DescentBB

link

Interesting piece pointing out Trump-induced hypocrisy.

Being intolerant of intolerance is not itself intolerance. Not only that, but there is a massive and fundamental difference between opposing a person's political stances and policies, and opposing who they are fundamentally as a person.

Top Gun wrote:Being intolerant of intolerance is not itself intolerance. Not only that, but there is a massive and fundamental difference between opposing a person's political stances and policies, and opposing who they are fundamentally as a person.

Thanks for the good example of the SJW's flawed logic. Being intolerant of anything is by definition intolerance. I believe what you're attempting to say is that being intolerant of values different than your own is acceptable while being intolerant of your values is unacceptable. It also seems that you're also trying to say that someone's political views can be wrong (and, in fact, intolerable) while their social views can't be wrong (oh wait, social views can be wrong, if they disagree with yours which conveniently define some things as "fundamental to personhood" (and thus untouchable) and others not... I got it)?

Like my subject says: when the shoe is on the other foot, things suddenly seem to change. Here's the SJW bottom line: agree or be demonized. This is coming from the people who claim to be preaching inclusion and equality.

There is an argument to be made on both sides, but there is no excuse for taking it out on his wife.

snoopy wrote:Thanks for the good example of the SJW's flawed logic. Being intolerant of anything is by definition intolerance. I believe what you're attempting to say is that being intolerant of values different than your own is acceptable while being intolerant of your values is unacceptable. It also seems that you're also trying to say that someone's political views can be wrong (and, in fact, intolerable) while their social views can't be wrong (oh wait, social views can be wrong, if they disagree with yours which conveniently define some things as "fundamental to personhood" (and thus untouchable) and others not... I got it)?

Like my subject says: when the shoe is on the other foot, things suddenly seem to change. Here's the SJW bottom line: agree or be demonized. This is coming from the people who claim to be preaching inclusion and equality.

No, what I'm attempting to say is that a person is perfectly free to choose and change their political stances or affiliations, and in fact we all at the very least re-evaluate them throughout our lives. However, a person does not have the luxury of choosing things like the color of their skin, or the gender they are attracted to. These aren't "social views," but instead immutable aspects of a person's identity. So yes, if you discriminate against people on those counts, that makes you a complete ★■◆● who should be called on it.