Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

Good point, Linguo. Since the author is not a Liberal African-American Female homosexual Wiccan, he has no right to talk about tolerance. Geez, what was he thinking?

Great article, James. Reminding the High Priests to go to confession once in a while is a tough job; glad you tackled it.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 7, 2007 at 10:14 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

I thought it was a joke, too. I guess not. That's sad that someone can put so many people together in some fictional group.
"Similarly, those who say the TV show “24” is bad because it portrays Muslims as terrorists seem to have no issue with entertainment that mocks the Catholic Church." Does the author really think that these people who are offended by '24' are the same people who mock the catholic church?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by moscowman on March 7, 2007 at 12:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

Thank you so far for your comments. The point is to make a discussion more evident about a perceived double standard in being 'tolerant'.

To answer moscowman, I take issue with having to generalize as much as I did. It's almost required in 500 words to establish an issue, give examples, then sum up and make a point. I also do not believe the the same people (as a whole) are against "24" but for christian mocking entertainment. However, it can be noted that certain groups have publicly stated the former as wrong, but no argument for the latter.

The point is not to see generalization and ignore the piece. The point is that people need to consider that there may in fact be a bias and to discuss.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jarruda on March 7, 2007 at 1:10 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25828

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 7, 2007 at 2:43 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12042006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/diversity_double_talkivys_inclusion_excludes_military_opedcolumnists_matt_sanchez.htm?page=0

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 7, 2007 at 2:46 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6409/103/1600/Mallard_Fillmore_200806.gif

Gee, it took me all of 3 minutes to find these links. Guess I can quit now...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by KUBizGrad on March 7, 2007 at 2:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

I already addressed the generalization issue. I am well aware that it's not black and white. Why do you have to assume that all conservatives do that? Why do you not allow any room for gray areas in conservative thought? That's not the point of the article. The point is that tolerance speech is not tolerant to all viewpoints.

Whether or not NAMBLA is supported by republicans is not relevant to the point of the article. Whether or not child molestors have been republicans is not relevant (besides, you can find equally staggering statistics for democrats). But again, that's not the point. If you have any real opinions to counter the argument of the article please let them be known, besides that you have only attacked the article on the basis that I generalized.

Instead of picking apart a specific sentence, why can't you address the article as a whole and discuss the message. Thank you.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jarruda on March 7, 2007 at 5:35 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

Jarruda, I can see for myself the truth of your piece. I am not conservative nor democrat, for both suffer from the same corruptions, it only matters on which is more prevalent in your area.

But on to the point, the main idea you state is not noticed nearly enough. For all of the 'awareness' movements going on, it's a shame that no one tries to become aware of the double-natures that can slip in when trying to reach a sensible balance of understandings and/or coexistence with other ideas. I do not think you were attacking anything, or trying to be all that heated, as much as you were simply stating something that we all need to be aware of.

For others commenting on the flaws of the passage that are not due to the author's beliefs as much as literary necessity: Come on. Seriously, just read the thing for it's trying to do. Open your mind. Being open minded shouldn't mean 'accepting every opinion except that one most people accept'.

Thanks.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by sjpeters on March 7, 2007 at 7:31 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

"And you apparently are opposed to this trend. I think tolerance and inclusion ARE virtues. Why would anyone be opposed to this?"

No one should be opposed. Respect for fellow humans is admirable and desirable. I am opposed to the path that has been taken in the name of something that appears to be good. That is the point of the article.

"You claim that people who promote tolerence (your made up 'tolerence movement') are hypocrits for not tolerating your intolerence"

Aren't they? Isn't going against a stated belief not hypocrisy? Too many times voices are silenced in the name of tolerance (or for fear of backlash).

"and your intolerence apparently needs no justification...since you don't claim to be tolerent, you don't have to be tolerent."

My tolerance shouldn't be the issue. The issue is the way that, in the name of tolerance, certain groups have been treated intolerantly. Anyone can make that observation.

Secondly, if it is the issue, my 'intolerance' does not need justification. It is my opinion, and I am entitled to it. I am not claiming to hold the value of total tolerance. So yes, if I don't claim to be something I am not, then I don't have to be that thing. I am not sure why that is hard to grasp.

However, if you claim to be something, then you should be what you claim. If not, that is hypocritical.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by jarruda on March 7, 2007 at 7:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

@ linguo & moscowman Why do you assume that conservatives are like the boogeyman that only want to do harm to society.

Just because the author mentioned NAMBLA and liberals in this article you automaticaly assumed that he considers the two one in the same. What you should do is reread the article and understand that it is tolerance, which is a liberal idea, that allowed the formation of that organization, and other organizations that shamelessly promote tolerance of unorthodox ideas while at the same time show intolerance of those that don't support their "right" to be different. That IS being hypocritical.

But don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to tolerance as long as it swings both ways. You can't claim to be an aethiest and then laugh at people who aren't. You can't claim to be a homosexual and then curse heterosexuals who don't want a gay parade in their neighborhood. That is being intolerant and frankly grossly ignorant.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by escapimg on March 7, 2007 at 9:53 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

The mention of NAMBLA alongside the LGBT community just hurts your argument. I don't care whether it's liberal or conservative. That, however, has already been pointed out. I assume I should tolerate Fred Phelps. Of course I don't agree with him, specifically his message of hate, but I guess the argument is I shouldn't be intolerant of him and his followers. Okay, I am not intolerant, I just think he's wrong. I think that some Muslims are terrorists, and I don't watch "24" because it is ridiculous to think that someone is having this many "worst days ever." I also think the catholic church should watch itself. I have been mocking it for years, not because of molestation, mostly because of its rigidity.

I understand you are against the "tolerance movement." I am against closed mindedness.

Oh also the NEA has been granting bad art money for years. They can shove it.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by empirelucas on March 9, 2007 at 9:09 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

Isn't this funny that the columnist preaches tolerance towards people from other oppressed people when those people are intolerant in and out of themselves?

I do agree that people have their right to free speech, and they have their right to be critical of anyone. So in the spirit of free speech, I must say that your column is utterly pointless. What you are basically saying is if you don't allow people to express their negative views towards a oppressed group of people then they are hypocrites for preaching tolerance.

BTW, sexual orientation isn't a behavior, but just the thought of that would shatter your narrow terministic screen. Just another thought, we are not in an age of a "tolerance" movement. Such movements wouldn't be successful because its too passive.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by davidnta on March 8, 2007 at 8:50 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Arruda: Intolerance of the Tolerance Movement

@davidnta Did you even read my post? Where did I say homosexuality is a behavior? What I said was that it was intolerant of them to curse people who don't want a gay parade in their neighborhood.

The authors point remains valid. If you asked me my opinion on any of the aforementioned topics, I would be totally honest with you. I wouldn't want a gay parade in my neighborhood. I don't think women have any kind of right to choose abortion UNLESS its a rape case. I also don't like fred phelps because he's a hateful bigot. And as far as the catholic church is concerned, rigidity is a necessity for any movement or religion to exist. Thats why calvanism never took hold.

Call me intolerant if you wish, but I never claimed to be, so at least I'm not a whiny hypocrite who can't read.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by escapimg on March 10, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal