SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:35PM
> ...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
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:15PM
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"