Vera Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 ALL of your opinions offend me but your opinion on gay marriage goes beyond that. You do know that your position hurts people, right? Is that OK? Can you explain why you think that same sex couples shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us? I am truly curious because I don't know anyone in real life with that opinion and I don't watch Fox News so I honestly don't know what the arguments are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 If you read further you will also read more about how I feel regarding the gay marriage issue overall. Yes, as I understand it, you are willing to support politicians who openly state that they plan to vote to deny other people human rights because you agree with them on another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 It isn't wrong to be a represent a business (or a population) AND have an opinion. No, of course it's not wrong. It's never wrong to "have" an opinion. What may sometimes not be wise is to forcefully express it in just every situation. I was responding to the suggestion that Jefferson and Lincoln "could not" have written certain foundational documents in fear of economic retribution for their unpopular ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 ALL of your opinions offend me but your opinion on gay marriage goes beyond that. You do know that your position hurts people, right? Is that OK? Can you explain why you think that same sex couples shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us? I am truly curious because I don't know anyone in real life with that opinion and I don't watch Fox News so I honestly don't know what the arguments are. First, I doubt you even know ALL of my opinions. A lot of what I have mentioned and discussed isn't necessarily my PERSONAL opinion. Have you read the entire thread? I have covered my position on gay marriage, and my struggles with what I believe and why I believe it, as well as how my position has evolved based on my thoughts and feelings as well as things I have learned here. And I'm not sure where Fox News comes into play, since I don't develop my beliefs and opinions based on what any news station reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 Yes, as I understand it, you are willing to support politicians who openly state that they plan to vote to deny other people human rights because you agree with them on another topic.Yes, if they were also willing to deny life to the unborn (something I feel is a fundamental human right - the right to be born), I certainly would. That is MY hill to die on. I find it very curious that you'd consider gay marriage a human right, but the right to life a lesser human right. Aside from that, I wouldn't make a conscious choice to oppose gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I was responding to the suggestion that Jefferson and Lincoln "could not" have written certain foundational documents in fear of economic retribution for their unpopular ideas. You misunderstood what I said. My point was that if we silenced and marginalized every person who ever expressed an opinion that offends, those two men would never have been allowed to rise to a position of influence, and the great things they did might not have gotten done, or done as well. And the same can be said of everyone who is considered to have done great things. Having an opinion, even one generally accepted as wrong, does not render an individual incapable of great thoughts and great deeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I think there will soon be a common line in interviews: "I have an opinion, but I decline to express it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vera Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I did read the whole thread but I still don't understand. What is there to struggle about? It has nothing to do with you. No one is asking you to marry a woman. The whole anti gay marriage argument is so far out of my ability to understand that I really need some help. I do know that there are people who agree with you, I have just never met one. I am honestly 100% baffled. Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vera Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Yes, if they were also willing to deny life to the unborn (something I feel is a fundamental human right - the right to be born), I certainly would. That is MY hill to die on. I find it very curious that you'd consider gay marriage a human right, but the right to life a lesser human right. Aside from that, I wouldn't make a conscious choice to oppose gay marriage. I too find it interesting that some of the same people who are so vehement about the right to get married are so dismissive of the pro-life sensitivities. Do they not realize that the passion they feel on behalf of gay couples is the very same passion that others feel on behalf of unborn humans? Or is it that they know full well how much they offend and they simply do not care, or maybe they are glad to offend? Perhaps they feel it is justifiable to offend such irrational sensitivities? Well, what if the tide turns tomorrow and suddenly it's politically incorrect to deny the significance and the rights of the unborn? Are they prepared to accept the consequences of having caused offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You misunderstood what I said. My point was that if we silenced and marginalized every person who ever expressed an opinion that offends, those two men would never have been allowed to rise to a position of influence, and the great things they did might not have gotten done, or done as well. And the same can be said of everyone who is considered to have done great things. Having an opinion, even one generally accepted as wrong, does not render an individual incapable of great thoughts and great deeds.I still don't understand the comparison. Lincoln wanted to end slavery, which was a controversial opinion. He ultimately paid for this opinion and his with his life, but is today [generally] revered. His goal may not have been popular, but it was noble and great and necessary, and he sacrificed himself for the good of others. Whom did he offend by saying slavery was an abomination? The slave owners? Donald Sterling doesn't want his girlfriend to take pictures with black people and post them on Instagram. He won't be able to attend basketball games and may be forced to sell the Clippers, for which he will be paid over $500 million. He's not noble or good. His words are hateful and offensive. They serve only himself. I really really don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I too find it interesting that some of the same people who are so vehement about the right to get married are so dismissive of the pro-life sensitivities. Do they not realize that the passion they feel on behalf of gay couples is the very same passion that others feel on behalf of unborn humans? Or is it that they know full well how much they offend and they simply do not care, or maybe they are glad to offend? Perhaps they feel it is justifiable to offend such irrational sensitivities? Well, what if the tide turns tomorrow and suddenly it's politically incorrect to deny the significance and the rights of the unborn? Are they prepared to accept the consequences of having caused offense?Well, first of all, gay people are living, breathing humans. Their having the legal right to get married in no way affects you or anyone other the two people entering the legal contract. A woman is a living, breathing human being too. She is more than an incubator or host. There are very real risks and dangers to carrying a pregnancy. Whether or not she risks her life to carry a pregnancy should be her choice, not yours or the government's. This isn't a hypothetical to me either. I am pregnant with my 4th after a very touch-and-go surgery to deliver my 3rd. To think that someone else could force me to risk my life is abhorrent. It's my body, and I actually exist as a person with legal rights. I am not a theoretical maybe if everything goes well in 36 or so weeks I'll turn into a person being. I should not lose my rights to my personhood just because sperm found one of my eggs. People who are anti-abortion--I respect those who educate children, who teach men to respect women, who help ensure women have access to healthcare and options before they get pregnant, who provide actual assistance to pregnant women in marginalized situations, and who don't stop caring about the "life" once the baby is actually born onto this earth. I believe those people are legitimately doing something to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing abortions. Otherwise, to me, you might as well be one of those nutters throwing plastic embryos on a sidewalk. That's without even getting in to the fact that legal, safe abortions are necessary even in the midst of a desperately wanted pregnancy. An unviable fetus can be dangerous to the mother's life. You personally want to die from sepsis rather than undergo an abortion to remove the unviable fetus based on your religious beliefs? Knock yourself out. But don't force that fate on everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I really really don't get it. Abraham Lincoln was previously in favor of states' rights to decide on slavery, i.e., keeping slavery legal if the local folks wanted it. There were many important people opposed to that view. Many were doubtless offended and many were hurt by that view. Should he have been prevented from moving forward in his political or business career because he held that view? By today's standards, yes, he should have. I wasn't even talking about Sterling. I'm talking about the whole trend of attempting to ruin people for holding politically incorrect views (now or in the past). The Sterling sanctions might have been the straw that broke the camel's back for the OP, I don't know. From what I know of the story (not much, it isn't that interesting to me), this isn't really part of the "trend" I'm talking about. Basically this guy was having a tiff in private with his ex (who happens to be mixed race herself), and she got him back. Yes, his offense at seeing her date black guys after his white self is racist, at a highly personal level, similar to how some Indian friends of mine freaked out when they caught their daughter dating a black kid. I'd bet some of the people issuing the sanctions are more racist than Sterling is, but I understand they had to do this in order to save their own butts. (Oh, and I don't doubt that some of the black players who are offended have made racist comments about white people, in private conversation, and no, that is not "different.") I see no "higher level of thinking about race" in any of this. I see no social progress here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You personally want to die from sepsis rather than undergo an abortion to remove the unviable fetus based on your religious beliefs? Knock yourself out. But don't force that fate on everyone else. Excuse me, I said nothing remotely resembling that. Don't put words in people's mouths. Best of luck with your baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Excuse me, I said nothing remotely resembling that. Don't put words in people's mouths. Best of luck with your baby. "You" as in the people who are passionately campaigning for laws restricting abortion, because that is a real-life scenario when abortion is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 "You" as in the people who are passionately campaigning for laws restricting abortion, because that is a real-life scenario when abortion is illegal. Seeing the word "pro-life" and assuming it means I'd rather you die a horrible death than take care of your health is similar to some people seeing "gay" and making all sorts of offensive assumptions about young boys etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 "You" as in the people who are passionately campaigning for laws restricting abortion, because that is a real-life scenario when abortion is illegal. It's also a real-life scenario that when abortion is legal, women/girls are forced into it, babies are born alive and killed later, babies are mutilated and later born alive, women die of infections, and a few other things. But I don't assume you "want" those things to happen if you say you are pro-choice. FTR I have no desire to debate abortion, and I'm about to go to bed. Just kind of wish a conversation were even possible without words being recast as violent, brutal attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadieMarie Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I was having a similar thought. I want the people in the minority to be free to speak their minds. But for that to be meaningful and sustainable, all people have to be free to speak their minds. When the only people allowed to say what they really think are Rap artists, what is really happening? Again, I am asking, Who does not have the right to speak their mind here? What has changed is that racism is not going to be accepted the way it once was. Jesse Helms is probably turning over in his grave, but times have changed. Rappers can put whatever gross, hateful stuff they want in their songs. Westboro can put whatever gross hateful stuff they want on their signs. Both groups want notoriety, one to sell records and one to, well not sure, just love the attention I think. Neither is really news anymore. But when it is a franchise owner in basketball it is going to be treated differently by the media. I don't find that puzzling at all. And you are incorrect to suggest that rappers somehow speak for the black community. That is what it seems like you are saying from this comment and it is not true, anymore than that Westboro or the Klan speaks for all white people. Which brings up a related issue - why are black people only allowed to have certain political views? Is that really best for any or all of us? This is just one example. As a woman I've borne more than one smackdown over being pro-life and a few other things. I don't want to get into details of each specific view, I'm trying to focus on the overall philosophy that liberty and justice for all doesn't work if it excludes any group, majority or minority. And, that being unable to listen to others (or at least let them speak without attacking) is a very primitive condition. Pointing out that other groups have been denied liberties or shut down in the past does not support the rationality of doing it now. What political views are only black people allowed to have? I have no idea what you are talking about here. And a "smackdown" is unclear to me. Does that mean someone hit you? That is not free speech. Does it mean someone waved a sign back at you? That would be free speech. Does it mean someone disagreed with you? That is free speech even if they did it in a very confrontational manner. Free speech does not mean that you get to say whatever you want free from the possibility that someone else will disagree strongly and state it, and maybe even state it in an uncivil way. I guess this is bringing up the past a bit, but this is not the only time that some groups have been able to exercise their free speech rights with fewer repercussions (or none at all) than other groups. I mean lets think again about some of Jesse Helms' speeches and then the people who exercised their free speech during the civil rights movement and ended up dead because of it. There were people who exercised their free speech rights regarding politics and ended up in front of Senator McCarthy and never worked in this country again. The types of free speech that are going to have serious repercussions are changing. I am sure a lot of people are having some trouble adjusting to this change. When has anyone ever been free to say whatever they want without being attacked (verbally of course)? I am going to say never, not guaranteed anyway. It is going to depend upon the subject and how divisive it is. I'm not talking about one guy saying something racist. I'm talking about the overall trend over recent years. Unless you have been doing sociological research what you have is your perception of the trends of recent years. I have my perceptions too. We all do. So I am unsure what trend you are seeing, other than things that used to be OK to say about race are not socially acceptable to say anymore. ETA: Sorry, lost my quote box thing lol. I am responding to SKL, post 352 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Seeing the word "pro-life" and assuming it means I'd rather you die a horrible death than take care of your health is similar to some people seeing "gay" and making all sorts of offensive assumptions about young boys etc. And seeing the word "pro-choice" means people think you are pro-abortion. Lewis Carroll was right out of line when he said "words mean what I want them to mean." (Or maybe he didn't, and the person who used to quote that at me was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Abraham Lincoln was previously in favor of states' rights to decide on slavery, i.e., keeping slavery legal if the local folks wanted it. There were many important people opposed to that view. Many were doubtless offended and many were hurt by that view. Should he have been prevented from moving forward in his political or business career because he held that view? By today's standards, yes, he should have. I wasn't even talking about Sterling. I'm talking about the whole trend of attempting to ruin people for holding politically incorrect views (now or in the past). The Sterling sanctions might have been the straw that broke the camel's back for the OP, I don't know. Lincoln lost his life for holding unpopular views. How is that in anyway comparable to "today's standards"? How is this racist billionaire "ruined" exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeacherZee Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I too find it interesting that some of the same people who are so vehement about the right to get married are so dismissive of the pro-life sensitivities. Do they not realize that the passion they feel on behalf of gay couples is the very same passion that others feel on behalf of unborn humans? Or is it that they know full well how much they offend and they simply do not care, or maybe they are glad to offend? Perhaps they feel it is justifiable to offend such irrational sensitivities? Well, what if the tide turns tomorrow and suddenly it's politically incorrect to deny the significance and the rights of the unborn? Are they prepared to accept the consequences of having caused offense? You are perfectly within your rights to hold those opinions. And I am perfectly within my rights to think that those opinions are abhorrent just like you think my opinions are. This is the basis of free speech. Further I am fully within my rights to argue against you opinion and try to convince you that my opinion is correct, just like you are within your rights to try and convince me. It is called the free exchange of ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 There is a limit on likes? Yep. I don't know what it is (100, maybe?) but I reached it yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Yes, if they were also willing to deny life to the unborn (something I feel is a fundamental human right - the right to be born), I certainly would. That is MY hill to die on. I find it very curious that you'd consider gay marriage a human right, but the right to life a lesser human right. Aside from that, I wouldn't make a conscious choice to oppose gay marriage. I actually completely understand where you're coming from here. Rarely, if ever, will one candidate share all of my same beliefs. When that happens, I have to pick the one whose beliefs and voting record are what I want them to be on the issues that are more important to me. Sometimes it's easier than others, but, like we said before, we all have our hills, and we have to make our choices. I understand that the issue of abortion is more important to you than the issue of gay marriage. So, your position makes complete sense, and you've explained it clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivka Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I was having a similar thought. I want the people in the minority to be free to speak their minds. But for that to be meaningful and sustainable, all people have to be free to speak their minds. When the only people allowed to say what they really think are Rap artists, what is really happening? Which brings up a related issue - why are black people only allowed to have certain political views? Is that really best for any or all of us? This is just one example. As a woman I've borne more than one smackdown over being pro-life and a few other things. I don't want to get into details of each specific view, I'm trying to focus on the overall philosophy that liberty and justice for all doesn't work if it excludes any group, majority or minority. And, that being unable to listen to others (or at least let them speak without attacking) is a very primitive condition. Pointing out that other groups have been denied liberties or shut down in the past does not support the rationality of doing it now. I'm not talking about one guy saying something racist. I'm talking about the overall trend over recent years. Condoleeza Rice for one example out of many. Bill Cosby for another. I could go on all night but I have better things to do. Your tone implies you are intolerant of my freedom of expression. There is not, and never has been, a right to speak without criticism. There is not, and never has been, a right to freedom from disagreement. Did someone literally smack you down for being pro-life? Or did someone disagree with you in strong terms? Are conservative African-Americans literally being attacked - met with violence - for expressing their views? Or do some people disagree with them in strong terms? Are they literally "not allowed" to hold particular views - imprisoned, censored, prohibited from publishing their opinions, fined, beaten? Or are their opinions merely met with the differing opinion of others? There is a difference, whether you can see it or not. There is not, and never has been. a right to speak without criticism. There is not, and never has been, a right to freedom from disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 It's also a real-life scenario that when abortion is legal, women/girls are forced into it, babies are born alive and killed later, babies are mutilated and later born alive, women die of infections, and a few other things. But I don't assume you "want" those things to happen if you say you are pro-choice. FTR I have no desire to debate abortion, and I'm about to go to bed. Just kind of wish a conversation were even possible without words being recast as violent, brutal attacks. Women can be forced into them in back alley procedures too, or just killed outright if that's easier. Making them illegal would increase the incidence of all of your horror scenarios. My point was even if there were no "unwanted" pregnancies to be ended, the medical procedure should still be legal and safe. Making it illegal and inaccessible is not, in fact, "pro-life." There seems to be a total disconnect with that fact and the politicos who are pushing the heartbeat bills through legislatures. Or maybe they know and they're doing it as a political stunt. Either way it seems like such a waste of money that could be going to something that actually would reduce the number of abortions preventatively, without forcing women to be religious martyrs against their wills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You misunderstood what I said. My point was that if we silenced and marginalized every person who ever expressed an opinion that offends, those two men would never have been allowed to rise to a position of influence, and the great things they did might not have gotten done, or done as well. . Can you show me with real life examples in the US where people have been silenced and marginalized for expressing an opinion that offends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 There is not, and never has been, a right to speak without criticism. There is not, and never has been, a right to freedom from disagreement. I think this bears repeating--again--because after 8 pages of discussion, it seems this is the point (which is the crux of the matter, IMO) that is still not understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I too find it interesting that some of the same people who are so vehement about the right to get married are so dismissive of the pro-life sensitivities. Do they not realize that the passion they feel on behalf of gay couples is the very same passion that others feel on behalf of unborn humans? Or is it that they know full well how much they offend and they simply do not care, or maybe they are glad to offend?e?[/i] You took some major leaps there. But, I get your point regarding the level of passion behind the opinion. Coupling abortion and gay rights as content - not intent - subject areas makes no logical sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Why is it okay for ME (meaning me or anyone else) to be offended, but never okay for ME (or anyone else) to have an opinion or belief that offends? I don't get it. What do you mean by "okay for"? You can believe whatever you want to believe. You can even say whatever you want to say (barring classic examples like yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater). It's totally "okay" for you to believe and say whatever you want to believe, even if other people think it's stupid and hateful. But you seem to be asking for more - you're asking not for freedom of speech, but freedom from judgment of others. And nobody in the world has that freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I was having a similar thought. I want the people in the minority to be free to speak their minds. But for that to be meaningful and sustainable, all people have to be free to speak their minds. When the only people allowed to say what they really think are Rap artists, what is really happening? I think I have this figured out, finally. Rap artists are not OK. But Condolezza Rice is OK, and it's horrible that people say anything against her. I think it boils down to, how dare people who don't hold my political views have an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Can you show me with real life examples in the US where people have been silenced and marginalized for expressing an opinion that offends? Just without even having my morning coffee, and having a poor memory for names, how about the Chick-fil-A dude, the Duck Dynasty dude, that cooking show lady, and others that I vaguely recall but can't name. I am sure there are many others that people with a quicker morning brain could easily list. How about what happened when the Komen foundation decided to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood. The trend I'm talking about (and what I think the OP was talking about) is that if someone says something considered non-PC, instead of just expressing a counter opinion / disappointment and deciding personally to not support that person with our patronage (assuming we ever did), there must be a loud clamoring and a concerted effort to cut off that person's public presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I think I have this figured out, finally. Rap artists are not OK. But Condolezza Rice is OK, and it's horrible that people say anything against her. I think it boils down to, how dare people who don't hold my political views have an opinion. No, not one thing I said anywhere suggests that other people should not express disagreement with any opinions. I do believe people should express themselves in a civil manner. That is the only way they are likely to actually be heard anyway. Bullying someone into firing the person you disagree with does not equal "being heard." At least, not "heard" in a way that might change people's minds for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Just without even having my morning coffee, and having a poor memory for names, how about the Chick-fil-A dude, the Duck Dynasty dude, that cooking show lady, and others that I vaguely recall but can't name. I am sure there are many others that people with a quicker morning brain could easily list. How about what happened when the Komen foundation decided to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood. The trend I'm talking about (and what I think the OP was talking about) is that if someone says something considered non-PC, instead of just expressing a counter opinion / disappointment and deciding personally to not support that person with our patronage (assuming we ever did), there must be a loud clamoring and a concerted effort to cut off that person's public presence. Ok. What's wrong with that? They spoke out, and so did those that opposed. Public opinion may have caused some changes. That's what happens in a society with free speech...the "trend" you're talking about is the majority of people choosing to stand up for compassion and acceptance rather than hateful, bigoted, racist, etc. behavior. So really, tell me what's wrong with all that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Here's a thought. Maybe we should fire every professional athlete who ever said a racist, misogynist, or homophobic comment in private. That ought to fix things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Just without even having my morning coffee, and having a poor memory for names, how about the Chick-fil-A dude, the Duck Dynasty dude, that cooking show lady, and others that I vaguely recall but can't name. I am sure there are many others that people with a quicker morning brain could easily list. How about what happened when the Komen foundation decided to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood. The trend I'm talking about (and what I think the OP was talking about) is that if someone says something considered non-PC, instead of just expressing a counter opinion / disappointment and deciding personally to not support that person with our patronage (assuming we ever did), there must be a loud clamoring and a concerted effort to cut off that person's public presence. Dan Cathy? Phil Roberston? Paula Deen? Exactly how were they silenced and marginalized? And how is the expression of a counter opinion (the loud clamoring and concerted effort you mention) not an *appropriate* response to a stated opinion and actions that follow? Here is how it goes: You made living publically or in a corporation. You make choices with your money (Dan Cathy) or mouth (Robertson, Deen). You have a right and access to those choices. People who hear or are the recipient of the action respond. That is the nature of free expression. Your perspective seems to be person 1 has the right and person 2 does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Here's a thought. Maybe we should fire every professional athlete who ever said a racist, misogynist, or homophobic comment in private. That ought to fix things. Actually, creating a culture in which racism, women hating, or homophobia is less present is a desirable goal. Sign me the heck up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 No, not one thing I said anywhere suggests that other people should not express disagreement with any opinions. I do believe people should express themselves in a civil manner. That is the only way they are likely to actually be heard anyway. Bullying someone into firing the person you disagree with does not equal "being heard." At least, not "heard" in a way that might change people's minds for the better. Using the Sterling issue as a point of reference (and I wouldn't call the public outcry "bullying," in that case, but that's another story), I disagree with the bolded. Please look to historical events over the past century for reference, if necessary. With Sterling's comments, a lot of people were disgusted. His opinion was disgusting. People are upset. Shouldn't they be? How would things ever change for the better if people didn't passionately defend their views and speak out--even vehemently--against racism or hatred? People's minds are changing, and the message being sent is that the majority won't tolerate hatred and racism. We're evolving, baby. Maybe not fast enough, but that's what that is. Change. For the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Ok. What's wrong with that? They spoke out, and so did those that opposed. Public opinion may have caused some changes. That's what happens in a society with free speech...the "trend" you're talking about is the majority of people choosing to stand up for compassion and acceptance rather than hateful, bigoted, racist, etc. behavior. So really, tell me what's wrong with all that? Well, first of all, it's not the "majority" of people, and secondly, it's not compassionate nor accepting of other people. Who was it who said you can't fix hate with more hate? MLK or Gandhi or maybe both of them? And also, not all of those people were "hating." I believe you can have a different opinion without hating the people you disagree with. And finally, please point out to me the positive changes that these campaigns have brought about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Actually, creating a culture in which racism, women hating, or homophobia is less present is a desirable goal. Sign me the heck up. Let's start with the Rap artists, they are low hanging fruit. Where are the loud protests demanding that the record / entertainment companies cease economic dealings with these people? Or even ask them nicely to tone down the language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Well, first of all, it's not the "majority" of people, and secondly, it's not compassionate nor accepting of other people. Who was it who said you can't fix hate with more hate? MLK or Gandhi or maybe both of them? And also, not all of those people were "hating." I believe you can have a different opinion without hating the people you disagree with. And finally, please point out to me the positive changes that these campaigns have brought about. Ok. So what you are saying we should be tolerant and accepting of racist behavior, and that speaking out against it is also hateful. Wow. You do realize you what you are saying comes across as some sort of racism apologetics, right? I'm sorry, I think racism and hatred go beyond just a disagreement of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaffeineDiary Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Let's start with the Rap artists, they are low hanging fruit. Where are the loud protests demanding that the record / entertainment companies cease economic dealings with these people? Or even ask them nicely to tone down the language? A quick web-search tells me that they're on Stormfront-dot-org, a white supremacist web site. Are you sure you really want to drive down this road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamaraby Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Let's start with the Rap artists, they are low hanging fruit. Where are the loud protests demanding that the record / entertainment companies cease economic dealings with these people? Or even ask them nicely to tone down the language? What about Ted Nugent? Also, "rap" is not a monolith. All rap artists are not the same. What exactly about rap is "low hanging fruit?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Actually, creating a culture in which racism, women hating, or homophobia is less present is a desirable goal. Sign me the heck up. How exactly would it accomplish that goal? They (the people fired) would still be in the culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Ok. So what you are saying we should be tolerant and accepting of racist behavior, and that speaking out against it is also hateful. Wow. You do realize you what you are saying comes across as some sort of racism apologetics, right? I'm sorry, I think racism and hatred go beyond just a disagreement of opinion. You know that old quote, paraphrasing, 'your opinion disgusts me but I will die for your right to express it.' Tantrums will be ignored, in substance. Reasoned counter-arguments might be heard. Calling someone a racist (or racism apologist) for disagreeing with a method of reaction is another way of censoring people. Nobody wants to be called a racist, so the conversation often ends without really ever being a conversation. The thought police of the day have then won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You know that old quote, paraphrasing, 'your opinion disgusts me but I will die for your right to express it.' Tantrums will be ignored, in substance. Reasoned counter-arguments might be heard. Calling someone a racist (or racism apologist) for disagreeing with a method of reaction is another way of censoring people. Nobody wants to be called a racist, so the conversation often ends without really ever being a conversation. The thought police of the day have then won. You are really missing the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Just without even having my morning coffee, and having a poor memory for names, how about the Chick-fil-A dude, the Duck Dynasty dude, that cooking show lady, and others that I vaguely recall but can't name. I am sure there are many others that people with a quicker morning brain could easily list. How about what happened when the Komen foundation decided to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood. The trend I'm talking about (and what I think the OP was talking about) is that if someone says something considered non-PC, instead of just expressing a counter opinion / disappointment and deciding personally to not support that person with our patronage (assuming we ever did), there must be a loud clamoring and a concerted effort to cut off that person's public presence. None of the people you listed were silenced. They experienced consequences for their opinions. This is not the same. <still missing my likes, they haven't returned!> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 A quick web-search tells me that they're on Stormfront-dot-org, a white supremacist web site. Are you sure you really want to drive down this road? How come nobody outside of white supremacists has taken a real stand? I mean, yeah, lots of people politely express their discomfort, but it will never rise to a level of vitriol comparable to what happened to Chick-Fil-A and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 You are really missing the point. Since you were the one criticizing my post, maybe you are missing my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 How come nobody outside of white supremacists has taken a real stand? I mean, yeah, lots of people politely express their discomfort, but it will never rise to a level of vitriol comparable to what happened to Chick-Fil-A and the like. Because the white supremacists are wrong. Not just "politically incorrect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Because the white supremacists are wrong. Not just "politically incorrect". A ha. Thanks for clearing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts