(10-18-2017, 02:14 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Why is it that whenever someone points out the intolerance of pretty much any minority group by the right, the people on the right feel like pointing to the intolerance of people with intolerant views by the left somehow puts them on even moral ground?

If your argument is that I should be tolerant of groups with views that are damaging to entire groups of people, your argument is weak, and normal people can see it as a desperate grasp.

(10-18-2017, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose the question begs: Who made you judge of what is and is not allowed to be tolerated?

(10-18-2017, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I pretty much let folks have their views and go about my business. I have no problem with folks expressing their views; my problem has always come with a counter group trying to silence them. Why are we so scared to let folks that have views opposed to ours (left read as "views that are damaging to entire groups of people") talk? Allow them to express their views and then expose them for the idiots they are and hopefully no one will try to silence you when you do so.

(10-18-2017, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No one is telling you that you should tolerate  anything; however, when you do not tolerate speech; you are intolerant. Of course that's my view and perhaps not that of "normal people".

(10-18-2017, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, personally, I think most people agree that people who want to kill or who hate entire groups of people  based on race or who they choose to love or what religion the follow should not be tolerated in a civil society.

Maybe that's why some people are still defending Nazis?


I always feel like we should the hate-filled/stupid/evil people speak so everyone can hear how dumb they really are.  But I also have little problem with them being totally outnumbered and shouted down from the rooftops for being hate-filled/stupid/evil.


I see the disconnect.  I don't think it's the "speech" not being tolerated.  I think its message of hate not being tolerated.

(10-18-2017, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose the question begs: Who made you judge of what is and is not allowed to be tolerated?

I pretty much let folks have their views and go about my business. I have no problem with folks expressing their views; my problem has always come with a counter group trying to silence them. Why are we so scared to let folks that have views opposed to ours (left read as "views that are damaging to entire groups of people") talk? Allow them to express their views and then expose them for the idiots they are and hopefully no one will try to silence you when you do so.

No one is telling you that you should tolerate  anything; however, when you do not tolerate speech; you are intolerant. Of course that's my view and perhaps not that of "normal people".

(10-18-2017, 03:31 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: If these people want to spout their gross views, let them do it.  I don't think they should be silenced.  That doesn't mean I have to like them.  They choose to dislike and advocate against the LGBT community.  I choose to automatically dislike people who do that.  I would do the same if another group advocated for the removal of the rights of Christians, or black people, or Republicans, or furry midgets or whatever other group you can think of to discriminate against.  **** 'em.  If that makes me intolerant (I don't know, does it?), then I fully embrace the term.

(10-18-2017, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the irony lies in the fact that the left tries to mask their intolerance by suggesting they are simply doing what is required to "combat hate".

The left has always prided itself on "acceptance", but that changes quicker than a blink when someone does/says something they do not accept.

In this very thread it was pointed out that the liberal protests (at times violently) free speech from conservative sources. This quickly became equal to a Presidential debate or Politicians disagreeing over policy in an attempt to mask the intolerant protests.

(10-18-2017, 04:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: "The left" masks "their intolerance". First off, I do take issue with that generalization. That you are correct in many instances, for many "leftists" is you will, I can not argue. I know full well you are. That you extend it that way, however, is unfair.

Take the Breitbart internet mob. The marching white supremacists. The Arpaio worshippers. All certain groups of opinionated people that are deeply intolerant against any other view, all groups supporting Donald Trump, so for better or worse voting Republican, all undeniably part of the right spectrum. Now would I ever hold these groups, or Hannity/Limbaugh, or anything like that against you or your opinion or everyone on the right? Of course not. I But I feel by bringing up "leftist intolerance" in every other instance, you don't grant people from the proverbial other side the same courtesy. 

Also, you did not answer my question :) But that's ok.

And the counter-reaction to violent liberal protests was, I guess, meant as a reminder that it's not quite the time to climb the higher horse just for being on the rightist side. It indeed does look a bit bizarre to do so in these times.

(10-18-2017, 05:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm still not understand how being "intolerant" of hate speech is the same as being intolerant of people because of their racists/evil views.  Almost seems like a false equivalency yo hide a support for the racist/evil views.

(10-18-2017, 04:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: Also, you did not answer my question :) But that's ok.

(10-18-2017, 05:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I guess you're taking it a step too far here.
To oversimplify it, not wanting to agree with the other side doesn't necessarily mean expressing a hidden racist view.  The former, in my opinion, forms the responses, not the latter.

(10-18-2017, 05:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm assuming you are referring to the one asking if I thought it was good, bad, or irrelevant if trump speaking at an-anti LBGT rally.

My answer was given back toward the beginning. I would wait to hear his words. I have zero issue with him speaking, same as I would have no issue with him speaking at a KKK rally or BLM rally. I would judge him by his words. Who knows, he might speak of tolerance.

Which is better: Speaking to the tolerant about tolerance or speaking to the intolerant about it.

I know I do the latter on here often.

(10-18-2017, 05:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: But that is what is being presented:  The "left" is intolerant because they speak out against people who are intolerant.  Which ignores the people being spoken out against are racist/evil.

(10-18-2017, 11:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we talk about the tolerant vs intolerant with political “sides” on this board.  

The left wing posters are far more intolerant than the right wing/conservative posters.

(10-18-2017, 11:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we talk about the tolerant vs intolerant with political “sides” on this board.

The left wing posters are far more intolerant than the right wing/conservative posters.

(10-19-2017, 08:47 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I find it interesting that as soon as I mentioned their support for Uganda's life imprisonment and death penalty for gay people, no one continued to challenge my hate group label.

(10-19-2017, 10:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe no one cares about Uganda.

(10-19-2017, 10:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe no one cares about Uganda.

(10-19-2017, 10:03 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe no one cares about Uganda.