Why is it seemingly nowadays that if a person has a traditional view about a social issue, they are?
immediately branded as a "hater", "intolerant", "bigoted", and alike? Why is it nowadays if you don't go along with whatever is politically correct, many often figure that you can go to hell for your beliefs, for daring to have an opinion that contradicts their own?
I thought that this was VERY well demonstrated in the case of Carrie Pregjean, former Miss California, and her stance on Gay marriage back in 2009. Even though her response was completely respectful, not only did she lose the contest for Ms USA, but Celebrity judge Perez Hilton asked her her stance on the issue, and then went a rude, and utterly cruel and disparaging rant about her in a video blog.
Here's a couple of videos, the first recording Perez Hilton's angry and insulting remarks. The other is an interview that Sean Hannity did with Carrie Pregjean after Perez Hilton went on his angry and vicious tirade against her.
Before you comment, please WATCH the videos first, and then tell me what you think?
(This is not a anti-gay marriage thread, nor is it about promoting religion, but rather it is a thread about how it's seemingly inappropriate to have a viewpoint that differs from everyone else, especially a politically incorrect viewpoint.)
Comments
Forgive me if I'm mischaracterizing your views, but aren't you the one who thinks people can literally go to hell for their beliefs?
No not at all.
And I resent the implication!
Because everything that is not ,,modern" or ,,progressive" these days is evil. For all that gibberish of tolerance and respecting other people's view they quickly chose to attack anyone who disagree with their view
Guess Churchill's words: the furure fascists will call themselves anti-fascists are so bitterly true. Add to the hater, bigoted or intolerant, islamophobe because nowadays you can't even say anything bad about islam without being ganged by uneducated defenders of it.
Funny how the actual left wing fascists call other people fascists....
Telling children they will literally burn for eternity in a pit if they don't believe absurdities does wonders for a developing psyche.
Maybe because many, if not most, of traditional views are "hateful, intolerant, or bigoted." Idk, just spit balling.
Well then correct me. Do you believe in Hell? Do you believe in Heaven? And what are the criteria for getting to Heaven if you believe in it?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize systematically denying people marriage and refusing them service wasn't harmful.
@Kenny/Lee : Are you an alien? Because your persecution complex is outta this world!
But seriously, your brand of fundamentalist social-conservatism can't die off soon enough, IMO. When the current ruling generation passes away, you're going to be in the tiny minority.
I don't think you're using the word fascist correctly. The correct word for folks like you is reactionary (not an insult, just based on what I know of your political views).
That is, unless you favor ethnic nationalism, an economic "third-way" and see the needs of the state's as always coming before the needs of the individual.
Depends on how the traditional beliefs are expressed.
Traditional beliefs as they relate to this topic are intolerant. There is no way around it.
Am I because Fascist or Nazi is the most common word used towards the people who disagree with current way, politicians are handling things. Watch multiple videos of Merkel's followers calling people who are anti-refugees Fascists,
Also a reactionist...hmm guess that I'm almost satisfied with the way how my people live and get pissed off when someone tries to force change on us I guess you are correct.
That's pretty much the context the OP is referring to, namely being against gay marriage. And even if we're not dealing with the local clerk refusing marriage certificates, it is still the principles people vote on. So yes, those kinds of positions do hurt people.
To reference your post above - there is a difference between strongly advocating against a position and forcing it out. You're not using law or coercion, but reason, and perhaps even ridicule (which honestly, is pointing out inconsistencies of logic).
Freedom of speech is not about believing what you want, it's about people being able to hold those thoughts and beliefs without fear of legal (and I would advocate economic) repercussion, the whole point of which is based on the Enlightenment ideal that free speech is the cornerstone of free debate, and through that debate the truth will ultimately come out, even if there is a temporary setback. It's not a relativist 'oh gee, whatever you think is lovely, no matter how loopy is' (and I'm not referring to any specific beliefs there).
That is incorrect.
In all cases? Or based on individual circumstances? I was talking with a friend recently and found myself in a hole of cognitive dissonance, because I supported the removal of Hogan for his slurrs (even if they were obtained illegally, they still reflected on the organization backing Hogan) but not the removal of Tim Hunt, and the only rational I could give was context and PR position.
You sure? I was a pretty good aim with my spit balls back in high school. I hit the teacher from the back of the class on more than a few occasions.
I'm open to ideas,but basically I've come to the conclusion you shouldn't risk being fired if you aren't at your job and you aren't working in any official capacity. That doesn't mean they need to renew your contract, but as far as whatever you say online, or God forbid on a sex tape, you shouldn't be fired for that. I understand the PR representative exception, but I have yet to see how that would work in practice, as I think under that logic you probably could throw in high-profile celebrities.
So you're not taking into consideration individual circumstances, which is kind of disappointing (just because I'm trying to rationalize my own stance and failing). I don't see how it's at all reasonable for a CEO of a large corporation to go on a race slamming tirade and not be removed, but I also don't see how it's reasonable that a scientist would be removed from their job for a self-deprecating joke concerning gender. And there is no objective basis for the separation of the two, as far as I can tell.
Well, I'd say more I have a general platform that I'm willing to mold to make more specific. It's like saying freedom of speech, but then making concessions for libel. Basically, my concern is how that would work legally, and it's difficult for me to find cases where the former wouldn't include the latter. "It was a joke," isn't a legal standard. The idea that a rational person would interpret something as a joke or not (as in Hustler v. Falwell), would already mean that you have a civil suit in place - and in order to do that you would have to have speech as a protected criteria for firing. Even then, sure, you can say you can fire the CEO, but what about the middle manager? What about somebody pushing the buttons in the factory? I understand the distinction, and I don't necessarily oppose it, but I don't see how it would work in practice.
It's not the conservative views that cause people to call them intolerant, the problem is really in people that push their conservative beliefs on other people. It is intolerant and bigoted if someone insults people who aren't the same as them or forces someone else to follow their belief system (such as those that want to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling for gay marriage). If someone is one of the people that doesn't want to force people to follow their beliefs by having the government overturn the Supreme Court ruling, and they don't put down people who are different then them, then no, they're not intolerant or bigoted.
If a person is not gay or bisexual, the Supreme Court ruling has no affect on them, as there is still freedom of religion in the United States. Any church can decide freely who they want to marry, and it will always remain that way (some Orthodox Jewish synagogues won't marry Christian couples to Jewish couples, and that's their right, just as it's a church's right not to marry gay couples). Overturning the Supreme Court ruling won't help people who aren't gay or bisexual in any way, as freedom of religion wasn't taken away in any form. Doing so will just take away rights for thousands of people, and that's just not right. Since it doesn't affect those people, and they just want it changed because they don't tolerate people being gay or bisexual, that's the very definition of intolerant.
The only people who have to follow this ruling is people who are government officials who have to follow the rules of the United States government, as they were elected to do so. There is a separation of Church and state for that reason. If they can't separate their religion from their duties to the state, then they need to step down.
That's exactly the same as me. On a personal level I can identify which people should be fired and which should not, the CEO being fired and Dr. Hunt obviously not. But in the situation of someone actually having the right to fire an employee or someone having the right to speak their mind and keep their job my personal opinion on who should and should not be fired is completely unimportant. And from that, who gets to make that decision? Who gets to decide who was telling a joke and who was slandering an entire group of people? And what makes their judgement of the subjective worth more than, say, the person being fired or the person trying to fire someone? I just don't see how this could ever be implemented, and therefore I don't see how anyone's economic prosperity could be protected when they speak what they think, even though I think they should be protected when they say what they think. And this puts me in a pickle.
It depends on how you word it. I don't support gay marriage, but if I had a married gay couple living next to me I wouldn't have a problem with it. I would say "Hey Neighbor" or whatever conversation we have and let that be that. Point is: believe what you wanna believe just don't shove it in people faces (No pun intended)
Great argument, you convinced me.
This is how I view it too.
When it comes to these kinds of topics, I believe people have the right to be for or against things like Gay Marriage(even if I myself is strongly for it), just as long as you don't act on your hatred or likeness towards something in an unfair or mean way. If people don't want to support Gay Marriage, that's fine, they're not hurting anyone that way, but if they choose to act on it by denying services to them specifically because of their sexuality which they have no control over and beat them because of the same reason, that's going too far in my opinion. You don't have to like women but you should treat them equally, you don't have to like darker skin-toned people but you should treat them equally, you don't have to like Theists but you should treat them equally and you don't have to like anyone with a sexuality other than Heterosexuality but you should treat them equally.
If you're someone who believes we shouldn't treat these people equally, I'd like to ask why? Does different genitalia justify inequality? Does different skin-tone justify inequality? Does different beliefs justify inequality? Does a different sexual orientation justify inequality?
That's how I feel as well. I don't support it, but I won't treat gays like a jerk. And all I ask in return is that they don't ask me to support it.
This is not an anti gay marriage thread, nor is it a thread about pushing religious beliefs on others, as I already stated. Also, it's not about any kind of "persecution" that I've experienced for having traditional beliefs, but rather I was just making an observation of how when others speak out in a public setting about their conservative beliefs how they are attacked for them.
When I see it happening to others, it seems so unfair that they are attacked. I believe in everyone, that means Liberals, Conservatives, Gays, Straights, and whatever have you being able to express their viewpoints openly and freely.
And the reason I mention conservatives specifically, is because when we are attacked for our beliefs, especially by the media, that seemingly no one steps up to defend us. And that's why I ask the question I do in this thread. It's not about me personally, but it's about conservative people in general.
It's fine for you to have conservative rather than progressive views, but the problem comes when these turn into tryign to limit the lives of others.
For example, it's ok if you think gay marriage shouldn't exist, but working against it is trying to limit the freedom of others. Let them get on with it and believe what you want behind the scenes.
If you try to dictate how others lead their lives according to your non-progressive views then you ARE being intolerant.
Well said. But it just doesn't make sense to me those that don't like women/dark skinned people/etc 'just because'. There's no real reason and I just see ignorance, but I get you and mostly agree.
These 'Progressives' only seem to talk about tolerance because they are convinced that 99% of the world agrees with them anyway and they won't ever have to face an opposing viewpoint. That's not what tolerance means. Can I 'tolerate' gay marriage? I would say no, because I believe that to tolerate something means disliking it but moving on with life anyway. And as for this guy's rant; I can't take anything he says seriously because he fails to address specifically what she said and just gave out vague criticisms. This is why I support Youtubers like Sargon of Akkad, ReviewTechUSA and MundaneMatt, because they'll actually address the point of the video or article they're responding to.
Now this is where I'll bring up the Westboro Baptist Church. Don't get me wrong, I think these guys are scumbags, but I will give them credit where credit is due.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/westboro-baptist-church-equality-house-kansas-truce
At least they can be semi-civil with neighbors who openly oppose what they stand for. You'd think that the Westboro members would give them the cold shoulder instead of just being polite and acting like civilized humans. This is tolerance; not having a bloody fit when you see and hear things you don't like.
Getting criticism for unpopular opinion is normal I heard quote recently I can't remember who said it but stuck with me. If a belief can't take criticism it's not a belief but an opinion who cares if you get hate the world is not a safe space for everyone.
For me real danger is trying to censor and cover up views and opinions not letting people have a voice
Like what really grinds my gears recently
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12085182/Cover-up-over-Cologne-sex-assaults-blamed-on-migration-sensitivities.html
The German governments cover up of the sexual assaults in cologne because not PC to ever highlight anything bad about the recent influx immigrants I remember reading somewhere Merkel german PM her getting re-elected would be in serious doubt if anything bad about the immigrants she let in came out so it was covered up
I don't care about traditional views everyone has freedom of speech what frustrates me is modern censorship of views
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/17/technology/fbi-apple-hack-iphone/index.html
Sad thing is more our news gets censored for us the more the governments steals all our private information.
2016 : When impressionable teens get their political philosophy from ranters on YouTube.
What a world we live in.
Wonder when they will flag your comment for being offensive....after all migrants can do no bad...
Even linked the Paris attacks through immigrants who came in through greece I'm not saying all Immigrants are bad but few that are deserve no protection off the media and the full force of the law.
I'm not pretending to be in PC paradise where everyone is perfect when women are getting sexual abused and innocent people are getting killed daily bring on hate, while governments steal any bit of identity or private info we have to empower the elite and rich more any news they don't like gets censored.
Alright, I'm calling bullcrap for two reasons,
1.) If I recall correctly, Perez Hilton is a raging asshole and also gay. It should be easily to see why he's personally offended by Miss California's views. If someone said that blind people shouldn't have a right that everyone else has, I'd probably be disparaging too, though I probably wouldn't make a bitchy video about it on YouTube.
2.) Conservative rhetoric still has a vice grip on society, outside the Internet. Shut off your computer and go to a town hall meeting. I'm sure you'll find that plenty of people agree with your beliefs.
Sure, and the people who disagree have the right to tell them to eat shit.
But that's not quite true, now is it?. You have talk-show hosts, YouTube pundits, news outlets and entire TV channels devoted to defending your views. Corporate interests and wealthy billionaires pour countless dollars into reactionary causes. There is a multi-billion dollar political machine that exists solely to keep fringe social conservatism in the mainstream. That fact that people are rejecting so-called "family values" in spite of all this is quite remarkable. The Christian Right is losing the culture war and their talking heads have resorted to feeding you a line that conservatism is under attack from the "intolerant left" and that being a reactionary is somehow 'dangerous' and 'counter-cultural'.
Good to know.
I think people are afraid to become Nazi stereotypes. Being the Nazis used such events to arrest and lock up millions of people though. Despite contrary belief there were some Jews who took the Nazi movement on, violently. A Great irony to history a Jewish Extremist for example assassinated a German Diplomat in Paris in 1938. Which caused a Dominantly SA organized Riot against Jewish Business and homes within Germany that became known as the Night of the Broken Glass. Not surprisingly Jewish historians leave the Assassination part out often when talking about the Nazi's crimes against the Jewish people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_vom_Rath
That being said, there is a reason I'm glad some people try to remember those little things that get left out of the history books. Because you can run parallels with current events. Extremist who act out violently against Muslims, the fear mongering that exist within Western World towards Muslims. The few musilims which help fuel the fear mongering as well. It's pretty much identical to the same kind of fear mongering used by extremist in the past in short. It isn't just far right wing groups as well personally. Far left wing groups seem to do it as well, though personally the left wing extremist are just not as loud.
So the police and the governments in Europe are just trying to keep Muslim violence quiet. Otherwise the backlash will be likely real, and the last thing a lot of European leaders want are far right wing groups gaining political power again.
So what you say is hide Muslim crimes, and bleach the record and pretend it never happened so the right wing don't come into power again? Are you aware that's exactly what is empowering far right radicals right now? The fact that the government is so desperately trying to protect the rapists, murderers and thieves while at the same time arresting a guy for wearing a pig's hat is the very fuel for their narrative. What goverment should do is to put a halt to those things and put the guilty ones in jail regardless of who they are. That way the so scary right wing radicals would lost the support of the common people because they would see that the goverment is not playing favors with the migrants.
But sadly they do the things your way so I guess very soon we will see a take over of radical far right party in some country, most likely Sweden...
I said the "Reasoning" behind it, I didn't say it was working. A lot of the attempts to quash right wing radicalism in Europe have just about all back lashed and have had the opposite effect. Including Laws against Hate Speech, Neo Nazism, and even Holocaust Denial Laws. All have back lashed. It is the mean reason right wing nationalism has been rising in Europe for a long time in a mostly liberal dominated continent. This all started even before the recent immigration crisis. The recent crisis has just added fuel to the flames... lots of it.