Subject:
|
Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:23:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3071 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
It’s rather
hypocritical to be tolerant (read ‘approving’) of only those people who are
tolerant of you, and intolerant of those you feel are intolerant of you.
Basically this is a kindergarten mindset of “I’ll like you if you like me,
but I’ll hate you if you hate me.” Welcome to the new tolerance.
|
If I get you, you’re saying that people can only be considered “tolerant”
when they are willing to endure any level of abuse from all comers. Is that
right? By placing “tolerant” in a position that no human being can reach, you
eliminate the word from the useful vocabulary. Further, your assertion, as I
read it, is that anyone who is unable to reach this unreachable state of
grace is significantly immature.
I call horsepucky.
Chris (Who wonders why common expressions for equine excrement or OK, but the
much more common expression for the excrement of male bovines is not.)
|
No, you didn’t get it. What I am saying is that YOU tolerate only those that
believe the way you do, and anyone who does not agree with you you automatically
place into the homophobic, hateful camp, whether they actually are homophobic or
they have rational explanations for not agreeing with you. Your intolerance for
those that disagree with you is clear when you say they ought to cancel their
posts, and the others who posted here that ‘homophobic’ posts (in other words,
posts that do not approve of a lavender group) ought to be censored - you cannot
handle anyone else’s opinions except those that affirm and approve of yours.
You want to eliminate debate on the grounds that ALL opposition is irrational
and hateful.
You guys are the ones who first brought up censorship. You were the first to
throw out the ‘intolerance’ card to anyone who didn’t say this was a great idea.
And as for someone else using bad language in a post, I’m not going to sit here
and say I approve of that either. I don’t think it’s called for at all - it is
unnecessary when discusing Lego. I also am (not so) sure that I would
never,ever see any bad language or sexual terms/slang or sexual innuendo in a
gay lego newsgroup, ever.....I’m sure it would be just as clean as the purest
wind-driven snow.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: “family-safe” ? (Re: Lavender Brick Society)
|
| (...) If I get you, you're saying that people can only be considered "tolerant" when they are willing to endure any level of abuse from all comers. Is that right? By placing "tolerant" in a position that no human being can reach, you eliminate the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
