Quote:Liberals often say they’re big on tolerance, but apparently tolerance must flow only one way – toward liberals and their favored identity groups. So says MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart.

Appearing as a guest on Monday’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Capehart rebuffed the idea that supporters of Michael Sam, the first openly gay player drafted into the NFL, should have to tolerate the views of those who don’t agree with Sam’s lifestyle. [Video below. MP3 audio here.] Capehart argued:


"[T]olerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It's a one-way street. You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced -- not forced, but not be made to understand that what you're saying and what you're doing is wrong."


That’s the perfect encapsulation of liberalism – they will make you to understand that you are wrong and they are right. You will tolerate whoever they like, but as for you – tough luck. If you don’t share their “tolerant” beliefs, they will not tolerate you. Tolerance, in its true classical definition, is intolerable. Real "tolerance" according to Capehart, looks more like a posture of unquestioning acceptance and a self-imposed gag rule whereby social conservatives dare not say anything remotely critical of homosexuality.

But Capehart was surely surprised to find himself locked in a rare argument on The Last Word. That’s because the other guest, New York Times sports columnist William Rhoden, departed from MSNBC orthodoxy with a call for two-way tolerance. The typically liberal sportswriter offered:


"I think that to deal with things openly there has to be an open back-and-forth dialogue. Tolerance can't just work one way. You can't just be one way, that anybody who speaks out... this cannot turn into a Gestapo-type situation where if you express discomfort with something, then you're cast as a homophobe and you're fined by the league. I think that there has to be a back-and-forth."

(05-14-2014 07:21 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This type of rhetoric only exacerbates the problem and I believe that these people actually intend to incite the race and gay acceptance divide. If open racism and anti-gay activity escalates, they gain power and status. These people are really the bottom feeders of society.

(05-14-2014 06:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  The left love to argue that the Socialists of Germany were some weird right-wing ideologues, but there is no doubt the Fascists today are liberals. And the Gaystapo are living up to their namesake.

(05-14-2014 07:35 AM)AngryAphid Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 07:21 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  This type of rhetoric only exacerbates the problem and I believe that these people actually intend to incite the race and gay acceptance divide. If open racism and anti-gay activity escalates, they gain power and status. These people are really the bottom feeders of society.

True…in the pursuit of power, that which is fair or true is often discarded.

in the cases of race and sexual deviant lifestyles the divide acts
as both the fuel and the fire for those that seek control.