-increasing restrictions on free thought and open discussion.

Thank-you again for continuing the honest discussion.

[loyalsister]

13. Tolerance does not guarantee employment

Sure we can be tolerant of intolerance generally. Demanding that anyone be required to listen to it or be represented by it is a misguided interpretation of free speech.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Where did you get the idea that there is a 'baseline right' protecting any American

from discrimination due to sexual identity? No such legal protection exists Federally, and 29 of the States offer none and allow open discrimination in all areas against gay and trans people. Your 'assumption there are inviolable baseline rights' is a false assumption, and it is dangerous to make such assumptions without bothering to learn the facts. You do not 'protect those baseline rights' for millions of Americans. So you have no standing to assume permissions. You straight folks won't even pass ENDA or marriage equality. Permissions indeed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I can see how you might misread what I stated and I accept that responsibility.

I fully recognize many suffer less than equal treatment in the eyes of the law due to their sexual identity. It is a burden I recognize and believe our society has much work to do to make all of our fellow Americans true owners in their society. I was not dismissing or diminishing that fact. I was referring to the right to not be deprived of life or imprisoned without due process.

I don't know if this helps to clarify matters but thank you for making your post.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. That's very, very far from what you said originally.

You also built a big argument for silently accepting the very bigotry that allows this discrimination. It is my opinion that you had no idea that there was no 'baseline rights' nor that discrimination is legal in this country against gay people.

[Bandit]

6. Because you believe in tolerance, doesn't mean you have to tolerate rude behavior.

I do not have to tolerate bigotry, or pure meanness. I can and will speak out against such. That should not make me an intolerant person. I believe in civility and conduct myself accordingly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Speak out how, is the question.

Assuming the nature and means of the bigot will never serve as a cure for bigotry.

[Ohio Joe]

10. ummm... Are you saying what I think you are saying?

AA's... Women... LGBT... They should not only shut the fuck up but give their hard earned dollars to those that hate them and slur them publicly on a regular basis?

Am I getting that right?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. I am reading it that way, too = Ohio Joe.

[kcr]

15. That's how I'm reading it, too

And given the poster's history I'm not even a little bit surprised.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. You and your first 3 responders could not be more mistaken.

In fact, it would take extra effort to miss my explicit statements that are in direct contradiction to what you claim I said.

[Ohio Joe]

18. What are you saying then... I can see no other was to read it

Please... Elaborate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. I have elaborated.

I'm curious as to which passages in my other posts leads you to claim I have told anyone to "shut-up" implicitly or otherwise. I don't see criticism as an all or nothing prospect. I think it is possible to criticize things you do not agree with -- as I am the one asking for more openness of speech. And I'm not saying vote with your TV remote or your wallet. That too is part of freedom.

Again, I'm at a loss to fathom how you could have come to such a conclusion that is so wildly divergent from what I have written throughout this thread.

[Ohio Joe]

22. Sure... Lets go through it

"It seems to me the genuine virtues of tolerance would be more effectively communicated if it were demonstrated by those seeking tolerance rather than imposed by them through sanction such as boycott, loss of employment, ostracized from public discourse, etc."

Lets highlight the relevant part:

"rather than imposed by them through sanction such as boycott, loss of employment, ostracized from public discourse, etc"

So... Those that are being verbally assaulted should:

Boycott - Keep sending in those dollars
Loss of Employment - Hey! No matter how vile a person is, let them keep representing a company
Ostracized from public discourse - Give the vile the right to a public platform AND listen to them!

Now... Currently, people do these things... Sometimes to great success and other times not so much but... They do it by speaking up. They stop doing it by... Yes, you guessed it, shutting the fuck up.

That is how I and others read your words that you refuse to clarify. Please though... Explain how people can still object without doing any of these things... Please... give some non-right wing bullshit excuse as to why anyone should do so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. How about where I have explicitly written

"Yes, the free market is entitled to react as it wants." or the myriad of times I have written that it is good to criticize things that are objectionable. That being said it is likely that you are lifting single passage out of the overall context of what I am saying.

People aren't simply voting with their dollars and TV remotes (though I doubt many of those claiming as much ever watched DD in the first place) they are demanding that people be fired and merchandise not be carried or whatnot by any other entities until thought-conformity is enforced. And it's not simply DD.

If people are to be allowed to vote with their dollars then they actually have to be able to assert a choice, not have a thing removed from their choice because another party demanded its removal from all public venues. Should TV networks enforce the silencing of unpopular sentiments? Should stores enforce standards on who is or is not allowed to sell?

During the Syrian affair those decrying the possibility of being drawn into yet another foolish war were being called Putin lovers and even racist for opposing the President. I'm convinced it was all a dodge to avoid the difficult business of selling a foolish war while maintaining personal loyalty to the President but if the "you're traitor/racist, you should be fired and lose your livelihood!" standard were employed a very necessary public debate would have been stifled and a much worse outcome could have resulted.

Again, this isn't about what you do with your TV and your money it is about those who demand everyone else do likewise or demand that third parties enforce their preferred morality.

The best ideas aren't always the most popular ideas but if the best ideas are ever to find their way into the public discourse EVERYONE must have a sense of surety that they can speak their mind openly. Freedom of speech isn't about protecting what everyone already agrees about nd that is why it is so important to protect.

And, no, I am not equating Mr. Robertson's ideas with the best of ideas -- in case you feel tempted to yet again misinterpret what I say.

[Ohio Joe]

24. "I am not equating Mr. Robertson's ideas" - But you think he should be given a TV platform for them?

Is that it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Anyone who works so strenuoulsy at being so wrong is bound to succeed.

[Ohio Joe]

28. "No, I don't mean that... Here, let me talk in circles to prove it"

I get what your doing

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. "I get what your (sic) doing"

Not yet, you haven't.

[Ohio Joe]

32. Sure I do

So do a lot of people... It's pretty transparent.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Except when I've made explicit statements in direct contradiction to their fantasies.

[Ohio Joe]

34. Non-sesne... Your OP is clear no matter how you try to spin it

Very clear.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Except that I have also availed myself of my right to turn-off programming I found offensive

Particularly programming that reveled in anti-gay slurs. So, despite your efforts to distort what I say you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

[Ohio Joe]

39. So you make an OP saying don't boycott... Then you boycott...

uhhh huh... We all see

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. I didn't boycott. I didn't demand other refuse to carry the material I found objectionable.

I made my decision for myself and left others to do likewise. I did register my disgust at what I saw here on DU (and was roundly criticized for being too sensitive) and explained why I felt disgusted. I even made an effort to have other share my point of view.

But, again, I would never say that the thing that offended me should be removed from the public venue. That is the distinction that I believe makes the difference and that is the point of my comments.

[kcr]

42. No one is calling for a boycott. Duck Dynasty dude has already been removed. n/t

[XRubicon]

52. Maybe some salad dressing would help you make your point

[kcr]

36. Okay, reading again.

Nope. Pretty confident I'm right. Sorry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. Only if you selectively edit out of context and ignore statements contradictory to your claim.

[kcr]

43. Don't think so.

I see you defending bigotry and telling people to shut up about it, and being a hypocrite to boot down thread. I don't see what I'm editing out, here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. If you

lack the faculties to differentiate between defending free speech and defending the content of offensive speech that would be your problem, not mine -- assuming you aren't deliberately distorting my views as a further effort to silence what you do not approve of.

I doubt Camille Paglia defends homophobia and yet she has expressed her misgivings about the reaction to the GQ interview in far stronger terms than I would consider using.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Paglia is a neo conservative, here she is on the fight for marriage equality.

"Marriage was traditionally meant for male and female. It was a bond for the raising of children, so it always had a procreative meaning too, and it has a long sacred tradition behind it. I hate any time that gay causes get mixed up with seeming to profane other people’s sacred tradition. The gay activist leadership has been totally clumsy about that."

She sounds like many other conservative pundits.

[treestar]

40. classic black and white thinking

[Boom Sound 416]

12. Tolerance is not a la carte

[politichew]

14. It seems to me that Phil Robertson is an ignorant hick

and should accept the SOCIAL consequences of his ignorant hick actions.

[Wounded Bear]

16. Tolerance is given by those who have it...

It is demanded of others by those who have none.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Well put.

[TBF]

25. Have you sent a Christmas Card to Natalie Maines this year?

I'm betting not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Is it principle that you seek or merely tit-for-tat revenge?

If what happened to Ms. Maines was wrong I don't see how repeating the act improves the situation.

[TBF]

35. Personally I'm big on unions so speech and actions

would have more protection. Unfortunately right-wingers have knocked those down along with attacking any and everything that doesn't fit into their magical Christian viewpoint. Tolerance goes both ways.