WARNING: Intolerance in Threads - Page 5

I don't see how I misinterpreted it, people see Bush as quite right wing and (generally as a slur) call him a neo-con as others have mentioned here, while as the definition you linked to, neo-conservatives are former liberals and centrists who see themselves as conservatives.

as far as
neo-con is used in many countries towards right wing figures who are not covered under the first definition and not necessarily for the same reasons as the US. I wish political sites would remember there is a world outside the US at times

My point was that while someone could mean something quite innocent by a remark - it could be read in separate ways and depending on your views and the exact same words could be misinterpreted leading the thread in a different way depending on those who reply

The same goes when a moderator has to make a decision on the thread, your personal views, just like your religious education, mean you think in a certain way and may read something differently than a person meant it. You may have a completely different take on a post compared to say Yosemite and Abbysmom - which is why there is a moderating team I would assume.

I guess I just proved my own point - things never seem to come out as they are meant to another person who is involved in the 'label' being talked about

It does happen, and that's why we discuss things together because sometimes one of us can see things from a different angle.

That was what I meant
(edit - but sometimes it would still be hard to know exactly what was meant by the poster as their view could change even day to day)

Still if we all stayed away from labels (like fundamental, neo-con, tree hugging liberal etc) people may get what we all actually mean and there would be less confusion leading to people thinking others are intolerant when the remark was an innocent one to begin with - and the really intolerant ones would be more apparent.

But what would the world be without labels

That's one of the reasons why i never do politics or religion because it causes so many problems in the world.

I think you should research that a little more before you question my usage, as the context is "U.S. politics", and, as a U.S. citizen and voter, I use it in a context that you, as a "resident alien" in Canada, may not understand.

My husband (born and raised in Germany) and I (born and raised in the U.S., but a German resident for over half my life) have been arguing for weeks over my objections to a certain German phrase currently being used in local political campaigns. He doesn't find it objectionable, but I do, as I'm not a citizen of this country, nor can I vote. He grew up in a rather homogenetic environment, while I didn't.

The context I mentioned it in was Canadian politics - my point over the last few posts was things can mean different things to different people. I am not questioning your usage, but pointing out that I do not misinterpret the word, but have a different usage of the word, just as you do.

My original response about neo-conservatism was agreeing that it generally is used as a slur and so have become unnacceptable in political circles here.

So...I don't mean to sound confused - but I am. Is the upshot of this thread that we shouldn't use labels to denote a group of people with a certain political association? Or perhaps we should avoid mentioning religious groups in the concern that too many people are included under the label?

I can't answer that one.... I lost track pages ago.... I think if you have a strong opinion, you might wanna keep it to yourself.

I'm appalled and offended that you would suggest that anybody should keep their opinions to themselves!

Obviously we need descriptive phrases and terms. However, in order for them to have meaning everyone needs to know the definition. I think when using something that we know may be controversial we should explain how we are using the word. I have quoted MW online in my posts when using a term I know people are going to find derogatory but I am using the literal meaning.

I was a participant in the thread that actually got pulled. I am sure my last post was part of what put that thread over the top. (BTW I really like the person I was replying to even while disagreeing with their viewpoint on this issue). I thought about what I wrote, and wrote it with purpose.

Sometimes people get fanatic about an issue.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fanatic
Fanatic: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>

When I run across this I really want to try and open eyes to the possibility that there are other interpretations. I want them to actually look at what they are debating about with a critical eye to their own viewpoint. It doesn't mean I want to change that person's opinion, but just that they need to be more cognizant of others and how they may react to what they are saying. When trying to "open someone's eyes" often a very blunt statement is needed. That is just what I did in my final post to the thread that got pulled.

As another example, my former thread about the religious sign I felt was offensive because it was claiming me as being lorded over. It is a small thing but significant IMO for many reasons, only one of which is that it shows lack of respect for others.

I tried to make my post as open and all inclusive as possible. Of course those of the religion that was the same as the sign said it was not offensive and no one should be bothered by it. The thread then went off to be one similar to the one that just got pulled. I am sure it is one people in this thread are referring to as "Christian bashing". That was not the purpose or intent at all, but no amount of my explaining could get through and I just quite posting.

I wish I had actually made up a fake sign and instead asked: Would anyone be offended by the following sign, they are popping up in my area

Satan rules over "your town's name here".

I am sure the response to my thread would have been much different. Maybe then my point about being considerate of others feelings in the general population might have been understood.

Bottom line there is no way to please all people all the time, especially when discussing controversial things. However it is possible to not be purposefully hateful and demeaning to others when expressing oneself. The thread that got pulled crossed WAY over the line on the purposefully hateful and demeaning issue.

This was well said, thank you for expressing this. I hope that what I had to say was thought provoking for us all, in a good way. That is how it was intended.

When I was in my 20s, I was a feminist, liberal, democrat, free spirit, new age, active poet, hot tempered at time, half sicilian
How many folks would guess that given the labels I "think" they may now apply to me? (okay, so you all know I am proud to be half Italian)

I just want us all to appreciate the uniquess of each other, that each has had an interesting journey, that we all do tend to be like an onion, with lots of layers.

If someone now were to simply say "Oh she doesn't like Hilary Clinton", it sure wouldn't encompass more than a corner of a toe nail of who, or why, I am.

Well I am glad to see I don't have to apply that term = neo-con to myself -not given the meriam webster definition you listed.

I was uncomfortable when you used it in that message. I have, perhaps *very* inaccurately, come to have a sense of your opinions of Bush and other political topics. I can disagree/not understand and yet still enjoy all the other messages by you here, what you share and give, what I learn from you.

As I said, I'm less than perfect, but I have gotten so tired of labels, tired of political correctness, and decided to say so in this thread on tolerance.
Sometimes incorrectly, I can be extremely sensitive to how words are used, and that can be dangerous since "tone" is hard to "hear" in a typed message.

Btw, the article you linked to just seems like some alternate universe to me..there are things written as fact that I know I would not be alone in saying isn't accepted as fact by many.

I am sorry if you felt I cast aspersions, if your comment referred to my including neocon as one of the labels I wish we could all leave off when describing others. I just see it more often used in a way that is divisive than descriptive.

Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say.

Obviously, my definition of a neocon differs from yours, if you thought I was referring to one of your posts, as I wasn't. Sorry. I tend to research definitions of certain terms, because of my job, and to be a bit picky about how I use them, but am certainly "guilty" of using them to express personal opinions, as I'm certainly no fan of the current U.S. administration.

This forum was conceived as a place to discuss controversial issues, so there will certainly be a lot of disputes and misunderstandings. It's in no way possible to prohibit "labels", as they are way too subjective. Participants should ask what a poster really means when he/she uses labels, rather than overreacting. They should also avoid sweeping statements like "All homosexuals will burn in hell" or "We should deport all Muslims, as they're all radicals". In other words, posters should practice a little bit of commonsense, and not simply try to agitate, as some sadly do.

Agreed. Fwiw, I tend to stay out of IMO and this is the longest time I've spent in such a thread, because I realized how important it was to me to try and discuss it. It's important how we treat each other, and this is(TCS), to me, a special place.