http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/anti-gay-slushie-mothers-day-protester_n_5309323.html

With the Eich/Sterling/Sams uproar, I wanted to get away from that Eich forum that blossomed into something else and ask what people should be doing with opposing viewpoints.

Is this an acceptable response to her sign?

bbauska wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/anti-gay-slushie-mothers-day-protester_n_5309323.html

With the Eich/Sterling/Sams uproar, I wanted to get away from that Eich forum that blossomed into something else and ask what people should be doing with opposing viewpoints.

Is this an acceptable response to her sign?

It's not an appropriate response, but one shouldn't be surprised by that reaction if you deliberately (and really for no good reason) publicly insult lots of people. (By the way, it's not even true -- there are plenty of gay mothers.)

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/anti-gay-slushie-mothers-day-protester_n_5309323.html

With the Eich/Sterling/Sams uproar, I wanted to get away from that Eich forum that blossomed into something else and ask what people should be doing with opposing viewpoints.

Is this an acceptable response to her sign?

It's not an appropriate response, but one shouldn't be surprised by that reaction if you deliberately (and really for no good reason) publicly insult lots of people. (By the way, it's not even true -- there are plenty of gay mothers.)

Which is my point. It is a public thoroughfare, and she has a right to her opinions. I feel the same way about some of the jack-assed activities of Hillsboro Baptist. It does however show intolerance to the fact that other people can have other views.

I am not asking for acceptance of people with jack-assed views, just letting fools have foolish views w/o taking matters into your own hands.

Person A was being intolerant.

Person B was intolerant of their intolerance.

Neither comes out smelling of roses (but one smelling of a slushie).

Should we tolerate intolerance?

danivon wrote:Person A was being intolerant.

Person B was intolerant of their intolerance.

Neither comes out smelling of roses (but one smelling of a slushie).

Should we tolerate intolerance?

Should we tolerate intolerance... Hmmm, I do tolerate intolerance, but I don't throw things at people. Perhaps I am more tolerant. I cannot imagine throwing a slushie at a pro-choice demonstrator, as much as I would think they are wrong.

So, should we tolerate intolerance? YES, we should! Should we participate in that intolerance> No; certainly not.

About 18 months ago I was at a bar in NYC ... it was late ... I was traveling on business and drinking with a random guy who was also traveling on business ... my recollection is that at some point in the conversation it came up that I was Jewish ... later we started talking about politics ... we were bemoaning the U.S.'s inability to get anything done ... he then mentioned that what the U.S. needed was someone like Hitler ... he wasn't joking ... I lost family in the Holocaust ... what was the right response? ... too bad I didn't have a slushy ...

That was a particularly offensive manner in which she chose to express her views...I don't have any sympathy for her-a slushie does not cause injuries. If someone beat her up that would be different.
People are aghast as to what Sterling said, but as RJ's example shows there are still lot of people with racist views out there...they just don't express them in public.

freeman3 wrote:That was a particularly offensive manner in which she chose to express her views...I don't have any sympathy for her-a slushie does not cause injuries. If someone beat her up that would be different.
People are aghast as to what Sterling said, but as RJ's example shows there are still lot of people with racist views out there...they just don't express them in public.

They express them in public (anonymously) all the time ... look at the comment section on just about any web article involving blacks, Jews, gays, or Muslims, or for that matter whites, males, etc..

I stand corrected--yes, you're right. People nowadays rarely make racist, sexist, homophobic etc. comments publicly that can be traced to them, but that is not true with regard to anonymous comments.

freeman3 wrote:That was a particularly offensive manner in which she chose to express her views...I don't have any sympathy for her-a slushie does not cause injuries. If someone beat her up that would be different.
People are aghast as to what Sterling said, but as RJ's example shows there are still lot of people with racist views out there...they just don't express them in public.

Do I have the same standing to dump a slushie on a Pro-choice demonstrator if they have a sign that offends me?

Well, I don't think you can be the ultimate arbiter of what is offensive...and hopefully, you would exercise restraint because throwing a slushie would be a criminal assault...but if someone took a cheap shot at Jesus Christ in public I see nothing wrong with giving them a piece of your mind...we should not be subjected to offensive speech in public that cannot be ignored like a posting on the internet.

It should never be comfortable for someone to publicly display intolerance.
When the display and promotion of intolerance becomes comfortable ... then it has the potential to grow.

There are many ways to make the public display of intolerance uncomfortable for those committing the display without committing assault or other crime.

rickyp wrote:It should never be comfortable for someone to publicly display intolerance.
When the display and promotion of intolerance becomes comfortable ... then it has the potential to grow.

There are many ways to make the public display of intolerance uncomfortable for those committing the display without committing assault or other crime.

Well said and agreed. It should never be comfortable, but it should be allowed.

The retaliation in the slushie case is wrong. Just as wrong as me pouring a slushie over a pro-choice demonstrator.

I prefer to pray for them and preserve my witness...

(see, I can praise RickyP!)

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman3 wrote:That was a particularly offensive manner in which she chose to express her views...I don't have any sympathy for her-a slushie does not cause injuries. If someone beat her up that would be different.
People are aghast as to what Sterling said, but as RJ's example shows there are still lot of people with racist views out there...they just don't express them in public.

They express them in public (anonymously) all the time ... look at the comment section on just about any web article involving blacks, Jews, gays, or Muslims, or for that matter whites, males, etc..

1. Sterling is an idiot.
2. Sterling did not air his idiotic views "in public." He was secretly recorded. He may even have one point: I think she may have goaded him into revealing his true self so she could embarrass him.