Skip to main content

There is an argument that conservatives like to make about liberals who espouse tolerance and who take stands against acts of intolerance, are being intolerant themselves for not tolerating the intolerance.

As a gay man, I have tolerated all my life other people's religious beliefs that I had no right to be gay, even though really I have no other choice, as that is part of who I am. When you are surrounded by those who are not tolerant of whom you are, you must tolerate those who are in the majority and accept silently that even if they are not right, they are in the majority and they can make your life miserable if you disagree with them. Believe me, they will too.

I once lost a job because of that intolerance and once I was even beaten by three huge men because of that same intolerance, just because I happened to be stepping out of a gay bar one night. I have been called ugly names and judged as a pervert and even unworthy to live. I have been told that my kind - gay people that is - should all be gathered up and thrown into a huge hole and shot like diseased livestock.

All of this is only a small fragment of what many of my gay brothers and sisters have endured throughout history. Gay people were rounded up by the Nazis in Nazi Germany and they suffered the same fate that 6 million Jews suffered, during that awful period in our world's history.  In some civil societies throughout history, just to be accused of being gay could get you beaten, arrested, ostracized and even put to death.

Society in general has not been tolerant of gay people for many centuries and now there are those who feel that liberals are being intolerant because they are not tolerant of those who say things or take action against gay people getting married. It is like those who throw stones of condemnation at others, then criticize those would criticize them for their stone throwing.

Though I cannot agree with the idea that criticizing, boycotting, protesting against, or whatever actions taken against bigotry or those who say and do things that show intolerance toward gay people or other minorities, is somehow wrongheaded, I do believe as a gay man that there is a thing called forgiveness. Still, forgiveness comes after a gesture showing a change of heart. I am not going to accept that gay people and their liberal supporters should allow acts of intolerance to be tolerated.

There was a time, and in some cases still exist, where one can be fired for being gay, and in Russia right now, you can be arrested for even supporting gay rights. Should liberals tolerate that kind of intolerance, or are they being intolerant because they will not tolerate that intolerance?

Reverse criticism is a handy tool for conservatives to utilize when they want bigotry to be an acceptable part of an ever-growing enlightened society, as though they want us to turn our gaze from attacks from the right against our basic freedoms, such as the freedom to marry whom you love. However, like all the ignorant bias that has been used to persecute minorities in the past, they must be thrown out like dirty dishwater and not allowed to stand, for to do so would be acceptance of such bigotry.

Recently, Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign because he donated $1,000 to California's Proposition 8 when it was put on the ballot in 2008. Much criticism from conservatives followed that resignation about liberals not being very tolerant over the intolerance of Mr. Eich. If the former CEO had spoken up and apologized for his support of the initiative to ban LGBT members from enjoying the same right as everyone else, then perhaps I would be in support of Mr. Eich keeping his job but I have heard of no apology.

It is not that Brendan Eich is against gay people getting married but it is because he donated money to keep them from getting married, which is a direct action against marriage equality. It is one thing to have an opinion and it is another to use that opinion to take steps against other people's right to enjoy the same right he has himself.

Also recently, CEO Dan Cathy of Chic-fil-A has had a change of heart about his company's open intolerance of same-sex marriage. Not that he personally has changed his opinion; just that he has decided that the company no longer should voice its opinion openly about his intolerance. In an interview with USA Today he said, “All of us become more wise as time goes by, we sincerely care about all people. … I’m going to leave it to politicians and others to discuss social issues.”

That is a wise move by Mr. Cathy, but it is about business, as his company is on the verge of a growth spurt into a wider market and he does not want his personal objections to stand in the way of his company prospering over his religious objections. Still, if Mr. Cathy's business discriminates against LGBT members in hiring practices or in other ways, it will put his business in the same place it was before: being protested and boycotted by supporters of gay rights.

Though one has religious opinions about one thing or another, is not what brings the ire of liberals; it is when those opinions are used to take steps against gay people or any other minority's right to live freely and with equal protection under the law. I do not ask others to accept my sexual orientation, only that they allow me to live my life as free as they live their own, and without persecution or prohibition. Then tolerance will be mutual and with respect, the least that should be expected out of us all.

This is a republish from my website: Fidlerten Place

Originally posted to Fidlerten Place on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:31 AM PDT.

Also republished by LGBT Rights are Human Rights, LGBT Kos Community, Milk Men And Women, and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  1984 was dated wrong. (6+ / 0-)

    War is Peace, et al.

    If we don't fight against their constant lies, we will lose everything to the 0.01%.

    We need to reinforce the idea of "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it." Read, Germany 1930's.

    I reject your reality and substitute my own - Adam Savage

    by woolibaar on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:46:37 AM PDT

  •  Agreed, bigots can be bigots with sharing their (11+ / 0-)

    bigotry.

    Unfortunately their bigotry is reflected in their biz practices. They WANT to be free to treat people badly without consequence. Customers & other people (we) get to choose to not be abused & to not do biz with these "persons".

    Tired of this crap

    Tipped & rec'ed

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:00:39 AM PDT

    •  What Would Be the Point of Bigotry Without the (12+ / 0-)

      right to repress rights?

      Otherwise it would be no different than food; I don't like spaghetti for myself, but I don't see a need to outlaw your pasta rights.

      Remember this comes from an evangelical type of religion (both Protestant and Catholic). Chaning your beliefs and regulating your behavior is part of those religions; if you think or act against their beliefs, you're infringing their exercise of religion.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:07:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can go to hell to use their vernacular; (7+ / 0-)

        I can't be obedient because I'm not white & clearly my flesh is disobedient.

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is standard GOP projection.... (8+ / 0-)

        and it feeds the base.  The more inscrutable logic is their assertion that equal pay for women is unfair to women.  That had my head spinning like a top.

      •  You make an important point (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fidlerten, myboo, JBL55
        if you think or act against their beliefs, you're infringing their exercise of religion.
        ...and I don't know the solution. I'm perfectly happy to let anyone worship as he or she sees fit.  But when a tenet of said religion is "we're right, everyone else is wrong, and it is our duty to mold the world according to our right way"...what does that mean for a civil democracy? As a gay man, I really don't care if someone is a Mormon or a Southern Baptist or a Westboro-ite or whatever...that is their right. But am I not supposed to react when such beliefs lead to concrete actions and legislative consequences that affect me and my family? I have no desire to deny Mr. Eich the right to disapprove of my desire to have the same civil right to marry the person I love that he does...but am I supposed to not call his stance bigoted against LGBT people and not disapprove of his actions to deny me that right? As best I can tell, no one on the left, no "bigoted" gay activists, "forced" Mr. Eich to resign or "stole" his career from him. He voluntarily resigned when it came to light that he had contributed to a cause that is quickly becoming socially unacceptable. To those like Andrew Sullivan who are decrying what "happened" to Eich...what should I, other LGBT people, or allies, have felt or done when his actions came to light?

        I certainly don't claim to have the (or any concrete) answers. Is there a point at which my right to live equally - or to voice or fight for that right - must be subordinated to someone's "sincerely held religious beliefs"?

        •  They can believe whatever they like. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kaiser Soeze, travelerxxx

          But they don't have the right to enact legislation that will force everyone to adhere to their beliefs, explicitly or implicitly.

        •  Is there a point at which my right to live equally (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glitterlust

          - or to voice or fight for that right - must be subordinated to someone's "sincerely held religious beliefs"?

          I'm female and I hear you, bro.  Because of someone's "deeply held religious belief," there was a dead woman in Texas turned into an incubator, and a company who decides it's their "right" to deny coverage of medical treatment to their female employees.  Your religion says abortion and birth control are wrong?  Don't have one/use it.  Your religion says two men or two women shouldn't get married?  Then don't marry someone of the same sex and don't preform weddings of same-sex couples in your church.  Your right to practice your religion ends at the tip of your nose, and I have every right to remind you of that fact as often as you need to be reminded of it.  That's not intolerance.

      •  You cannot change what is in a person's heart (0+ / 0-)

        Not without lobotomizing them (which I do not recommend). People are going to think or believe what they will. There is no law against having bad thoughts, however when one acts on those thoughts--that's where the trouble begins.

        Being a bigot may not be inborne, but it is habitual and sometimes generational, and it takes time to break those chains, those habits.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 05:10:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Like a slave owner saying, (12+ / 0-)

    "How DARE those uppity boys complain? Hey, not only do they have a roof over their barn, some hay to sleep on, they also get one square meal a day! All I ask in return is to fuck their daughters and wives, and for them boys to toil in the sun until they pass out. They are so intolerant and ungrateful!"

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:03:03 AM PDT

  •  If regressive rightwingers can't take the heat (7+ / 0-)

    they deserve for the bigotry they practice, they can get outa the fuckin kitchen.

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:34:44 AM PDT

    •  Quite right. (6+ / 0-)

      Don't like the feeling of intolerance? Stop practicing it.

      Don't want to feel discriminated against? Stop discriminating.

      Don't want to be called a douchebag? Stop being a douchebag.

      Society used to find this sort of behavior acceptable. Now it doesn't. And we're all better off because of it, with the exception of those members of society that choose to continue to be hateful pricks.

      They will receive as much sympathy and understanding as they have shown their friends, neighbors, sons, and daughters. They will receive no quarter.

      We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are.

      by EighteenCharacters on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:55:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. People haven't heard this line in their (4+ / 0-)

        Facebook fights or Twitter wars. I got a couple of texts last weekend: "WTF, how do I respond to this?"

        I had a work colleague spring it on me. His face was all lit up like it was Christmas. I said:

        "You want tolerance? Earn it. If you don't care about how other people are treated, why should anybody care about you?"

        It's simple and it settles it like a cold slap in the face.

        People get caught up trying to understand and make sense of it. It ain't necessary. Proceed directly to the retort.
        '

        There is no existence without doubt.

        by Mark Lippman on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 08:52:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They've lived for decades saying and doing (11+ / 0-)

    whatever they wanted. Now they are expected to act like adults and they really don't like it.

    This is the biggest reason why conservatives are nostalgic for pre 50s America and feel that America is being taken away from them.

  •  I think it's wonderful... (7+ / 0-)

    that even many conservatives are finally supportive of marriage equality. I believe many conservatives have finally figured out that giving equal rights to LGBT members when it comes to marriage, is not an encroachment upon their own rights.

    Still, there will always be those who will beat their war drums against anyone who is not like them. If it's not marriage equality, it will be something else for them to stand against. Other people's happiness is a crime in their eyes, and it has to be against God, because God doesn't want people to be happy in their minds. Happiness is a sin to them, which is course, religious extremism at its worse. Think Taliban.

    Rule the Day, Let not the Day Rule You.

    by fidlerten on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:18:29 AM PDT

    •  Happiness is NOT a zero sum game nt (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fidlerten, Mannie, schumann, Mayfly, Piren, JBL55

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:04:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If I might offer counterpoint, with respect: (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikejay611, Mayfly, EdSF, fidlerten, JBL55
      I think it's wonderful...
      that even many conservatives are finally supportive of marriage equality. I believe many conservatives have finally figured out that giving equal rights to LGBT members when it comes to marriage, is not an encroachment upon their own rights.
      If you're speaking of street level people, member of the electorate, I agree completely.

      At the political level it's totally different.  I've said before and now say again:  I'd bet serious money that well over 85% of the loudest protesters of GLBT rights and marriage equality don't believe what they're saying.  They throw red meat because it gets them votes.  No more, no less.

      Some of the younger pols - or at least the ones looking to keep office for 10 years or more - are acknowledging that anti-GLBT positions are steadily moving towards being a consistent losing position.  So, I believe, they're hedging their bets, putting on a face of tolerance and compassion they can bank on when it'll get them mileage at the polling stations.  Problem is, I don't think they believe this viewpoint any more than they believed the prior one; it's just a vehicle to get them elected.

      Please don't take my bitterness as hostility or dismissiveness towards your post above or the thread in general.  However and whyever it's happening, marriage equality and recognition of GLBTs as just people is propagating through the social consciousness.  The cynicism of people in power is immaterial so long as the general paradigm shifts.

      Pols will be mouthing lies long after I've dissolved into dust in a hole somewhere.  If people - street level, everyday people - are getting on the side of GLBT equality and respect, it's a Good Thing.  And one that (I believe) will last.

  •  Stuff like this... (7+ / 0-)

    is designed for one small faction of America; the GOP base.

    You know... people waiting with open ears... what to be told.

    Ignore this stuff.
    Keep working on GOTV.

    Suddenly, it dawns on me, Earnest T. Bass is the intellectual and philosophical inspiration of the TeaParty.

    by Nebraska68847Dem on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 12:44:34 PM PDT

  •  This is Why Conservatives Make the Argument (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, fidlerten, Calamity Jean

    It's to prevent Civil Rights Action by making the remedy equal to the bigoted act itself. The argument goes like this: Discrimination is bad. Because to implement a remedy for discrimination requires that you recognize discrimination, the remedy is discrimination. Therefore, remedies for discrimination are bad.

    The United States Supreme Court has bought this argument. The irony of this thinking is that the worse the discrimination, the more important that there be no laws preventing the discrimination. Thus, the Supreme Court has or will rule that some laws preventing gender discrimination are constitutional, but all laws preventing racial discrimination are unconstitutional. This follows from their reasoning that gender discrimination isn't as bad as racial discrimination.

    Following this logic, the death penalty should be applied to people who commit misdemeanors, while mass murderers should never be prosecuted or punished.

    •  There is a reason a lot of bigotries are now (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fidlerten, a2nite

      being hung on the tree of religion, usually Christian and protestant evangelical, but others as well. It is now one of the few ways to insist that irrational biases are not automatically unlawful, that they are and have traditionally been religiously valued positions, enforced by the stake and the rope, but still religious.  Thisis the age when we will see if our system can survive religion becoming the highest and most controlling Constitutional value, and therefore re legitimizing subordination of everyone but the ruling class of men.

  •  It seems with this diary... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, Piren, hbk, fidlerten

    ...you have shown the path to forgiveness and have done more than your share of turning the other cheek.  I don't know what your religious background is, but you have proven yourself to be more Christian than many of the haters you have encountered, despite the very good chance that many of said haters (ab)use Christianity to justify their attitudes.

  •  Rationalize How They Get You Before You Get Them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, fidlerten

    The litmus test seems to be that true evil is the ones who claim the right of preemption, as in a preemptive war.  This is invariably based on propaganda and conspiracy theory.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 01:28:47 PM PDT

  •  There has been a massive social shift (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, RockyMtnLib, fidlerten

    on the acceptance of gay marriage in the past twenty years, even in the past five years.  It wasn't too long ago that most Democrats who generally were labeled as liberal opposed it.  Same with adoptions by gay parents, gays in the military, etc.  

    I have seen this happen among my own family and among my own friends, and I have changed my own opinions as well.  

    It is wonderful how much progress has been made so quickly.  Some recognition of the fact that many current "allies" were likely "enemies" only a few years ago may be useful to keep in mind.

    •  I'm one of those who (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fidlerten, Be Skeptical, a2nite

      is night and day different about that (and other subjects) now than I was 20 years ago.

      For many of us, it took finding out that one who is near and dear to us is one of those "filthy gays".  When it hits home, either you come to your senses or you show yourself to be the worst kind of retrograde bigot that would turn on someone close to you.

      Of course it would be better if more of us were able to come around with actual empathy for our fellow human beings and not need something up close and personal. But we have to deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be.

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:37:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is just one of the mechanisms that (7+ / 0-)

    "conservatives" use to make themselves feel better about being "conservatives." They take their bigotry and their prejudice and their hatred and their intolerance -- not that these characteristics are limited to "conservatives," but stay with me here -- and re-characterize it as something benign and/or admirable, like "morality" or "conscience" or "freedom" or "sincerely-held religious beliefs."

    So the "liberal" strawman doesn't hate me for being a bigot or a racist or a homophobe or a generally awful human being, he hates me for "having morals," for "believing in God," for "exercising my freedom," &c. It's not my singular awfulness that he can't tolerate, it's my singular wonderfulness that he can't tolerate.

    "Conservatives" are the heroes of their own private mythology.

  •  Tolerance of hate is not tolerance... (9+ / 0-)

    Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance, but enabling.

    If you tolerate hate, you become complicit in it.

    You've got to chase them out - fight hate and intolerance at every step, or it wins.

    "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."

    - Haile Selassie (Ethiopian Statesman and Emperor of Ethiopia from 1930 to 1974, 1892-1975)

    Don't enable them, don't tolerate hate.

    OMG, like, gag them with a multi-colored spoon. Like, ya know.

    by Jyotai on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:42:31 PM PDT

    •  THIS! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jyotai

      If you tolerate hate, you become complicit in it.

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 05:11:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well-reasoned diary. Am thinking about the Brit (6+ / 0-)

    code-master (Turning? I'm having a senior moment) who was instrumental in breaking the effective Nazi code Enigma during WW II.  Later the British government treated him as if he were dangerously mentally ill and certainly shortened his life.

    Feminism--the radical belief that women are human beings.

    by Mayfly on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 03:16:13 PM PDT

  •  So a RW bigot would say (4+ / 0-)

    "Homosexuality is an abomination against God. Queers shouldn't be allowed to get married, serve in the military, adopt children, or teach in school" and a good liberal is supposed to respond

    "Well I don't share your view, but isn't it wonderful that we have diversity of opinions on this? I would never disrespect your beliefs."

    ??

    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

    by RockyMtnLib on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 05:31:04 PM PDT

    •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RockyMtnLib, fidlerten

      I think in a civil democracy such as ours there is always going to be an uncomfortable line between the freedom to subscribe to whatever beliefs you want and the civil rights of minorities who happen to be a target of such beliefs. There have been similar "sincerely held beliefs" that called for and legitimized horrific treatment for racial minorities and women, and religion overall in America does not seem to be doing any the worse for such beliefs' rejection by society at large. I predict beliefs rejecting gay marriage will go the same way in the coming decades; no longer codified in civil law but still held by a certain hardcore faction.

  •  So what about affirmative action? (0+ / 0-)

    For example, in California a recent attempt to legislatively repeal California Proposition 209 which banned racial preferences was blocked by Asian-American democrats because given the demographics of California and University of California, any racial preferences that significantly increase the number of African Americans attending UC would have to reduce the number of Asians.

    This is obviously a civil rights issue - Asian Americans also have a history of discrimination in this country.

    Is it OK for the same people who blocked the attempt to repeal 209 to organize a boycott of companies whose senior executives donated money to the original anti-209 campaign and try to force those executives out of their jobs?

    •  If you want to bring this here, you need to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBL55

      substantiate it. Don't assume anybody will believe your bullshit, or that they'll do your research work for you. And yes, without substantiation it is as good as bullshit.

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:15:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought people here read the news (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fidlerten

        http://blogs.sacbee.com/...

        The move came a week after three Asian-American state senators -- who had previously voted for SCA 5 -- asked Pérez to put a stop the measure.

        "Prior to the vote on SCA 5 in the Senate, we heard no opposition to the bill. However, in the past few weeks, we have heard from thousands of people throughout California voicing their concerns about the potential impacts," Sens. Ted Lieu of Torrance, Carol Liu of La Canada Flintridge and Leland Yee of San Francisco wrote to Perez on March 11.

        The measure would overturn part of Proposition 209, which voters approved in 1996, by allowing public colleges and universities to use race and ethnicity as a factor in judging students for admission. Democrats in the state Senate used their two-thirds supermajority to pass SCA 5 in January, sending it to the Assembly for consideration. Since then, Asian-American advocacy groups have been organizing opposition around the state, arguing that affirmative action will help some ethnic groups at the expense of others.

        "As lifelong advocates for the Asian-American and other communities, we would never support a policy that we believed would negatively impact our children," Lieu, Liu and Yee wrote in their letter to Pérez.

        "Given that many in the (Asian Pacific Islander) and other communities throughout the state feel that this legislation would prevent their children from attending the college of their choice, we have asked Senator Ed Hernandez to hold SCA 5 until he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus."

    •  This is called "hijacking a diary." (3+ / 0-)

      If you want to argue about affirmative action, write your own diary on the subject and invite others to bring their POVs to the table.

      This diary is not about affirmative action, despite your inadequate attempts to draw a connection.

  •  Time to toss "bi-partisanship." Too long a cudgel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fidlerten

    against Democrats and democratic ideals, "bi-partisanship" is/was a sign that one's "principles" are open to direct and continuing negotiation. A sure sign of weakness! And Conservatives and many so-called "independents" DO NOT respect weakness/accommodation. It just empowers the Conservatives to take one for granted and to demand more each time (s)he gives up anything to them.

  •  Well, I have been criticized for being rude (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fidlerten, Mark Lippman

    and verbally abusive to the right wing anti American trash who make up the GOP, but they DO get my point...I hate them.

    There is no way we will "change their minds"-they will experience no epiphany or blinding light of liberalism. They are angry, immoral and evil and they have no interest in anything other than advancing their own cause.

    I see NO worth in any of them, and personally, I'd like to see all congressional republicans tried for treason.

    You are the product of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success - Act like it.

    by old mark on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:11:05 AM PDT

  •  Tolerance is not really a virtue (0+ / 0-)

    And intolerance is not really a vice.  It all depends on what the subject is.  It is a good thing to tolerate intrinsic differences people have.  It is a bad thing to tolerate bullying and oppression.  There is no hypocrisy here; no one preaches tolerance of everything.

    •  Tolerance is necessary for people in a pluralistic (0+ / 0-)

      democracy. It appears that many kossacks interpret "tolerance" to mean-whole hearted acceptance of their world view. Anyone who disagrees with them is, by definition, intolerant and must be destroyed.
         

      •  To vague to be meaningful. (0+ / 0-)

        Tolerance isn't automatically a good thing.  How many rapes and murders should we tolerate?  Tolerance can be either good or bad.  

        And who are these kossacks who are calling for anyone's destruction?  

  •  they mistake not being agreed with for intolerance (0+ / 0-)

    So much of what conservatives believe is grounded wholly in faith and fantasy, so it's a threat to them if you disagree with what they believe... and they find that to be "intolerant."  Like this "war on Christmas" thing -- if you say "Happy Holidays" somehow you're being hateful.

    Basically, refusing to assimilate is considered "intolerant" by them.  Because they don't really know what real intolerance is, never having truly been a victim of it.

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 07:56:01 AM PDT

  •  That's the argument my super-conservative parents (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StevenWells

    Used to make my life hell after I came out of the closet. The reasoning was that I couldn't tolerate their deeply held belief that I was wrong to be gay and needed to pray it out of my system, so I was just as intolerant as they were, and I was being too hard on them, and blah blah blah.

    I am so glad to be out of the house.

    When the scribbling devil is got into a man's head, he falls to writing and publishing, which gets him as much fame as money, and as much money as fame. ~ Cervantes

    by scribblingTiresias on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 09:05:24 AM PDT

    •  I'm sure you know... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scribblingTiresias

      ...people rationalize and make all sorts of excuses for their behavior, and possibly none more so than those whose behavior is the most egregious ("It's for your own good...look what you made me do...if you weren't such-and-such, I wouldn't have to so-and-so..." etc).

      I had some of that growing up (luckily enough, not for my sexuality).

      Congrats on getting free.

  •  RationalWiki explains it nicely: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    http://rationalwiki.org/...

    Paradox of Tolerance

    "The paradox of tolerance" refers to the act of being intolerant of intolerance. It is a term generally used by opponents of pluralism to criticize advocates of toleration. The argument goes something like this:

    1. Tolerance means accepting others with differing views/lifestyles/shoe sizes
    2. Some people do not accept others with differing views/lifestyles/shoe sizes
    3. Those people are intolerant
    4. Not accepting intolerant people is itself intolerant
    5. Therefore, tolerance is impossible

    This argument is total, unmitigated bullshit. Here's why: This assumes that totally uncritical tolerance is desirable. There's a distinction between being tolerant and blind moral relativism, and it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is not desirable to be perfectly tolerant of every single thing. Extremism rarely bodes well for anybody.

    Karl Popper explains it quite well actually:

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.[1]
    In short, I don't go for uncritical tolerance. Yes, we tolerate, and even go out of our way to include, people of different races, beliefs, sexual orientations, etc. That's because we hold to the idea that we don't hold how people are born against them, and that we can deal with people with opposing views, so long as they stay within our norms of tolerance, and don't try to impose their views on others.

    I do not tolerate intolerance. I critically examine the idea of intolerance of black people, gay people, etc, and find the idea repugnant, and, well, intolerable. By nature, intolerance of minorities creates hostility that undermines our civil society.

    I'd fire (or force to resign) Brendan Eich too. His bigotry is intolerable in a civilized workplace.

  •  Don't forget Templeton (0+ / 0-)

    He gave $1,000,000 to Prop. 8.  He's still out there.

    That's John Templeton, Jr., rich man's son. He's also president of his late father's foundation.

    I don't know why I'm obsessed with this guy, maybe because of the spectacle of someone valuing their own hate so much, they plunk down a million bucks in support of it. That's a lot of fucking hate.

    Join Essa in a revolt against the gods. Continue the fight, Causality.

    by rbird on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

  •  You must respect my opinion! (0+ / 0-)

    No, no I certainly do not.   That's the problem conservatives have.  When you try to debate a point and say: "that's wrong" on any issue that is held close to heart it becomes not a discussion of fact but a personal attack and you should stop in order to 'respect their opinion'.

    If that kind of standard existed throughout history we'd still think the world was flat and the moon was made of cheese.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 11:51:23 AM PDT

  •  Notwithstanding whatever hurt the diarist feels (0+ / 0-)

    it is still anti-democratic and, yes, intolerant to boycott a business because of the personal opinions of that business's employees or officers.
       If the business itself has policies that you oppose, that's one thing. Or, if, like the Koch brothers, the firm's ownership is using their fortunes to subvert democracy, a boycott is appropriate. Or if a firm is supporting a propaganda entity, like Rush Limbaugh, it makes sense to point out the negative effects of that support.
       But the attacks and boycott threats aimed at Mr. Eich and earlier at Mr. Robertson are attacks on speech per se.
       On a purely strategic basis, you don't want to legitimize that type of vigilantism. You'll end up with "progressive" businesses vs "conservative" businesses. Guess which ones will have the most money and resources.
       Economic retaliation against private citizens because of their political speech (including trivial campaign contributions) makes democracy untenable.

    •  So let me get this straight: (0+ / 0-)

      If it isn't the policies of the business itself to which I object, but merely "the personal opinions of that business's employees or officers," I'm "intolerant" and "anti-democratic" for choosing not to continue supporting that business by using its products or services?

      I can't sign on to your premise to begin with, but here's my question to you: why should I continue to support such a business?

      Frankly, I don't see the distinction you make between "the Koch brothers...using their fortunes" or "supporting a propaganda entity, like Rush Limbaugh," and Mr. Eich, who donated to a campaign intending to withhold rights from selected citizens of a state (in which I was born and resided for 54 years).

      Nor can I consider any perfectly legal actions I may take in opposing the positions of others to be "attacks on speech per se." I respect anyone's right to their speech and the opinions they impart, but it doesn't follow that I must necessarily respect the opinions themselves, let alone support the business their holder represents.

      It isn't any more "anti-democratic" to withhold that support than it is to withhold my vote from a candidate in an election. Whether voting literally with our ballots or figuratively with our wallets, that's the very definition of a democratic process.  

  •  At one time I would have said that I would like (0+ / 0-)

    for to have been a  response to that beating you endured in which terrible suffering was visited upon those three large men that was so horrific  they never hurt anyone again.  But I have since been schooled in the error of my posting such morbid desires which are not tolerated on DKOS.
         Instead perhaps it would be better to meet them and have a rational discussion about why their misohomosexuality is misplaced.

    (snark of tthe bitterest kind)

    Slow thinkers - keep right

    by Dave the Wave on Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 10:23:48 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site