My sure-to-be-unpopular opinion/rant...

[mommymilkies]

Nobody is being "crucified".  But if you say something, you have to take responsibility for your words the same as for your actions.  If you fail to see how words like that hurt people, then you need to do some work on yourself and work on empathy.  There are plenty of anti-marriage equality folks who are at least civil in their disagreement.  I disagree with them, but we can get along.  But it's the language and approach used.  

[BrookValley.]

In what way do you mean "ruin people's lives"? I look at things like voting for public policy that denies equal marriage to all consenting adults, and restricting medical care choices based on religious beliefs as examples of "ruining people's lives," but if you vote for these policies yourself, how does that work? Do you have a specific example in mind? 

 

Was just about to ask the exact same thing.

[StaceyinLA]

I have some trouble with the stance that kids are cruel, people are cruel, and that we need to live with it. 

 

The OP may disagree but I believe that some kids are ignorant and that some people are ignorant.  I'm glad that there have been some of the anti-bullying educational projects out there.  Within my extended family there are people who made "jokes" about certain sorts of people only to find that those kind of people now show up at the holiday parties.  You never know.

 

I believe in the power of love and education.  I'll let someone else keep the cruelty.

 

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

[justasque]

Nope. Not at all. I'm saying EVERYONE has the right to an opinion, and people shouldn't whine and try to ruin people's lives when they have a differing one.

 

If you're in business, and you choose to say/believe negative things about your customers and/or your key employees, then you shouldn't be surprised when others who have a stake in the business choose to distance themselves from you, for business reasons if nothing else.  

If you conduct yourself in such a way that you are not an asset to the business, then you may find yourself out of a job.  This is true whether you are a lowly employee or the boss.  

[mommymilkies]

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

There are some things you can shrug off.  You even admit you weren't really bullied so you really have no idea.  Should I have told my 5 year old daughter to "man up" when she was coming home covered in bruises from being punched on the bus ride home from school? It doesn't even have to be physical.  

[AlmiraGulch]

Someone, and make no mistake it will be a ruthless minority, will take advantage of our situation and we will lose more freedom than we are currently losing. I get upset when I hear people say that Christians are in no danger in this country because they are the majority. Just ask the good people of German, Iran, China, or Russia if a small nutty minority can hijack a reasonable majority. 

 

Wow.  That's  very thinly veiled.  

 

Small, nutty minority, indeed.

[albeto.]

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

 

Shrug off like this school in Nebraska suggested?

 

 

Rule #1 Refuse to get mad

Rule #2 Treat the person who is being mean as if they are trying to help you

Rule #3 Do not be afraid.

Rule #4: Do not verbally defend yourself.

Rule #7: Do not tell on bullies.

Rule #8: Don’t be a sore loser

Rule #9: Learn to laugh at yourself and not get “hooked†by put-downs.

 

 

 

[justasque]

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

 

It's a balance, of course.  Yes, we need to teach our children that some things can and should be shrugged off, but we also need to teach them that some things should not be shrugged off, but can and should be addressed.  Ideally both of these teachings should be done in a way that respects differences in culture/religion/values, personality, disabilities (anxiety, spectrum issues, etc.), but at the same time emphasizes kindness and empathy all around.

 

If you keep the focus on kindness, then you will try to speak and act with kindness, without feeling put upon when you learn that some things you didn't realize were unkind may have been so.  Ideally, we all strive to understand the effects of our actions, with an eye towards increasing our ability to be kind to others.

[creekland]

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

 

It's kind of a combo of both.  I tend to teach my theory that the way to best overcome is to blow the stereotypes out of the water.  It works for those who are against homeschooling too.

 

But you can't always change what others believe or do.  You can only plant seeds.

 

Therefore, it's important to also teach others to let things they don't like slide off - the old "consider the source" deal.

 

What can be an interesting time to watch is when a kid raised with prejudice becomes friends with someone in that "wrong" group just because they are together in a class and start working together.  Their original ideas can die slowly, but they can die if handled well.  If handled "roughly," one can force "harmony" in the class (and we do have to do this at times), but that approach has never actually changed a mind of anyone I'm aware of.  The friendship method sure does.  I have strong admiration for those in the "wrong" groups who can handle this and do it well.  They do more good for our world than eons of people who feel they are doing good speaking out loudly.  (BUT, there are situations where that is needed too - esp to end things like apartheid or slavery.)

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

 

I would never, ever teach my children to ignore or shrug off others hurtful or hateful words.   Rather, I teach my children that they are not obligated to stand for that; That they are not only entitled but obligated to defend their own dignity; That tolerating that sort of behavior is tantamount to condoning it.

 

They should value themselves, or others, if they are witnessing it, enough to stand up to the abuser and call them out publicly, not to shrug it off because that person has the right to their own opinion.

[Rivka]

I didn't start a thread to encourage people not to express opinions at all. My thread is started because I'm sick of people expressing opinions and being crucified for it just because it may be unpopular.

 

 

Oh my gosh! I had no idea. If people are expressing unpopular opinions and then they're being nailed to a cross and left to die slowly and horribly of suffocation and exposure, then I agree with you. That's the most awful thing I've ever heard. I am shocked that I haven't heard that it's happening.

 

Oh, wait. It isn't, is it? You're talking about speech being countered with speech.

[StaceyinLA]

Can we unpack this a bit? Can I avoid businesses whose practices I find abhorrent? Or whose owner's opinions or activities I find objectionable? If that's OK, can I seek to make others aware of these practices or activities? At what point would I be "trying to ruin their lives?" Should I vote for a politician who just has a little racist slip-up? Would you?

 

As far as the basketball guy, he probably has an agreement with the league that has strict stipulations as to conduct. If so, he signed it and should be willing to bear the consequences. But how much respect and consideration should his team give him? SHould they just pretend they know nothing? What would you do if you were in that situation?

 

 

Absolutely. I am all for consumers boycotting a business who supports practices they don't approve of. I am NOT in favor of people forcing businesses to shut their doors just because they support practices they don't approve of. The recent baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for the lesbian couple comes to mind. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the baker, and I don't think refusal to serve them was necessarily showing Jesus-like behavior, so don't attack me on that point. I support the couple to spread the word that the baker wouldn't bake for them, tell their friends and others about it; word of mouth can be damaging enough, and that, to me, would be within their rights. I do NOT support the idea that they should sue the baker for discrimination and put her out of business. The baker, as a private business owner, should have the right to decide what she supports, and she could suffer the natural consequences from their dissatisfaction.

 

Chick-fil-a is another that springs to mind. Of course, I don't see that the boycott for them went very well since I can rarely get in the parking lot at that place. 

[BrookValley.]

I didn't start a thread to encourage people not to express opinions at all. My thread is started because I'm sick of people expressing opinions and being crucified for it just because it may be unpopular.

 

For instance, I am not a proponent of gay marriage. I want people to find happiness, and if that means being with a same sex person, that's their business and I am okay with their choice. My opinion might be that I don't agree with it being ideal, but I'm not hating on or bashing out against gay people. I have several within my extended family and I certainly love them and believe they have a right to be happy. I don't have to be in support of gay marriage to be tolerant and accepting. Of course, by saying I'm not a proponent, people automatically assume I'm a "hater." This is a problem.

 

And the Clippers dude, again, was in his own home. The fact that he should be held accountable for something he said in the privacy of his home is absolutely absurd. There are MANY objectionable things about him, but his private opinion should be just that.

 

 Uh, because  a lot of people would consider that to be hateful behavior? But no one is denying your right to have that opinion on it. If you hold it, own it.

[StaceyinLA]

I would never, ever teach my children to ignore or shrug off others hurtful or hateful words.   Rather, I teach my children that they are not obligated to stand for that; That they are not only entitled but obligated to defend their own dignity; That tolerating that sort of behavior is tantamount to condoning it.

 

They should value themselves, or others, if they are witnessing it, enough to stand up to the abuser and call them out publicly, not to shrug it off because that person has the right to their own opinion.

 

 

I have certainly taught my kids to stand up for themselves and not be belittled (we are a pretty vocal and outspoken lot), but sometimes they need to just consider the source and move on. I'm sorry if you disagree.

[Jane in NC]

I don't mean all kids are cruel, and what I experienced probably wouldn't have been considered bullying back then. I DO believe that kids will always say and do inappropriate things and hurt feelings, especially in peer environments. Obviously there is a line, and where that is, I can't say, but in some instances, I do believe we are doing our children a disservice when we teach them that they shouldn't try and ignore and shrug off some of these things. You are entitled to disagree, but I stand my ground.

 

My mother may be dead and gone but she still metaphorically speaks to me whenever I want to be catty.  My mother raised me to be polite and civil.

 

I realize that not everyone had a mother had mine.  But it seems that many should have had some sort of upbringing (within the home, a religious institution, a community) in which it is taught that name calling and cruelty are not habits of civil people. 

 

Frankly I hate the "colorful" language that peppers some people's speech. It is as though their education gave them a single adjective and hence one that has become meaningless to them.  On more than one occasion, I have asked people to tone down their language when I was sitting in a public place with children whom I felt did not need to be exposed.  Do people have the right to toss f-bombs in a public place?  Apparently.  But I also have no trouble asking them to be more respectful. Apparently I am infringing upon their right of free speech--but I do so with Mom winking at me!

 

So bullies have rights is what I am hearing.  Why do their rights supersede my right to educate them via civil discourse? Sure, sometimes we shake stuff off but I would not want to teach my child to tolerate regularly being belittled.  Nor would I want anyone in my family to have to put up with an employer who calls employees offensive names or makes sexually suggestive overtures.  I feel that your comments suggest that we should tolerate a lack of civility because some people cannot learn to change.  I ask: Cannot or will not?

 

[StaceyinLA]

 Uh, because  a lot of people would consider that to be hateful behavior? But no one is denying your right to have that opinion on it. If you hold it, own it.

 

Hateful just because I don't specifically "support" gay marriage? See? This is the kind of thing I think is absurd. I can be tolerant and loving without marching in gay pride parades. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's like if you aren't FOR something, you are automatically a hater and out to get people.

 

[poppy]

I didn't start a thread to encourage people not to express opinions at all. My thread is started because I'm sick of people expressing opinions and being crucified for it just because it may be unpopular.

 

For instance, I am not a proponent of gay marriage. I want people to find happiness, and if that means being with a same sex person, that's their business and I am okay with their choice. My opinion might be that I don't agree with it being ideal, but I'm not hating on or bashing out against gay people. I have several within my extended family and I certainly love them and believe they have a right to be happy. I don't have to be in support of gay marriage to be tolerant and accepting. Of course, by saying I'm not a proponent, people automatically assume I'm a "hater." This is a problem.

 

And the Clippers dude, again, was in his own home. The fact that he should be held accountable for something he said in the privacy of his home is absolutely absurd. There are MANY objectionable things about him, but his private opinion should be just that.

 

You want to deny gay people the right to marry and you are the one being crucified?

From my perspective, denying gay people the ability to marry is about as morally supportable as denying interracial couples from being able to marry.

I am glad you are not overtly hateful but there's really no gold star given out for that. It's just being a decent person.

 

[AlmiraGulch]

Chick-fil-a is another that springs to mind. Of course, I don't see that the boycott for them went very well since I can rarely get in the parking lot at that place. 

 

Chik-fil-a changed its corporate giving policies and no longer supports the types of organizations that were previously in question with corporate funds.  

 

The owners can give their money wherever they see fit.  The corporation clearly saw the negative financial implications of their ways, and changed them.  

 

I see the Chik-fil-a story as a perfect example of how social protest sparked change.

[BrookValley.]

Hateful just because I don't specifically "support" gay marriage? See? This is the kind of thing I think is absurd. I can be tolerant and loving without marching in gay pride parades. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's like if you aren't FOR something, you are automatically a hater and out to get people.

 

No one said you had to march in pride parades. But many people do consider denying a certain subset of the population the same rights as the rest as being hateful. It's certainly not tolerant. When your opinion affects people's quality of life negatively, people will probably be upset, no? And it is absurd for me to tell you so? To tell you how it is hurtful to people?

[StaceyinLA]

You want to deny gay people the right to marry and you are the one being crucified?

I am glad you are not overtly hateful but there's really no gold star given out for that. It's just being a decent person.

 

Never said I wanted to deny it. I said I don't support it personally. I also said I had several homosexuals in my family that I love and accept for who they are. I think I'm a bit better than just "not overtly hateful."

 

And so your opinion is a person can't be decent if they oppose same sex marriage? Why that isn't the LEAST bit judgmental!

[StaceyinLA]

Chik-fil-a changed its corporate giving policies and no longer supports the types of organizations that were previously in question with corporate funds.  

 

The owners can give their money wherever they see fit.  The corporation clearly saw the negative financial implications of their ways, and changed them.  

 

I see the Chik-fil-a story as a perfect example of how social protest sparked change.

 

 

I don't believe they were affected negatively. And those in my family who are homosexuals still boycott, so I'm thinking many others still do as well. I think the crowds at Chick-Fil-A are those who have supported the owner from the beginning.

[BrookValley.]

Never said I wanted to deny it. I said I don't support it personally. I also said I had several homosexuals in my family that I love and accept for who they are. I think I'm a bit better than just "not overtly hateful."

 

And so your opinion is a person can't be decent if they oppose same sex marriage? Why that isn't the LEAST bit judgmental!

 

If you oppose it, you deny it. If you vote against it, you are actively participating in preventing it.

 

You don't see how your behavior is judgmental?

 

This entire thread is a study in contradictions. :lol:

[AlmiraGulch]

Hateful just because I don't specifically "support" gay marriage? See? This is the kind of thing I think is absurd. I can be tolerant and loving without marching in gay pride parades. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's like if you aren't FOR something, you are automatically a hater and out to get people.

 

Everyone has their own hills they are willing to die on.  For me and for many, denying someone equal protection under the law is a human rights violation, no different than if interracial marriage were still banned.  That's a hill I'll die on, and therefore not something I would ever just "agree to disagree" on.  

 

I'm not claiming you hate homosexuals.  However, your desire to actively deny people civil rights, such as a marriage license, is worthy of protest and any and all other forms of what you deem to be political correctness.  It is people's willingness to not shut up and shrug it off that has righted social wrongs time and time again.  If everyone ignored it, nothing would ever change. 

[Word Nerd]

In what way do you mean "ruin people's lives"?  

 

In some cases, the angry backlash against the offender is worse than the original offense—for example, an angry blog reader making death threats against a blogger who posted something offensive. One recent example: Justine Sacco received threats about rape, torture, and death after posting a racist tweet that resulted in her firing, and people started threatening her family members too. 

[poppy]

Never said I wanted to deny it. I said I don't support it personally. I also said I had several homosexuals in my family that I love and accept for who they are. I think I'm a bit better than just "not overtly hateful."

 

And so your opinion is a person can't be decent if they oppose same sex marriage? Why that isn't the LEAST bit judgmental!

 

I don't understand, you don't want to deny it but you don't support it?

If you don't want to deny it (in your voting and when talking to others), what is the point of "not supporting" it?

 

As for judgmental, well, I'm not sure what to say to that.  Of course I do not think everyone is right about everything.  Who does?  The expression 'hi kettle, I'm pot!' comes to mind as well.

[AlmiraGulch]

I don't believe they were affected negatively. And those in my family who are homosexuals still boycott, so I'm thinking many others still do as well. I think the crowds at Chick-Fil-A are those who have supported the owner from the beginning.

 

You're missing the point entirely.

 

I assume willfully so.

[justasque]

 

There are ALWAYS going to be people who are racist. They are ALWAYS going to be people who disagree with gay marriage. There are ALWAYS going to be people who are staunchly pro-life. There are ALWAYS going to be people who are pro-choice. There are ALWAYS going to be people who mock others for their beliefs, the way they look, act, dress, etc.

 

I just don't understand how, in a supposed free country, we think we can demand that everyone will agree on everything, and no one will ever say anything offensive.

 

 

Many of us, however, will use our own personal views when we spend our hard-earned money, and avoid giving it to people who express views we disagree with.  We may eat at Chik-Fil-A or not, depending on whether we support the political causes to which the owner donates some of the profits made from our purchase.  This "voting with our dollars" is, I think, a good thing, regardless of which side you're on.  

 

In the basketball case, the team owner was deeply disrespectful of the very people who, as players, use their labor to help him make his living.  He also was deeply disrespectful of those who, as fans, spend their dollars on game tickets and fan gear that also contribute to his profits. These people are his customers.  They are now likely to "vote with their dollars" (just as you and I vote with our dollars on issues that affect us or on which we feel strongly).  Advertisers don't want to be associated with his actions, in fear that people might believe that they, too, share these views, and will change their spending habits accordingly.  Thus, the advertisers will choose not to do business with his team.  His team will thus lose money from both fans and sponsoring companies.  The company (the league) will have to balance support for his right to say/believe whatever he wants with the needs of those who depend on the business for their livelihood.  Chances are, he's outta there.

 

Now of course, sometimes good people expressing morally just opinions get caught up in things like this.  Each individual must consider whether it's more important to speak up about a cause or injustice, even if it may threaten their career.  Our nation's history is full of examples of people who suffered for what history ultimately judged to be the right thing to do.  Sometimes, speaking out may not be popular, but may be the morally appropriate choice.

 

It's not easy.  The key to navigating all of this is to try to live your life honestly, to be open to learning about the perspective of others, to be open to changing your views based on new information or understanding of an issue, and to generally own your truth, even if it means taking a reasonable amount of personal risk.  The right thing to do isn't always easy or popular, but in the long run, is the best path to walk, I think.

[AlmiraGulch]

P.S.  This just in! 

 

NBA bans Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life.

 

As he should be.  

[StaceyinLA]

No one said you had to march in pride parades. But many people do consider denying a certain subset of the population the same rights as the rest as being hateful. It's certainly not tolerant. When your opinion affects people's quality of life negatively, people will probably be upset, no? And it is absurd for me to tell you so? To tell you how it is hurtful to people?

 

It is absurd because many opinions held by people hurt others. Everyone doesn't share the same opinions or convictions. That is what my initial post was about; the fact that there are ALWAYS going to be differences. It is my right to believe that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. I would not fight to deny gays the right to marry, but it doesn't mean I have to support or agree with it.

 

It hurts me to my core that unborn babies are murdered every. single. day. Is that going to stop people from having abortions? Clearly not. Do pro-choice people give a crap about what I believe? Not a chance.

[StaceyinLA]

You're missing the point entirely.

 

I assume willfully so.

 

No. I'm not. I just think the issue can be looked at from another side. I know the day Chick-fil-A was supposed to be boycotted, there were lines for MILES to get into those in our town. I think they were supported by those who were on his side, and I think they still are.

 

Yes, maybe he stopped donating to those causes, but I don't think it is because he was hit in the pocketbook.

[justasque]

In some cases, the angry backlash against the offender is worse than the original offense—for example, an angry blog reader making death threats against a blogger who posted something offensive. One recent example: Justine Sacco received threats about rape, torture, and death after posting a racist tweet that resulted in her firing, and people started threatening her family members too. 

I am guessing that regardless of their political views, everyone in this thread is *for* peaceful means of countering speech we disagree with (boycotts, voting, and so on), and very much against things like threats or otherwise making people fear for their safety.  Clearly, that kind of behavior is illegal and inappropriate.  On that, I think we can agree.

[Joanne]

There are some things you can shrug off.  You even admit you weren't really bullied so you really have no idea.  Should I have told my 5 year old daughter to "man up" when she was coming home covered in bruises from being punched on the bus ride home from school? It doesn't even have to be physical.  

 

Actually, she says she WAS bullied but that she "turned out okay."  (Edited to add I saw the post in which the OP clarifies her understanding of what was done to her and says it might not have been bullying. The rest of my post stands, IMO).

 

I submit that the overwhelming majority of people "turn out ok."

 

Psychologically, I find the defense of poor behavior by the victims of that behavior a sad dynamic indeed. I am in complete and total favor of anti-bullying education - we allowed abuse for generations while we under supervised children and allowed them to be victims, re-victimizing them with "man up", "big girl panty" and "just ignore them" advice.

[StaceyinLA]

Many of us, however, will use our own personal views when we spend our hard-earned money, and avoid giving it to people who express views we disagree with.  We may eat at Chik-Fil-A or not, depending on whether we support the political causes to which the owner donates some of the profits made from our purchase.  This "voting with our dollars" is, I think, a good thing, regardless of which side you're on.  

 

In the basketball case, the team owner was deeply disrespectful of the very people who, as players, use their labor to help him make his living.  He also was deeply disrespectful of those who, as fans, spend their dollars on game tickets and fan gear that also contribute to his profits. These people are his customers.  They are now likely to "vote with their dollars" (just as you and I vote with our dollars on issues that affect us or on which we feel strongly).  Advertisers don't want to be associated with his actions, in fear that people might believe that they, too, share these views, and will change their spending habits accordingly.  Thus, the advertisers will choose not to do business with his team.  His team will thus lose money from both fans and sponsoring companies.  The company (the league) will have to balance support for his right to say/believe whatever he wants with the needs of those who depend on the business for their livelihood.  Chances are, he's outta there.

 

Now of course, sometimes good people expressing morally just opinions get caught up in things like this.  Each individual must consider whether it's more important to speak up about a cause or injustice, even if it may threaten their career.  Our nation's history is full of examples of people who suffered for what history ultimately judged to be the right thing to do.  Sometimes, speaking out may not be popular, but may be the morally appropriate choice.

 

It's not easy.  The key to navigating all of this is to try to live your life honestly, to be open to learning about the perspective of others, to be open to changing your views based on new information or understanding of an issue, and to generally own your truth, even if it means taking a reasonable amount of personal risk.  The right thing to do isn't always easy or popular, but in the long run, is the best path to walk, I think.

 

I absolutely agree that voting with our dollars is a good thing, and I support everyone's decision to do so. I do NOT support lawsuits and shutting businesses down because they don't agree with you or your opinions.

 

Again I could care less about the basketball guy. My only issue with this was how the information was obtained.

[albeto.]

In some cases, the angry backlash against the offender is worse than the original offense—for example, an angry blog reader making death threats against a blogger who posted something offensive. One recent example: Justine Sacco received threats about rape, torture, and death after posting a racist tweet that resulted in her firing, and people started threatening her family members too. 

 

Okay, I see what you mean. Yeah, the same thing happened to Jessica Alquist, the teen who asked her public school to stop promoting Christian references. Her state rep even called her an "evil little thing" on public radio. That's pretty crazy when a government official says that about a young person asking for a government institution to uphold the government's policy on separation of church and state. So yeah, crazy and creepy things happen to people who upset the applecart. Is this what Stacy is referring to in her thread, though? Is she suggesting people who don't agree with her might target her aggressively and even violently like Sacco and Alquist experienced? And if these examples are understood as being in the minority of likely responses to unpopular opinion, is the implication then that people should just keep quiet when they see offensive sentiments? 

[StaceyinLA]

Actually, she says she WAS bullied but that she "turned out okay."

 

I submit that the overwhelming majority of people "turn out ok."

 

Psychologically, I find the defense of poor behavior by the victims of that behavior a sad dynamic indeed. I am in complete and total favor of anti-bullying education - we allowed abuse for generations while we under supervised children and allowed them to be victims, re-victimizing them with "man up", "big girl panty" and "just ignore them" advice.

 

I wasn't physically bullied. I was certainly mentally bullied, at least by today's definition.

 

And I am not saying, by any stretch, that kids should tolerate cruel treatment, physical abuse, etc., but I don't believe we should expect (as in the little boy with the "my little pony" backpack) for kids to never pick on or make fun of other kids. There are times when stepping in might be warranted, and times when we should be able to tell our kids to consider the source and move on. There will NEVER be a time when the mouths of 100% of children will be able to be controlled. 

[AlmiraGulch]

No. I'm not. I just think the issue can be looked at from another side. I know the day Chick-fil-A was supposed to be boycotted, there were lines for MILES to get into those in our town. I think they were supported by those who were on his side, and I think they still are.

 

Yes, maybe he stopped donating to those causes, but I don't think it is because he was hit in the pocketbook.

 

I don't care what the reason was.  The fact is that people spoke up and they quickly made a radical change not just to their charitable giving policies.

 

You can call it altruistic, which would be very good, or you can say it's because they saw that he downstream implications would not be good for them.  Regardless, change was made because people did not just shut up and take it.  

[MistyMountain]

I was bullied and had cruel things said to me all through later middle school and high school. Yea I am a doing okay as an adult and I never shot up the school. School shooters didn't do it because they were bullied anyway there were other causes and that takes the blame.Just because I am okay now and got through it does not it was a good thing. I still have scars from that and really nothing good came from that for me. I have gained resilience in other ways besides having to live through that which was actually a confidence destroyer. The sticks and stones saying is not true. Names hurt more than sticks and stones.

 

Yes kids will always have to deal with other kids being mean or making fun of them but we do not have to tolerate it and say it is perfectly fine and dandy suck it up and deal. We can teach kids that being respectful and kind and good stewards is important.

 

My dd goes to a charter school and one thing they do right is their response to bullying. When incidents happen where a kid is made fun of they are dealt with before it becomes bullying. All through the year they talk about having a good character and treating other kids right. When an incident happens it is dealt with and parents are notified. All the kids get talked to about treating each other nicely. It works. Things aren't perfect. Not every kid is popular but there is no bullying and the kids are treated with respect. With cyber bullying in modern times things can be really bad for kids that are being stalked by hundreds of kids saying cruel things to them. No kid should have to deal with harassment and fear and thinking that no one out there likes them. Yes kids will say stupid mean things at times and it isn't the end of the world and it doesn't mean they are deliquent but at the same time we don't have to accept it.

[Joanne]

Hateful just because I don't specifically "support" gay marriage? See? This is the kind of thing I think is absurd. I can be tolerant and loving without marching in gay pride parades. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's like if you aren't FOR something, you are automatically a hater and out to get people.

 

I consider the religious based opposition to official gay marriage to be on the continuum of hate. One reason is that the idea that who a (adult) person loves and seeks (adult) romantic intimacy with to be "sin" is a hateful viewpoint.

 

There are several other reasons I consider being anti-gay marriage hateful - dead or addicted teens is another.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and to express it. No one is crucifying you (and what a patronizing, watered down word to use. Reminds me of using "Nazi" frivolously).

[albeto.]

I absolutely agree that voting with our dollars is a good thing, and I support everyone's decision to do so. I do NOT support lawsuits and shutting businesses down because they don't agree with you or your opinions.

 

Lawsuits are designed to uncover whether or not a breach of justice has been made. I can only imagine you'd be grateful for this protocol if you found yourself in a situation where you were being denied justice. 

[Lanny]

Watching the TV news from the USA , probably a week or so ago, I saw this referred to as totalitarian. I have also seen/heard on the news, very recently, that some people with those views (some groups in California for example), are ready to go after (with violence, etc.), those who do not agree with their views.

 

It is incredibly sad, IMHO, that some people believe that people who do not agree with their views are their enemies. People should be able to have their own views, and respect the rights of others to disagree with them, without threatening violence, etc.  "My way or the highway"...

 

 to·tal·i·tar·i·an

tÅËŒtaliˈte(É™)rÄ“É™n/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

   "a totalitarian regime"

   synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic,fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More

    

    

    

      

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person advocating a totalitarian system of government.

   synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic,fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More

 

[Joanne]

I absolutely agree that voting with our dollars is a good thing, and I support everyone's decision to do so. I do NOT support lawsuits and shutting businesses down because they don't agree with you or your opinions.

 

Again I could care less about the basketball guy. My only issue with this was how the information was obtained.

 

I believe Nestle harmed mothers, maternal/infant bonding and killed babies. I would have supported a lawsuit and shutting down the business.

[AlmiraGulch]

I wasn't physically bullied. I was certainly mentally bullied, at least by today's definition.

 

And I am not saying, by any stretch, that kids should tolerate cruel treatment, physical abuse, etc., but I don't believe we should expect (as in the little boy with the "my little pony" backpack) for kids to never pick on or make fun of other kids. There are times when stepping in might be warranted, and times when we should be able to tell our kids to consider the source and move on. There will NEVER be a time when the mouths of 100% of children will be able to be controlled. 

 

I don't think anyone is saying that there is.

 

I think the point of contention here is that you seem to be saying that people should just get over it and move on, while others believe that that sort of response went on for too long, is damaging, and that people finally standing up to the "bullies", whether it be in a school yard or a corporate office or wherever, is what sparks change.

[justasque]

Absolutely. I am all for consumers boycotting a business who supports practices they don't approve of. I am NOT in favor of people forcing businesses to shut their doors just because they support practices they don't approve of. The recent baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for the lesbian couple comes to mind. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the baker, and I don't think refusal to serve them was necessarily showing Jesus-like behavior, so don't attack me on that point. I support the couple to spread the word that the baker wouldn't bake for them, tell their friends and others about it; word of mouth can be damaging enough, and that, to me, would be within their rights. I do NOT support the idea that they should sue the baker for discrimination and put her out of business. The baker, as a private business owner, should have the right to decide what she supports, and she could suffer the natural consequences from their dissatisfaction.

 

Chick-fil-a is another that springs to mind. Of course, I don't see that the boycott for them went very well since I can rarely get in the parking lot at that place.

 

 

I absolutely agree that voting with our dollars is a good thing, and I support everyone's decision to do so. I do NOT support lawsuits and shutting businesses down because they don't agree with you or your opinions.

 

Again I could care less about the basketball guy. My only issue with this was how the information was obtained.

The reason is that the cake business falls under "public accommodations".  Basically, the idea is that a store owner or landlord can't refuse to do business with someone based on their race, etc.  These laws came into being as a counter to the Jim Crow laws of America's past.  I can't imagine the stress of taking a road trip and having to worry that a hotel or restaurant would turn me away, or taking a job and finding that I couldn't find a landlord nearby who would rent to me, but that was a common experience back then.  Do you feel that it should be OK for business owners to do these kinds of things based on race nowadays, and that we should repeal public accommodation laws?  Or is your concern about public accommodation laws specifically as they relate to gay folks - that is, that public accommodation laws are OK for race-based discrimination but should not be extended to situations based on sexual preference?

 

ETA: Note that religious institutions (like churches) and private clubs (like the Boy Scouts) are exempt from public accommodation laws. Currently, some states include sexual orientation and/or gender identity in their public accommodation laws, and some do not.

[poppy]

I wasn't physically bullied. I was certainly mentally bullied, at least by today's definition.

 

And I am not saying, by any stretch, that kids should tolerate cruel treatment, physical abuse, etc., but I don't believe we should expect (as in the little boy with the "my little pony" backpack) for kids to never pick on or make fun of other kids. There are times when stepping in might be warranted, and times when we should be able to tell our kids to consider the source and move on. There will NEVER be a time when the mouths of 100% of children will be able to be controlled. 

 

I promise I am not trying to be willfully antangositic here, but, I just don't get the point you're trying to make. There will always  be bullies. There will always be abusive spouses. There will always be con artists. There will always be child molestors. There will always be small cruelties we all experience day-to-day from people who aren't evil, too.  So should we just throw up our hands and say 'well that's the way it is'? Or do we take steps to protect those we love however we reasonably can?

 

I can see not agreeing with the approach of this or that specific anti-bullying campaigns, absolutely. But are you arguing that any campaign is a negative thing?

[liber]

P.S. This just in!

 

NBA bans Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for life.

 

As he should be.

I think this is the sort of thing that the OP is referring too.

 

Nothing like forcing groupthink on the population. If you don't tow our line we will punish you.

 

As vile as his statements were he should be able to voice them without sanctions of any kind.

 

Free speech and all that.

 

Now if the fans and the players didn't like what he had to say, they are free to leave and spend their money elsewhere.

 

I think collectively ignoring is far more productive then collectively punishing and forcing people to express and hold "appropriate" opinions. I think people by their nature don't like being forced to do anything, even if it is for the "greater good". I think it just gets people hackles up and doesn't really change them. They may be going through the motions of PC behaviour but still hold racist or any other "ist" type of views.

[Joanne]

I wasn't physically bullied. I was certainly mentally bullied, at least by today's definition.

 

And I am not saying, by any stretch, that kids should tolerate cruel treatment, physical abuse, etc., but I don't believe we should expect (as in the little boy with the "my little pony" backpack) for kids to never pick on or make fun of other kids. There are times when stepping in might be warranted, and times when we should be able to tell our kids to consider the source and move on. There will NEVER be a time when the mouths of 100% of children will be able to be controlled. 

 

 

Children need to be supervised, coached, and guided. Always, because they will deteriorate to the lowest common denominator of behavior.

 

I think, though, that you are linking two issues that are not comfortably linked: expression of opinion/ideas and tolerance for dissension with the behavioral dynamics of young children. I think you take away from your perspective rather than reinforce it.

 

[Joanne]

 

Watching the TV news from the USA , probably a week or so ago, I saw this referred to as totalitarian. I have also seen/heard on the news, very recently, that some people with those views (some groups in California for example), are ready to go after (with violence, etc.), those who do not agree with their views.

 

It is incredibly sad, IMHO, that some people believe that people who do not agree with their views are their enemies. People should be able to have their own views, and respect the rights of others to disagree with them, without threatening violence, etc.  "My way or the highway"...

 

 to·tal·i·tar·i·an

tÅËŒtaliˈte(É™)rÄ“É™n/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

   "a totalitarian regime"

   synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic,fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More

    

    

    

      

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person advocating a totalitarian system of government.

   synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic,fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More

 

 

How is the expression of individual opinion here, on FB, on blogs, at the PTA, Church Deacon meeting or Little League Game related to a totalitarian government?

 

 

[Jane in NC]

I absolutely agree that voting with our dollars is a good thing, and I support everyone's decision to do so. I do NOT support lawsuits and shutting businesses down because they don't agree with you or your opinions.

 

Again I could care less about the basketball guy. My only issue with this was how the information was obtained.

 

One cannot bring a lawsuit unless there is an indication that a law was violated.  I cannot sue my neighbor for wearing plaid pants.  There is no law against it--this is my opinion.

 

If my neighbor's restaurant prohibited people wearing plaid pants from dining there, someone might sue.  Do you really think businesses should be allowed to serve only red heads?

[SKL]

The "let's ruin his life" effect is very selectively applied also.  There are many people who are popular with the current PC folks and who have said their share of offensive comments in the long past and recent past.  But they have immunity it seems.

[JadeOrchidSong]

:iagree:

 

And it seems like the people who preach tolerance the most are actually the least tolerant.

Yes! Agreed!