dartagnan wrote:CK
It's as if KG can't express a controversial opinion without being subjected to the bogus claim that he is merely expressing a facet of his own self-loathing.
Why is this your default?
Thanks CK. It looks like more and more people are starting to see this silly rhetoric for what it is, even if Schmo can't. There is nothing intellectual about this. There is no "working hypothesis" in his nonsense. It is just an attempt to dismiss via bigot-baiting, which is what we see all the time with race-baiters as well. This is the default position for most intellectually bankrupt minds.
What I find telling about this discussion is that you've been labeled a bigot, a homophobe, and it has been suggested that you might be a closet homosexual, all for expressing a dissenting opinion.
When GoodK posted his anti-religious comments--"I hate you all," "idiots," "shut up," "sick of it," etc.--I saw no one jump in and state that GoodK was a bigot, a "religiophobe," or that he might be a closet believer himself.
His comments were certainly more pointed, directed, and mean-spirited than anything you've written here.
I tolerate GoodK's rant, though his comments seem quite intolerant themselves. I say I tolerate them, because I disagree with them. In order for toleration to mean anything, it must have as its proper object something which with I disagree--perhaps even strongly. I questioned his comments. But, I never accused him a being a bigot, even though he stated that he "hates" people like myself and
demanded that religionists shut up.
In other words, if GoodK's post had had the farthest-reaching effect he might have hoped for, it would have squelched the speech of those with whom he disagrees ("shut up!"). Yet, I don't believe anyone has really told him that his post demonstrates a desire to curb the speech of others. Certainly, no one has challenged his position or right to express himself by labeling him a bigot.
And, yet, when you expressed a dissenting opinion here (a minority opinion), almost immediately, it seems, forth spring the cries of "bigotry," "intolerance," "homophobe," etc., though your comments were
far less vitriolic. Certainly, Schmo's comments about you have been intolerant--and, moreover, intolerant in the quest to ensure tolerance for homosexuals, which isn't at all at issue. Some folks seem to have a warped view of tolerance: if another's comments agree with theirs, they're fine, even if they're vitriolic, hateful, and plain rude. Tolerance is reserved for those with whom one agrees ideologically. That's, of course, not tolerance at all; that's agreement. Tolerance only comes in when I disagree with something--i.e., when I have to
tolerate something that rubs me the wrong way.
Certain comments in this thread strike me as nothing more than efforts at thought policing.
But, as I'm a tolerant guy, I can deal with it.
Chris