Racism and Homophobia Should be Banned

Why? if one is tolerant, should be tolerant precisely who thinks differently ... I'm totally fed up with the intolerance of the "tolerant" people...

 

Source please (on things like blond hair being called deviant by biologists).

Of course we know why the "homophobes" use the term "deviant" related to homosexuality and that is because it has a negative connotation implying that homosexuals are perverts. It is a disparaging term used for nefarious purposes and a biologist would not use a term that carried negative connotations.

 

The under-40 crowd could care less about your views on gays - your side has lost the fight. DEAL WITH IT !

 

Because over there the threads go like this:

 

maybe you can help us out and provide some for us to see?

 

I agree racism must go.

Repeal Affirmative Action. It is government -sponsored racism.

 

Can we ban stupidity too?

 

Exactly is that. if somebody wants to be racist, one has the right to be racist ... Why not? Where is the tolerance? Tolerance for people who think differently, no tolerance for people who think the same. (The latter is very easy). The right to be racist and homophobic ... but who the hell are they to say as It shoud be and think the people? God?. If one man or woman want to be racist and homophobic, ALL RIGHT, It is his/her personal decision. While everyone respects to everyone, any trouble.

Can We "ban" hypocrites and "right thinking" phonies who are totalitarian tell people how they have to live?

 

I've lost count of the race based threads on this forum. It's pretty disturbing to see so many people post a thread titled "Why are blacks....(fill in the blank), and then dive head first into total denial of the thread being racist. They make race the central point of the thread, and then deny the racism that causes the thread to even exist as a question in the first place. And then when you point it out, creating a race based thread IS racist, they tell you that you're playing the "race card". I've seen threads that try to justify racism, and even slavery. These threads or comments usually lead to extremely heated exchanges in which the OP cries foul at being identified as a racist and goes crying to the admin, that so-and-so insulted them by speaking the truth about their position. It's fine to post a racist thread, but a violation to demonstrate why it's a racist thread. This I don't understand.

It's not racist to see a person is black, or brown or Asian, or middle eastern (what have I left out? ) What makes any of that racist is thinking that it matters. The same thing for Gays.

 

I feel the same way about both gay and abortion threads. Some posters are just one trick ponies. Those topics are all they ever talk about. *boring*

 

I see a difference with this. We all can debate and argue over points of view. That's legitimate. How a person thinks, or reasons, or believes certain things, strikes me as totally legitimate topics of debate. Being a Christian is not a race. It's a religion, and all religions are philosophical or ideological methodologies that people adopt to locate their sense of morality. As I see it, that's a legitimate argument, and no different than arguing over why a person is a conservative or a liberal or a libertarian. It's one person saying "I believe this because my religion informs me. It's my moral compass". Why is that not a legitimate issue for debate? How is it different than saying I'm a conservative and that's the theory of rationality that I use to guide me in my political views? If your religion informs your morality, and your morality contributes to your politics...then why would the very source of a position that you hold, not be subject to criticism?

I think that a lot of people want religion kept off limits because they consider their beliefs to be sacred and everyone else must respect that. But again...religion is not a race. It's a belief, and in a debate forum, nothing involving how we form our ideas and beliefs should be off limits. What doesn't make any sense is attributing a person race as a factor in a debate. You can change how you think, but you can't change the color of your skin, and to use that as some kind of justification for an argument is racist. Often it seems that a persons religious beliefs are the very thing that leads to the racist position that they hold. Being a Christian or whatever religion a person holds is no justification for being a racist, and when a debate leads to a religious justification, then the religion becomes a target for criticism.

 

What is it with conservatives and slavery, and a desire to keep people in "their place"?

 

LOL I am well under 40. Deal with that.

 

What's your definition of homophobia? A lot of politically correct people claim that if you say that homosexuality is sinful/against God's moral law, you are being "hateful and homophobic". More logical and moderate people understand that simply saying homosexuality itself is wrong is not homophobia; homophobia is a disrespect/hatred for gay people themselves.

 

That's why it matters.

 

If he feels guilt over it, then it's his conscience telling him it's wrong. When you purge the racism, you purge the guilt. What's racist, is thinking that the color of a person skin matters to you.

 

Please dont bring reality into the picture. You might hurt somebody's fewings.

 

I sympathize with you because I've lost track of the times leftwingers have shrieked "There's not enough dialogue on racism in this nation! Conservatives are afraid of the issue! Let's talk race!" Then they start up a thread with something along the lines of "How come racist conservatives . . . "

So what it seems that nearly every leftwinger interested in the subject really means is twofold in nature: 1) All Right of Center people are racist if White or tragically deluded if not. Anyone not agreeing 100% with radical leftwing Political Correctness doctrine and screeds involving race IS A RACIST.

Now an interesting thing about both Eric Holder and Barack Obama individually engaging in race-agitation this past week is that a chronically in-the-tank-for-Obama left tilted rag like Yahoo! News obediently wrote several articles amounting to "Why are conservatives such EVIL racists?" and the commentary section was almost one hundred percent Right of Center in nature and post after post after post methodically and calmly pointed out how the increasingly desperate Democratic Party leadership is playing nothing but their time honored and now meaningless Race and War on Women Cards because . . . everything else they've tried by way of gaining any political traction on anything since Obama's re-election (By Bill Clinton and the MSM and Hurricane Sandy and the IRS combined efforts) have failed to work for them. So they are returning to the stuff that once upon a time -- not so very long ago -- ALWAYS worked for them no matter what.

But you see, the thing is that this time it's not working for them. Oh, and as for there essentially being only conservatives replying to those Yahoo! News articles serving as Obama administration propaganda pieces, that indicates that Internet savvy leftwingers have abandoned much of what used to be THEIR exclusive media territory for hearing only great things about Obama and his administration in favor of total rags like The Huffington Post or The Daily Kos or Slate e-zine where still to this day they will never, ever have to risk encountering a discouraging word in regards to actual political reality. Nice!

 

Why would you include racism which is based on a genetic makeup and probably a cultural makeup, with the others that are all issues of how a person thinks or reasons? I can criticize a persons views, and that's a legitimate issue of debate. But targeting somebody for their race...how is that the same thing? You're suggesting that for the sake of "Free Speech", the forum should recognize that criticism directed at a race is a sign of tolerance? Every freedom is limited. The only one in this country that has no limits is how a person thinks. Acting on those thoughts comes with certain limitations. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Is that an infringement on your freedom of speech. Yeah probably, but if your speech threatens the safety for others, then obviously their is a restriction. I'm not suggesting that something that some idiot racist says here is a threat to anybody else's life, but I'm simply illustrating that limitations on freedom do exist.

Tolerance is the patient forbearance of something that is disliked and, perhaps, even thought to be evil. It has been valued as an ethical ideal at least since the eighteenth century, when it was proposed, by enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Voltaire, as an antidote to religious persecution. This, perhaps, is the reason why some people regard tolerance and persecution as opposites, and think that since persecution is always wrong tolerance is always right and always rational. But things are not so simple. Locke, despite his arguments for tolerance, may be even better known for insisting that we should not tolerate atheists and Roman Catholics. Freedom and free society, according to Locke, may not depend upon the specific religious beliefs that we hold. But it does depend upon our having some belief in God—since those who do not believe in God cannot take valid oaths—and it also depends upon our not paying allegiance to foreign princes, such as the Pope.

We have, at least in the West, come a long way since Locke. But even today, most advocates of tolerance would agree that we should not tolerate everything. We should not, for example, tolerate injustice, or murder, or attempts to restrict our freedom. And we need not, everything else being equal, tolerate the intolerant. And it's the intolerant that seeks to restrict our freedoms, or at least for those that they are intolerant of.

This last idea, that we need not tolerate the intolerant, is the solution to the so-called ‘paradox of tolerance’. There is a story about a tribe of Indians who were so impartial in their tolerance that they extended it even to a den of man-eating tigers that lived nearby. The tigers were very happy for this. But the Indians slowly disappeared—and their policy of indiscriminate tolerance along with them.

The point of the story is that we might, if we are too tolerant, end up promoting intolerance.

When I came to this forum, I was hoping for some intelligent debates. Debates that are centered on race or some other form of justification for hate, don't qualify, but they do find a home on a forum that tolerates intolerance.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...f-liberal-racism-in-quotes-n1549044/page/full

http://youtu.be/XkgA2rUAY-o

http://youtu.be/lRqbBM1t-rc

http://youtu.be/Uj3P56tWLUo

https://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html


http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2012/10/where-did-all-of-dixiecrats-go.html
Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:

Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor

Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
Strom Thurmond
Miles Godwin

 

The definition of 'tolerance' has become perverted and redefined by the left. Just as 'progressive' has also.

 

If we're banning stuff, I want ticks, houseflies, and fleas banned. Oh, and anything that smells bad.

Let me know when you get that done, OP.
Thank you.
I'll wait.



.

 

To be racist don´t mean to be intolerant... mostly antiracist are intolerant...One can be racist and can be tolerant..Of course, races don´t exist but yes DNA mithocondrial.. for example, a man can protect his DNA and not wanting to mix with people who do not have his cluster.. there were countries where the protection of Blood was very important for centuries, and maybe a man want to continue with this protection...to be racist and tolerant with people is not racist..if one like to mix, ok, If another one don´t want to mix its blood with people with different DNA, also is Ok..the most intolerant are the antiracist "tolerant"... The issue is not to be racist or not to be, but tolerate who´s racist and who´s not racist.. who´s homophobic and who´s not.

 

What are you, the thought police? This is a terrible, Orwellian idea. Look, I hate racism and homophobia as much as the next guy, but I'm tired of people trying to control thought and the free speech of others that they don't like. It seems freedom of thought and association and speech and to be who you want to be is fine until you (*)(*)(*)(*) off a bunch of people or have views that aren't "politically correct." And who determines what speech is bad and good? What speech qualifies as "hate speech"? The government? Ha! They'll stick you in a fenced off free speech zone for speaking out against wars and drones if that's the case. What the hell is going on? In the Bush years Liberals went crazy with the restrictions on freedom THEY didn't like, such as all of the restrictions on protesting Bush and the war in Iraq or getting in trouble for speaking out against those things. They were outraged and rightfully so and I was outraged along with them. Now they're SO intolerant towards speech they don't like while preaching tolerance towards the people that speech is awesome aimed at! The owner of Chik-Fil-A states his opinion about gay marriage and people are outraged and protest. What the heck? He's not allowed to have an opinion? Oh we've decided we don't like his views so we're gonna censor him. It's outragous. Same with Orson Scott Card and especially the recent firing of Brendan Eich of Mozilla over his opposition towards gay marriage. That one may take the cake. The man was FIRED for having PERSONAL VIEWS on an issue after people called on him to be fired and had campaigns to fire him SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THOSE VIEWS! I'm reminded of that scene from '1984' where they have the public 'hate.' It seems that unless you hate on anyone who opposes anything that's not politically correct or is (or even sounds) racist or homophobic you must be! Even if you're not racist or homophobic, just have views that run afoul with certain people (like opposing gay marriage), you still must be and society must take you down. What happened to TOLERANCE? Now that the shoes on the other foot it seems the oppressed are becoming the oppressors. Know what it is? It's modern day McCarthyism. Everyone goes on these witch hunts to find out if someone has views -- especially anti-gay views -- they disagree with. OK Cupid did the exact same thing with Eich when they posted his gay marriage opposition and he paid the price just for having personal views. There's been Anti-Gay Activities Committee formed by a good portion of the left, especially the elitist leaders within, to take down anyone for simply disagreeing with them, and its disgusting.

And I say this as a bisexual Libertarian who has absolutely no problem with gay marriage and who can't stand homophobia and racism.

 

I didn't see the article that you're referencing, but I find it hard to believe, having posted comments of my own on similar sites, that "methodically and calmly", aren't part of the package. The very title of the subject of the thread you mentioned, as far as my experience on these sites goes, is that of waving a red flag at a raging bull. Methodically and calmly doesn't come to mind for some reason. To a second point, "By Bill Clinton and the MSM and Hurricane Sandy and the IRS combined efforts) have failed to work for them.", you seem to be suggesting that Obama's winning, not once but twice, was due to what you posted here, rather than the possibility that the electorate simply rejected your policies. You're looking for a justification for why you lost. It couldn't possibly be that your ideas didn't fly with the public, so it must be because of some elaborate scheme and opportunity provided by nature, and the MSM and Bill Clinton.

It's this complete absence of any self-examination that most people can see on a daily basis. There's always somebody or some group to use as the scapegoat. Have you even considered...maybe it's you? Maybe it's how you think that people find repulsive to them. So make race an issue, and when somebody points out that you're using race as an issue...you cry, they're playing the "race card", which is the "Get out of jail free card" that is always employed when the subject that you bring to the table is criticized for what it is.

As a final point, "Now an interesting thing about both Eric Holder and Barack Obama individually engaging in race-agitation" Explain to me why any reference to race, a subject that has been part of the American discussion since before its founding, should be off limits for either Obama or Holder? Why is it, that when they speak to it, it amounts to race -agitation? You're actually telling me here that Obama as president of the US cannot speak to an issue that has been the elephant in the room for hundreds of years, because if he does, he's a race-agitator? Tell me why?