What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Liberal Intolerance (2 Viewers)

moleculo said:
I'm not that smart.  I'm trying to understand how anyone forced a trophy down your throat.  

Is it that big of a deal for kids to be encouraged?  Did you leave parenting to others - setting expectations, etc?  Seems to me that is more of something that parents should do on their own.

or, is this just more whining about the "####ification of America?"
Click to expand...
We're all NOT the same and I'm NOT talking about race or religion, but other than race or religion you would think liberals want us to be.

 
Gachi said:
Has there ever been a reasonable argument against gay marriage or abortion? 
Click to expand...
Reposting for Gachi. Any thoughts here buddy?

Ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Why didn't the left label Obama a bigot when he was against gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

2. Why didn't the left label Clinton a bigot when she was against gay marriage.

Why was the left patient and willing to give our leaders time to evolve but not ordinary citizens? People were and still are coming around but a big cultural change like this takes time, especially for older generations or those raised a certain way. Piling on and calling people bigots for supporting the same exact position Obama and Hillary had up until a couple years ago is absurd.

 
sublimeone said:
Reposting for Gachi. Any thoughts here buddy?

Ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Why didn't the left label Obama a bigot when he was against gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

2. Why didn't the left label Clinton a bigot when she was against gay marriage.

Why was the left patient and willing to give our leaders time to evolve but not ordinary citizens? People were and still are coming around but a big cultural change like this takes time, especially for older generations or those raised a certain way. Piling on and calling people bigots for supporting the same exact position Obama and Hillary had up until a couple years ago is absurd.
Click to expand...
Are we looking for more sophisticated answers than "Because they were our guy" type of answer?  That seems like the reasonable answer, right?  The citizens dragged them along (Hillary more than Obama).  But the answers to these questions are relatively obvious, no?  Finally, I think it's a slap in the face of all those who have been fighting (both sides of our government until just recently) for their rights to say they weren't patient, or are they not in your definition of "ordinary citizens"?  That whole sentence is confusing to me.

 
sublimeone said:
Reposting for Gachi. Any thoughts here buddy?

Ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Why didn't the left label Obama a bigot when he was against gay marriage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

2. Why didn't the left label Clinton a bigot when she was against gay marriage.

Why was the left patient and willing to give our leaders time to evolve but not ordinary citizens? People were and still are coming around but a big cultural change like this takes time, especially for older generations or those raised a certain way. Piling on and calling people bigots for supporting the same exact position Obama and Hillary had up until a couple years ago is absurd.
Click to expand...
When you say "the left", you're doing the same generalization you've been accusing liberals of in this thread.

For both 1 and 2, I personally would have labeled them bigots if they had those views.  However, I have a lot of respect for people who recognize how hateful that stance is and change their viewpoint.  Of course, there's always the likelihood that politicians do this solely to align with their party to get votes, but in general I have a lot of respect for people who are able to get some perspective and realize that the beliefs their religion beats into their heads are hurtful to people.  I know a lot of Christians (my parents as one example) who previously thought gay marriage was wrong because of their religious beliefs, but now are staunch supporters.  So I'm absolutely willing to give ordinary citizens time to evolve and I bet a lot of others are too.   

 
Scoresman said:
When you say "the left", you're doing the same generalization you've been accusing liberals of in this thread.

For both 1 and 2, I personally would have labeled them bigots if they had those views.  However, I have a lot of respect for people who recognize how hateful that stance is and change their viewpoint.  Of course, there's always the likelihood that politicians do this solely to align with their party to get votes, but in general I have a lot of respect for people who are able to get some perspective and realize that the beliefs their religion beats into their heads are hurtful to people.  I know a lot of Christians (my parents as one example) who previously thought gay marriage was wrong because of their religious beliefs, but now are staunch supporters.  So I'm absolutely willing to give ordinary citizens time to evolve and I bet a lot of others are too.   
Click to expand...
The point is, it's absurd, that for decades, the LGBT community gave a pass to the sophisticated elites who run their party but show absolutely no patience for grandma or for religious folks who haven't quite come around to the evolving definition of marriage that has taken place in the last 16 months.

Instead, the left has labeled these people hateful bigots. It's wrong and it's a poor strategy. If the left really want's people who support traditional marriage to come around to the idea of same sex marriage don't back them into a corner. They aren't hateful they just have a different worldview and a little empathy would win far more of them to your side vs going for the jugular from day one.

 
sublimeone said:
The point is, it's absurd, that for decades, the LGBT community gave a pass to the sophisticated elites who run their party but show absolutely no patience for grandma or for religious folks who haven't quite come around to the evolving definition of marriage that has taken place in the last 16 months.

Instead, the left has labeled these people hateful bigots. It's wrong and it's a poor strategy. If the left really want's people who support traditional marriage to come around to the idea of same sex marriage don't back them into a corner. They aren't hateful they just have a different worldview and a little empathy would win far more of them to your side vs going for the jugular from day one.
Click to expand...
Labeling them hateful is wrong in most cases. Some anti LBGT people are truly hateful. All anti LBGT are bigots, by definition. You can't have the discussion without being able to make some honest admissions like that. I agree, it's counter productive to continually scream at people that they are bigots, better to put the story together of how their view is bigoted and how to eliminate the bigotry. Confront and address the behavior rather than the entirety of the person exhibiting the behavior.

 
Gr00vus said:
Labeling them hateful is wrong in most cases. Some anti LBGT people are truly hateful. All anti LBGT are bigots, by definition. You can't have the discussion without being able to make some honest admissions like that. I agree, it's counter productive to continually scream at people that they are bigots, better to put the story together of how their view is bigoted and how to eliminate the bigotry. Confront and address the behavior rather than the entirety of the person exhibiting the behavior.
Click to expand...
The way you're framing this is ridiculous. Most people who believe in traditional marriage aren't 'anti LGBT.' Many, if not most, have someone close to them who is LGBT. Having sincerely held beliefs about traditional marriage is not bigoted. Now if this extends to being unwilling to hire, work along side or treat LGBT with same respect afforded everyone else, etc... then of course, people guilty of this are bigots. 

 
sublimeone said:
if this extends to being unwilling to hire, work along side or treat LGBT with same respect afforded everyone else, etc... then of course, people guilty of this are bigots. 
Click to expand...
I thought that's what we were talking about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's equally absurd is that for decades, by and large both the leaders of the Women's Rights movement and LGBT movement have patently ignored the atrocities being committed vs women and LGBT folks in the middle east and other 2nd and 3rd World countries. When taken in context, the 1st world problems those communities are having here, in the modern era, pale in comparison. In other parts of the world, they are being persecuted and exterminated in a manner we've never experienced here. It's absolutely horrifying.

Are those communities in other countries any inferior or different than those in the United States? Is it OK in the 21st Century that women in ANY country aren't allowed to drive, receive education, can have their genitals mutilated and can be legally beaten and raped by their husbands, or that LGBT's can be killed for no other reason than being LGBT? Aren't we all the same?

I'm a big believer in 'clean up your own back yard before cleaning up someone else's', for the most part...but when your back yard needs the hedges trimmed, some weeds pulled, and the grass cut, but your neighbor has a couple of downed trees sticking out of his house, a raging brush fire and a broken water-main geysering ...if you're truly a passionate crusader for yard maintenance, I think you launch an all-out effort to help get your neighbor's issues brought to at least manageable levels, and you can probably do so without missing a beat trimming hedges, pulling weeds and cutting the grass.

...yet we hardly hear a word about it, and sure haven't seen any real action. Why is that?

 
nittanylion said:
What's equally absurd is that for decades, by and large both the leaders of the Women's Rights movement and LGBT movement have patently ignored the atrocities being committed vs women and LGBT folks in the middle east and other 2nd and 3rd World countries.
Click to expand...
We're going to need some support for this claim. I don't think it's remotely true.

 
Gr00vus said:
All anti LBGT are bigots, by definition.
Click to expand...
What if you're pro-LBGT and are even a member of the group, but you don't want the Ts to be part of it?  Is there some member or 75% rule exemption?

(That's based on actual positions I've read from gay activists who don't want transgenders as part of the movement either because they think it's a separate and distinct issue or because they believe the public will be less apt to accept L, B, and G with T tagging along.)

And how are we defining "anti"?  

What if you're a straight woman who has no problem with transexuality in principle or transsexuals when you meet them in social settings.  You have no problem working with transsexuals and you support their right not to be discriminated against in the workforce.  Yet you feel uneasy about sharing a locker room at the gym with with a transexual who was born a man, and would prefer that not be the case.  Is that straight woman really anti-transexual or is she just carving out an exemption where her privacy rights may come into play?  And, in that instance, why must her rights always yield or be considered bigoted?

 
Gary Coal Man said:
What if you're pro-LBGT and are even a member of the group, but you don't want the Ts to be part of it?  Is there some member or 75% rule exemption?
Click to expand...
I'd say that person has bigotry towards the Ts.

And how are we defining "anti"?  
Click to expand...
Mainly as defined a few posts up in that snipped statement I quoted from @sublimeone . Basically, active denial of widely held rights to a particular group based on some characteristic of that group.

What if you're a straight woman who has no problem with transexuality in principle or transsexuals when you meet them in social settings.  You have no problem working with transsexuals and you support their right not to be discriminated against in the workforce.  Yet you feel uneasy about sharing a locker room at the gym with with a transexual who was born a man, and would prefer that not be the case.  Is that straight woman really anti-transexual or is she just carving out an exemption where her privacy rights may come into play?  And, in that instance, why must her rights always yield or be considered bigoted?
Click to expand...
Tough to make a call in a case where rights clash. I empathize with both parties in such issues. I imagine this is probably an area the govt. should stay out of when we're not talking about government funded facilities, but then we get into back of the bus, not served at this lunch counter situations. I know it's more costly (to someone) but my answer would be to go to a gym that provides private changing stalls/shower stalls/toilet stalls. I know that's putting the burden on one party more than another, so it's not a perfect solution. There probably is no perfect solution in cases like these, so compromise will be necessary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sublimeone said:
The point is, it's absurd, that for decades, the LGBT community gave a pass to the sophisticated elites who run their party but show absolutely no patience for grandma or for religious folks who haven't quite come around to the evolving definition of marriage that has taken place in the last 16 months.

Instead, the left has labeled these people hateful bigots. It's wrong and it's a poor strategy. If the left really want's people who support traditional marriage to come around to the idea of same sex marriage don't back them into a corner. They aren't hateful they just have a different worldview and a little empathy would win far more of them to your side vs going for the jugular from day one.




2
Click to expand...
More than a little patronizing there, I think. Saying folks "haven't quite come around" to gay marriage is fairly ridiculous when LGBT folks are still victims of violence and being killed (like the Orlando mass shooting). The LGBT movement isn't fighting for simply gay marriage but instead a mainstream acceptance of the LGBT community. The gay marriage decision is but one facet of it. LGBT movement has evolved from Stonewall to this point. It's gone from arrests, to religious conservatives castigation, blaming the AIDS crisis, and violence committed against them. I don't think grandma and small town folks are victims of violence simply for being that.

Let's just remember that the many, many Trump supporters still believe that Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, and other claptrap. By indulging that - showing "patience for grandma or religious folks who haven't quite come around to the evolving definition" - line of thinking then one implicitly validates it. So it's okay to give grandma a pass for Birtherism - do we really think she believes Obama is from Kenya or Muslim? Or do we think she's a tiny bit uncomfortable with a black president? - but not for being hostile to LGBT?  Like most free speech, it's one thing to say "I don't like or believe in gay marriage" but another to actively work against it. So things like the Indiana "religious freedom" bill or the KY "gay marriage license" crap are not so much a concession to religious freedom but an assault on the Bill of Rights.

If we're fighting the Culture Wars from the 80's again then so be it. But let's not act like this election is a repudiation of whatever progress in the national dialogue has been made. It's by aggressively pushing the agenda for gays and LGBT community that got it this far. Grandma and the small town folks might not be comfortable with the "progress" - or the rate of it - but it's occurred nonetheless. 

 
saintfool said:
Grandma and the small town folks might not be comfortable with the "progress" - or the rate of it - but it's occurred nonetheless. 
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But I think @sublimeone's (and others') point is simply that we don't have to treat Grandma like crap in the process, even when she's espousing views we disagree with. Dehumanization doesn't work in either direction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
I agree with you. But I think @sublimeone's (and others') point is simply that we don't have to treat Grandma like crap in the process, even when she's espousing views we disagree with. Dehumanization doesn't work in either direction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean that's pretty much the whole point of this thread. The reason we ended up with Trump is because people felt so bullied they didn't care what the guy said they were just happy someone was bullying the bullies.

 
Gr00vus said:
I agree with you. But I think @sublimeone's (and others') point is simply that we don't have to treat Grandma like crap in the process, even when she's espousing views we disagree with.




 
Click to expand...
I don't think treating them like crap is right or really very smart even. However, indulging them - for being old, the size of their community, whatever - by remaining silent is simply patronizing, which is what @sublimeone is accusing the Left of.

 
saintfool said:
I don't think treating them like crap is right or really very smart even. However, indulging them - for being old, the size of their community, whatever - by remaining silent is simply patronizing, which is what @sublimeone is accusing the Left of.
Click to expand...
What am I accusing the left of?

 
sublimeone said:
Yeah, I mean that's pretty much the whole point of this thread. The reason we ended up with Trump is because people felt so bullied they didn't care what the guy said they were just happy someone was bullying the bullies.
Click to expand...
I really think we ended up with Trump because he convinced enough people he was going to bring jobs (and self respect) back to middle U.S. moreso than Clinton. But certainly a lot of his supporters have felt bullied too, I get that.

 
sublimeone said:
Yeah, I mean that's pretty much the whole point of this thread. The reason we ended up with Trump is because people felt so bullied they didn't care what the guy said they were just happy someone was bullying the bullies.




 
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I think it's a case of this - which happened in 2008 - being reconstituted somehow in 2016. What if he had agreed with her? I ask because that's what you have now. This election created safe spaces for that. I can get behind "draining the swamp" and political reform writ large. That's perfectly valid as an argument. Trump as an outsider candidate makes sense on some level. 90's turns of phrase like "political correctness" should seem positively antiquated now considering how much has changed but we're still engaged in that 80's Culture War. We're still putting up with hate speech as being "politically incorrect" or "telling it like it is"?

 
saintfool said:
FBI disagrees. 
Click to expand...
Um, so that headline just completely destroys your entire argument then.  "FBI has found no evidence that Orlando shooter targeted Pulse because it was a gay club".  So he didn't target them because they were gay, as you said above. 

As I said, you have a point, but this was a bad example to use.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
saintfool said:
I don't think so. I think it's a case of this - which happened in 2008 - being reconstituted somehow in 2016. What if he had agreed with her? I ask because that's what you have now. This election created safe spaces for that. I can get behind "draining the swamp" and political reform writ large. That's perfectly valid as an argument. Trump as an outsider candidate makes sense on some level. 90's turns of phrase like "political correctness" should seem positively antiquated now considering how much has changed but we're still engaged in that 80's Culture War. We're still putting up with hate speech as being "politically incorrect" or "telling it like it is"?
Click to expand...
:thumbup: -- yes, so much this.  Obviously a complicated problem, mostly resulting from the lack of attention to the disenfranchised as outlined in the Crack article; integral is the 20+ years of Limbaugh, Hannity et al feeding the masses stupid racist rhetoric and lies.

 
saintfool said:
More than a little patronizing there, I think. Saying folks "haven't quite come around" to gay marriage is fairly ridiculous when LGBT folks are still victims of violence and being killed (like the Orlando mass shooting). The LGBT movement isn't fighting for simply gay marriage but instead a mainstream acceptance of the LGBT community. The gay marriage decision is but one facet of it. LGBT movement has evolved from Stonewall to this point. It's gone from arrests, to religious conservatives castigation, blaming the AIDS crisis, and violence committed against them. I don't think grandma and small town folks are victims of violence simply for being that.

Let's just remember that the many, many Trump supporters still believe that Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, and other claptrap. By indulging that - showing "patience for grandma or religious folks who haven't quite come around to the evolving definition" - line of thinking then one implicitly validates it. So it's okay to give grandma a pass for Birtherism - do we really think she believes Obama is from Kenya or Muslim? Or do we think she's a tiny bit uncomfortable with a black president? - but not for being hostile to LGBT?  Like most free speech, it's one thing to say "I don't like or believe in gay marriage" but another to actively work against it. So things like the Indiana "religious freedom" bill or the KY "gay marriage license" crap are not so much a concession to religious freedom but an assault on the Bill of Rights.

If we're fighting the Culture Wars from the 80's again then so be it. But let's not act like this election is a repudiation of whatever progress in the national dialogue has been made. It's by aggressively pushing the agenda for gays and LGBT community that got it this far. Grandma and the small town folks might not be comfortable with the "progress" - or the rate of it - but it's occurred nonetheless. 
Click to expand...
I'm calling bull#### on this claim.  I don't think the number is "many, many" by any objective measure.

 
Jayrod said:
I'm calling bull#### on this claim.  I don't think the number is "many, many" by any objective measure.
Click to expand...
Hey, I agree, but then you see this. I know polls and surveys have taken a beating over the last week but whatever. We had to wait until a month ago before Trump himself declared the controversy over in his eyes. And he's the Pied Piper of the movement...

 
Jayrod said:
"People with a favorable opinion" of Trump <> Trump voters.  This poll included 1,222 registered voters.  How many do you think qualified as "people with a favorable opinion"?  

And this is from May.  You said still believe.  Also, 59% is not really 2/3.

Good luck with your polls.  They really seem to have a grasp on reality.




 
Click to expand...
Trump himself had to *finally* quell the Birtherism nonsense just last month. He's *kind* of the grand poobah of the Trump movement. 

 
Jayrod said:
"People with a favorable opinion" of Trump <> Trump voters.  This poll included 1,222 registered voters.  How many do you think qualified as "people with a favorable opinion"?  

And this is from May.  You said still believe.  Also, 59% is not really 2/3.

Good luck with your polls.  They really seem to have a grasp on reality.
Click to expand...
...and you know this because...?

 
Gr00vus said:
More importantly it's just another example of a blanket statement made about a group of people that is not based on any facts itself. Exactly the kind of thing that encourages intolerance.
Click to expand...
Liberals are the ones telling us how we are uneducated idiots and how smart and tolerant they are.. We are stupid apes that don't know what's good for us. The Reagan quotes sums up perfectly what we think when we read your drivel. You think you know soooooo much. 

 
Dexter said:
Liberals are the ones telling us how we are uneducated idiots and how smart and tolerant they are.. We are stupid apes that don't know what's good for us. The Reagan quotes sums up perfectly what we think when we read your drivel. You think you know soooooo much. 




2
Click to expand...
Who is "us" and "we"?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Baseball Stadium Etiquette - Standing During Game To Talk?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
3K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
FiredMartz
New Fad in SoCal....stopping 2 or 3 cars behind at a stoplight...
Replies
36
Views
857
shuke
shuke
ConstruxBoy
Backing into Parking Spots - What is the deal and why are so many more people doing it?
11 12 13
Replies
645
Views
11K
Gatorade
Gatorade

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top