Chik-Fil-A and tolerance

[Ukrainia]

I agree that some specific media outlets are slanted, and you provide a good example. But, I don't agree that there is some overwhelming bias in the media as a whole, which is what the phrase "liberal media" generally implies.

I actually disagree with this. I think their are some jobs that do attract certain people of one political persausion over another. Academia, for instance, is very liberal (while on the other hand, those in business lean conservative). This, I don't think can be disputed. Yet their are plenty of conservatives which go to college - a much greater percentage than there are conservative professors or colleges I would assume. I think the journalism profession does lean liberal as well. Without going in depth into the reasons, it probably has to do with personality type - potential journalists may be more eager to explore new insights, and dare to be iconoclastic than the general population, which may mean they lean liberal. It may also have to do that most important, widely read media is based in big cities - after all, that's where all the action is happening - and people in big cities are more liberal than elsewhere. I will say, that if all media is included - not just the traditional televised and print media - the gap is narrowing. For whatever reason, talk radio is primarily conservative. And the internet is a huge leveler of the playing field. Anyone with a thought can provide their own insight - they don't have to be a professional journalist. That said, I do think the liberal media bias is real. I agree that the free market will have a correcting affect, especially in the internet age, but I do think that journalism attracts more liberals than conservatives overall.

 

[Ukrainia]

You need to think about this argument a little more. Beliefs, when held by enough people, can be terribly damaging. I would say "see: recorded history" but I'll be more specific and point to the tremendous resistance to the Civil Rights Movement.

This is of course true. But what are the mechanisms you would feel comfortable using in order to keep the beliefs you feel are the best ones having the most strength in the public sphere, and how far would you be willing to go to prevent the beliefs you dislike?

Let’s take the civil rights example. We do have laws that allow for races and genders to be treated equally. But we do not have laws that would prevent a racist or a misogamist from starting their own business (of course their business would have to adhere to certain antidiscrimination rules, but such a person could still start a business). The government has, I think, reasonably decided to limit their ability to punish those who hold such beliefs to certain actions that are caused by those beliefs, and simply starting a business has never been one of those. That doesn’t limit the possibility of punishment by the free choice of the populace however. If an outspoken racist does start a business, anyone who wants to can speak with their pocket books. I find this a reasonable set up. It gives the government power only over actions, not beliefs and still allows for the populace to further show public disapproval through their pocket books.

Would you really like to grant the government extended power to punish people for their beliefs? The greater the extent that's allowed, the smaller the sphere of rational argument to change minds. I've read about such societies. I hear nothing but great things about them from masochists.

 

[acropolis]

Darn that first amendment

You're free to spew hateful garbage and I'm free to call you hateful for doing so. Doesn't it just drive you nuts that you're on the wrong side of the curve in all this? That homosexuals are becoming more and more accepted? First those darned progressives gave women the vote and now this; at this rate there won't be any groups of people left to categorically despise and what a tragedy that will be.

This is of course true. But what are the mechanisms you would feel comfortable using in order to keep the beliefs you feel are the best ones having the most strength in the public sphere, and how far would you be willing to go to prevent the beliefs you dislike?

Let’s take the civil rights example. We do have laws that allow for races and genders to be treated equally. But we do not have laws that would prevent a racist or a misogamist from starting their own business (of course their business would have to adhere to certain antidiscrimination rules, but such a person could still start a business). The government has, I think, reasonably decided to limit their ability to punish those who hold such beliefs to certain actions that are caused by those beliefs, and simply starting a business has never been one of those. That doesn’t limit the possibility of punishment by the free choice of the populace however. If an outspoken racist does start a business, anyone who wants to can speak with their pocket books. I find this a reasonable set up. It gives the government power only over actions, not beliefs and still allows for the populace to further show public disapproval through their pocket books.

Would you really like to grant the government extended power to punish people for their beliefs? The greater the extent that's allowed, the smaller the sphere of rational argument to change minds. I've read about such societies. I hear nothing but great things about them from masochists.

The point I was making was that beliefs do matter and that it is important to oppose hateful and bigoted beliefs wherever they appear. If it's a business then a good way to oppose them is to stop buying their products (if feasible) and to aggressively publicize their actions so many others can do the same.

 

[abysmul]

The point I was making was that beliefs do matter and that it is important to oppose hateful and bigoted beliefs wherever they appear. If it's a business then a good way to oppose them is to stop buying their products (if feasible) and to aggressively publicize their actions so many others can do the same.

Why not stop buying gasoline? For most of mankind's existence, gasoline was never used. Now we even have electric and alternative fuel vehicles, our own 2 feet, bicycles, etc. Why not protest and boycott gas stations? Why are people not calling for them to no longer be allowed in their cities? After all, OPEC member nations execute homosexuals.

 

[RedPaddy]

.... First those darned progressives gave women the vote ....

Your post would be more accurate if you would replace "progressives" with "Republicans".

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen....

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

 

[acropolis]

Your post would be more accurate if you would replace "progressives" with "Republicans".

Republicans used to be highly progressive, now they aren't.

 

[acropolis]

Why not stop buying gasoline? For most of mankind's existence, gasoline was never used. Now we even have electric and alternative fuel vehicles, our own 2 feet, bicycles, etc. Why not protest and boycott gas stations? Why are people not calling for them to no longer be allowed in their cities? After all, OPEC member nations execute homosexuals.

Oil is the exact reason why I included the 'if feasible' part of my post. Some products are impossible to avoid for most people. In that case it requires other means to oppose them. I would love for OPEC nations to lose out on their profits because of their socially regressive policies, but the majority of people don't have the option to avoid buying gasoline... yet. We're still working on that. (In my case literally, since my job is developing and optimizing new materials for use in alternative energy sources.)

 

[abysmul]

Oil is the exact reason why I included the 'if feasible' part of my post. Some products are impossible to avoid for most people. In that case it requires other means to oppose them. I would love for OPEC nations to lose out on their profits because of their socially regressive policies, but the majority of people don't have the option to avoid buying gasoline... yet. We're still working on that. (In my case literally, since my job is developing and optimizing new materials for use in alternative energy sources.)

So you'll only express your outrage over the Chick-Fil-A owner's personal opinion because it's easy for you.... but it's just too difficult to to equally protest the OPEC nations that actually execute homosexuals?

To me, honestly, most of the Chick-Fil-a hubub sounds like faux outrage/cause celebre.

 

[Rion]

Chicago Phoenix - The Civil Rights Agenda files complaints against Chick-fil-A

 

[dies-l]

Out of curiosity: is there any evidence that CFA has done anything anti-gay other than voicing an opinion about SSM and making donations to conservative Christian organizations?

 

[cow451]

Chicago Phoenix - The Civil Rights Agenda files complaints against Chick-fil-A

The Chicks ought to be the ones complaining.

 

[RedDead1981]

I'm not keen on their position. But so long as all they did was voice an opinion and make some donations, I'm not concerned. And I think it's completely wrong to try to bar them from opening new stores in various areas.

I might boycott them, but the nearest one is about 100 miles away so there's little chance I would have eaten there to begin with.

 

[RedDead1981]

The Chicks ought to be the ones complaining.

 

[abysmul]

Out of curiosity: is there any evidence that CFA has done anything anti-gay other than voicing an opinion about SSM and making donations to conservative Christian organizations?

From what I see, it doesn't matter if there are facts or evidence to a sizable amount of people. Make a claim, point a finger, run with it. It's part of the sad state of American politics (and covers far more than the Chick-Fil-a hubub).

The US Senate majority leader recently made an unsubstantiated claim about a US citizen, that seems to paint the individual as a felon. The news runs with it, and many citizens view it as fact.

It's sad when anyone does things like that.

 

[dies-l]

From what I see, it doesn't matter if there are facts or evidence to a sizable amount of people. Make a claim, point a finger, run with it. It's part of the sad state of American politics (and covers far more than the Chick-Fil-a hubub).

The US Senate majority leader recently made an unsubstantiated claim about a US citizen, that seems to paint the individual as a felon. The news runs with it, and many citizens view it as fact.

It's sad when anyone does things like that.

And, sadly, it happens both ways.

 

[abysmul]

And, sadly, it happens both ways.

It does indeed happen both ways.

 

[Rion]

Chick-fil-A 'kiss' day marred by 'Tastes like hate' graffiti - latimes.com

 

[RedDead1981]

Ugh. What a bunch of idiots.

 

[MachZer0]

Chick-fil-A 'kiss' day marred by 'Tastes like hate' graffiti - latimes.com

Another example of the intolerance of intolerance?

 

[cow451]

Ugh. What a bunch of idiots.

It's time for everybody to go home and grill a nice steak. This overblown "controversy" has reached shark-jumping status.