Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday April 13 2014, @06:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the anyone-who-disagrees-will-be-shot dept.

It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.

The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.

But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:00PM

    Why would he? Employee benefits are not marriage and we don't have any reason to believe he would have except for the propaganda that painted everyone opposed to gay marriage as hating gays.
    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:10PM (#30902)

    > Why would he?

    While often rationalized, bigotry is not rational.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:19PM

      And who says it's bigotry? Have you even bothered to listen to the reasons given by those opposed to it? Did you ask him? Did anyone ask him? No. You all just assumed the worst because it's easier to work some righteous hate up and stop having to think.
      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:08PM (#30967)

        > Did anyone ask him? No.

        Yes, he explicitly refused to explain himself. [cnet.com] Leaving any reasonable person to believe he did it for the same reason everyone else did it, because they don't think gay people deserve to marry, aka bigotry. That you would argue that he's got some super-secret not-bigoted reason to interfere with gay people's lives is the kind of rationalization that demonstrates just how ridiculous your position is.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:16PM

          ...for the same reason everyone else did it, because they don't think gay people deserve to marry, aka bigotry.

          Demonization and bigotry on your part right there. You cannot combat injustice with hatred and expect anything good to come of it.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:35PM (#30934)

    > ...we don't have any reason to believe he would have except for the propaganda that painted everyone opposed to gay marriage as hating gays.

    He put his own money into a campaign intended to discriminate against gays. We certainly do have reason to believe he'd act on his beliefs... again.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:51PM

      See the several other times I've answered this point.
      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:15PM

        by GeminiDomino (661) on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:15PM (#31011)

        You actually never have answered it.

        You've claimed he never acted on his beliefs, which was then belied by the point that he did, in fact, do so, and it was that action that caused the whole scene in the first place.

        Then you claimed that "his reasons" were being unfairly attributed, because he'd never been given the opportunity to express what they really were. That, too, was shown to be false.

        Then you claimed that, having acted once on his beliefs, whatever they are, is no reason to expect him to act on them again, from a position of authority where doing so could do real damage. That's as much a wild-ass guess as playing the lottery, and crosses far over the border of "naivety." He's offered absolutely no reason that anyone should extend that level of faith in his sense of rational behavior, and (arguably) plenty of reason that no one should.

         

        --
        "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"