It seems that the tolerance movement has been gaining steam at an increasing pace. What I mean by that is that the people saying they are tolerant are being the most intolerant. In the past being tolerant meant accepting others views but it seems now that the definition has changed to accepting views that agree with yours. Around 10 years ago I heard a speaker state that we should fear the tolerance movement he said that it would lead to a way of censorship of moral values. At the time of his speech I did not agree with him but as years have passed I must change my stance. We now live in a world where people are no longer allowed to have an opinion without others twisting the different stance into some form of hatred. If you believe in financial planning you are an uncaring hater of the poor. If you are a Christian you are vilified and depicted as a crazy heartless person that hates most of society. If you have traditional values you are considered a bigot. If you believe the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms you are considered to be a gun loving idiot. If you are anti-gay marriage you are accused of hating homosexuals. These examples are common forms of twisting the truth to vilify and censor views.
Below are some examples from supposedly most tolerant people:
Yahoo poster made this post based on an article about a family that is struggling financially.
“I see both sides here but let’s be fair the family seems to have had a history of financial mismanagement (it stated they had credit card issues and bad credit). We do not have all of the facts but it does tend to indicate that the family did not plan well. No plan is perfect but that does not mean we should not try. I feel bad for this family; I wish someone would have worked with them to prevent this from happening.”
Next I have provided the response to the previous post:
“What extreme right wing nuts would say, even though they’re supposed to follow Jesus. “Oh you’re just lazy! Get another job! Oh your husband has scoliosis, we’ll he shouldn’t have. He better not be collecting welfare! That’s my money!”
Ashamed, yes most of you act like that should be extremely shamed. You hide behind your religion yet you don’t care about the plight of others. You donate money because it was easy and lucky for you to make. Then part yourself on the back for a job well done. I hope this couple finds some relief.”
Notice how far off topic the poster went and how they went right into an attack.
The following post was a section of another attack on the same post:
“Has this happened to you? Have you or your spouse or kids needed critical care for over a week? Have you walked a mile in the people’s shoes that you are judging? Walk a mile in someone’s shoes before you get on our soap box next time.”
Notice the harsh judgment and assumption that the poster had an easy life.
The original poster replied:
“I wear those shoes.
I was boor poor
The place I worked closed on my wedding day
I was injured at work and could not work for 8 months
I was then told I would never be able to do the same type of work ever again.
I am the primary care provider for my brother that cannot take care of himself.
I took care of my mother for 8 years and paid all of the bills before she passed.
I did it, I made plans and worked hard.
I made mistakes but I made it.
Don’t make excuses you make plans (a good plan). Many people miss the first step income protection.
Now walk in those shoes?
I OWN THOSE SHOES.”
This post was received many thumbs down.
Later the poster supplied some information about how well some mutual funds performed that were open to the public and it received this response:
“Thanks, but no thanks. My father had a problem with those who steal from widows and orphans, and I tend to agree.:) That money you made came from someone, or didn’t you bother to think about that one. Stealing is stealing, and no legitimate investment earns that sort of return. Tells me who and what you are.”
“I have quality mutual funds. Get real. They do not pay a 35% return. That is why they are low risk. I don’t know what you are trying to pull, but you are full of it.:)”
“Sounds like to me you are trying to run a ponzi scheme. I had a cousin who worked for such. Let me let you in on a secret. Eventually, the situation goes South. No mutual fund that is legitimate pays out a 35% return.”
The poster defended his post and presented this information:
“Yet the facts prove otherwise:
“Stock markets around the world surged in 2013, from New York to Frankfurt to Tokyo, and that helped lift all flavors of stock mutual funds. The market’s ascent spread across not only geographies but also industries. That meant everything from high-flying technology stock funds to stereotypically dowdy utility stock funds rose. As long as investors held onto their stock funds through the year – and resisted the temptation to sell at each blip of concern – they enjoyed the best returns in a decade for many funds.”
“Out of nearly 3,650 stock funds tracked by Morningstar, 92% rose over 2013. But funds that focus on bonds struggled, many of them after years of solid performance. Here’s a look at some of the trends that shaped the year for mutual-fund investors:”
“Health care funds took the lead. Health care stock funds returned an average of 48.2% last year. That beat everything from technology stock funds (an average gain of 35.5%) to financial stock funds (34.6%). To see why, look at the holdings of the Franklin Biotechnology Discovery fund (FBDIX), which led the way with a 68.6% surge in 2013.”
“Small was big. Some of the best returns in 2013 came from mutual funds that focus on the smallest stocks. Small-cap growth stock funds jumped an average of 40.9%, for example. Managers of these funds focus on stocks with market values closer to $300 million, like 1-800-Flowers.com, than those worth a total of $300 billion, like Microsoft. Large-cap growth funds returned an average of 33.9%.”
This post also received the same fate with hateful comments even though it was clearly intended to provide help.
This was a classic case of self-segregation and pity provided by the uninformed or misinformed. They chose to inflict hatred on a person while hiding under the cover of being tolerant.
Now lets move on to some “professionals”
Here are several examples of Marvel comic’s writer Dan Slott:
“If we’re going to teach Creationism in science classes, we should give equal weight to the theory that Earth’s on the back of a giant turtle”
Notice that if Dan Slott does not agree with it he goes on to rude jokes. How is that being tolerant to different views?
“Traditional Values” is a cowardly term for “Anti-Gay Marriage.” Slavery, antisemitism, & sexism could be called “traditional values” too.”
I am sorry but the definition of traditional values provided by dictionary.com is as follows:
“Traditional values refer to those beliefs, moral codes, and mores that are passed down from generation to generation within a culture, subculture or community”
Where at all does it match Dan Slott’s twisted view?
“I don’t “hate” the 2nd Amendment. I believe our founding fathers didn’t foresee how available & destructive modern day firearms would become”
I am sorry but when the 2nd Amendment was written it did not exclude the top of the line guns of the time, and how do you know what they predicted? This is a statement that has no facts to back it up whatsoever and this is a common Dan Slott twist tactic.
“I believe smart guns (in place of guns) would prevent gun-related deaths. RT @ilike_cheez @DanSlott do you support the use of ‘smart’ guns?”
I am sorry but when does your guess with no facts to support it provide any useful talking points? Please research the smart gun they are far from dependable. This move would leave many innocent people victims due to failures in technology that is not ready for public use.
“I need to stop. Too many people are saying “guns don’t kill people.” They do. Guns kill MANY people. A lot of families will confirm this.”
I am sorry; if you place a gun on a table and let it sit there will it kill anyone? Guns are a tool that is used not the reason. This is another lie used to manipulate people. The supposed tolerant Dan Slott does not tolerate the fact that the gun does not kill it is the person using it that is the problem. Dan also neglects the fact that gun free zones seem to be the common targets.
“A well REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed”
I am sorry Dan but capitalization of certain words does not make your statement true. We have a well regulated system (that could be better). Also look at the data supplied from the areas with the most strict gun laws why are they not doing any better? Dan why did you not capitalize “ the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed”? Once again the “tolerant” leaves out the importance of one section while stressing another. Notice the selective toleration of people with a mindset such as Dan Slott.
Next I suggest reading the following article:
Dan Slott made this statement to Douglas Ernst:
“You are an IDIOT.”
“I’m not saying that BECAUSE you are a Conservative Blogger.
Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs.
I’m saying that BECAUSE you, specifically– independent of the fact
you’re a Conservative Blogger– ARE an idiot.
When someone’s beliefs/ideologies/presuppositions BLIND them to their
own hypocrisies– WHEREVER those beliefs/ideologies/presuppositions
lie– CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, or WHAT-HAVE-YOU– THOSE PEOPLE (like
yourself) ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER IDIOTS.
“You are NOT a rational, thinking human being. You’re an idiot who’s
had their brain removed and filled with the
pap/preconceived-notions/rhetoric/propaganda/talking-points of others.
There is no talking, conversing, or reasoning with you. Enjoy your
idiocy by yourself and those stupid enough to endure it, you brain
Dan Slott states why he is not calling Douglas an idiot for opposing views while contradicting himself on why he feels Douglas is an idiot. He is not an idiot because he is a conservative he is an idiot because he believes in conservative principles and traditional values, now tell me how that is tolerant? If you agree with Dan you are a tolerant and good person but if you disagree with Dan you are an idiot? This person, Dan Slott the very person that asked for a picture to be posted online that he claimed offended him just so that he could continue to complain about it. The hypocrisy is astounding.
You can see more on this subject here:
We will end on the Dan Slott subject here:
“Read an article about spotting sociopathic behavior. Kinda scared that I can spot pretty much every trait in Fox News on-air talent.”
The Colossus of Rhodey provided a fitting response:
“Got flash for ‘ya Dan: I can spot sociopathic behavior too. Like when guys write stories where a genocidal murderer takes over the body of a hero … in order to effect his usual heinous practices.”
Let’s be clear, a self-proclaimed liberal that preaches tolerance makes an intolerant offensive statement such as this. This is a statement by a person that does not even watch Fox News, yet he will read talking points that bash the views and make tweets to support anything to demonize the broadcast.
You can view The Colossus of Rhodey response here:
There are many other intolerant people in the public eye that preach kindness and free speech yet they practice hate.
Now how can a person post something that disgusting and consider themselves a person of tolerance? Once again it is a classic case of tolerant until disagreed with.
Lets take a look at Ron Marz and his witter account:
“Four Color Media Monitor: if you take issue with what I say, feel free to tell me right here. Don’t be a coward hiding behind your blog.”
Really so he will make mean comments about him on twitter but he will not make comments about him on his bog, how does that make him any better?
“Pretty sure “Jersey Shore Star Arrested After Brawl at Tanning Salon” is the least surprising headline ever.”
Well how tolerant is he by stereotyping people in Jersey, that is about as shocking as Marz making rude comments on twitter.
How about these statements:
From the Randi Rhodes Show:
“A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: http://sound%20of%204%20gunshots%20being%20fired. Just try it, you little b*stard. http://of%20gun%20being%20cocked.”
Sure that is tolerant.
We have actor Wanda Sykes to thank for this one.
(Rush Limbaugh)” just wants the country to fail. To me that’s treason. He’s not saying anything different than what Osama Bin Laden is saying. You might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight. … Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?”
Hoping a person has a serious medical problem does not sound very tolerant to me.
Certainly someone such as Chris Matthews would never say anything that is intolerant.
“You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?”
I guess he is not very professional maybe that has something to do with the low ratings.
Maybe Bill Maher would have something nice to say:
“I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”
I guess not!
Maybe Spike Lee could set a positive tone.
“If I got (Condi Rice) a— on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them.”
Well that sounded tolerant……..??
I guess we can always depend on the president ….or can we?
President Obama himself characterized small-town Midwesterners as bitter clingers who hold on to their guns, religion and antipathy for people who aren’t like them. Is it just me or was this an implication that mostly white Christians from small Midwestern towns who embrace the Second Amendment are angry, bitter, violent, backward and racist.
With all of that said I guess the tolerant people only say they are tolerant for a shield while they attack others beliefs so that they can use mean spirited comments while acting innocent from their own hypocrisy.
I would like to add a special thanks to others such as Douglas Ernst at his blog, Hube at Collossus of Rhodey, and Avi Green over at The Four Color Media Monitor for having the courage to speak out against the self-proclaimed tolerant and calling them out on their hypocrisy. If it were not for their efforts I would have never written this article.