WARNING: Intolerance in Threads - Page 4

Having been previously active in this forum, I think the biggest explanation for why we find it "ok" to "bash" certain groups (i.e. openly criticize them) is because these group are groups of power and privilege. I think men and Christians. are the best example of this...and in my own personal life, I also see white people and straight people openly criticized in this manner. These groups are the prominent and readily accepted status quo, the modern monarchs of society, if you will. It's a natural pattern of the human experience to want to question the existing authorities, so that's why I think a lot of people find it ok to criticize these groups, while it's often found offensive to criticize those on the fringe, especially if you're a member of the group "in power". It's viewed as keeping the peasants down, while if those on the fringe criticize you, it's seen as their attempt to gain equal ground.

Excellent description of what happens. Doesn't make it okay, but it makes sense.

Great post. Good thread, good to clear the air.

Slightly off topic, but neo-con is not considered an acceptable term here and I know of someone personally who had a lot of apologising to do when he used the term in the media

I've watched the comments go round and round and round in circles.

Some folks are going to interpret things said/written differently than other folks - that's human nature. Heck, even my hubby and I can listen to the same conversation and afterwards realize we both heard a different message.

I think the whole purpose of this thread has been completely lost and gone off-track. It is my humble opinion that we all need to stop bashing anyone/any religion/any thing. We all need to be more accepting of differences between us. I don't and won't hate Germans just because my father fought against Germany in WWII and I think that a lot, if not most, of our biases and prejudices come from being passed down from generation to generation and we often blindly and ignorantly carry on these biases. We need to grow and change and be educated so that our world can become a better place instead of a place where we regurgitate the past and carry the bigotry into our future.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could respect all peoples. I'm not saying we shouldn't feel anger at murderer or abuser, I just don't think that if that murderer or abuser were a particular color or creed that we paint that whole color or creed with the same brush which we seem to have a habit of doing. I have found myself as guilty of doing it as others do but after reading this thread I am promising myself to try to be a better person.

Are you sure? I am almost positive I have heard Mods here use that term quite a bit.

all Neo-con means is "new conservative" there's no reason why it would be unacceptable.

ETA: here's a link describing a neo-cons political beliefs
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

Are some of you suggesting that what was deleted was okay because some other people say things you don't like about your particular flavor of religion?

Heidi's point about the difference between what people who self-identify as fundamentalist Christian mean by the word, and what everyone else means by the word, seems to have been lost. There is a valid difference, and a real one. Understanding that could stop what is basically an argument about what the word meant, which the OP clarified pretty well.

To tell you the truth I don't even know what was deleted, I was talking about what (as of yesterday) hadn't been deleted. Maybe it has been deleted by now, I really don't know.

The neo con deal doesn't really bother me in the least.

Sorry, I am rambling, I am preoccupied today, alot of very very stressful stuff going on in real life right now, I think I am losing it.

IMHO - the stronger your personal beliefs, the more likely you will be offended when hearing contradictory beliefs. I'm not saying that everyone does this, it is simply more likely that you will take offense. Your personal beliefs define you as a human being.

I've heard the term "neo-con" tossed around with a hint of being offensive. I used to get very riled when someone used the term "liberal". It always seemed to be typed with a sneer from the poster. That was my interpretation, and not always based in fact. I took offense because those were my beliefs. I've gotten over it.

Wow...I never bothered to find out what being a "neo-conservative" means, I also didn't know how far back their roots went. I'm all for having a strong military but that goes a little too far, IMO. The article stated that "some even speak of the need to cultivate a U.S. Empire." The last "empire" was the Ottoman Empire, if I remember correctly that died out not long after World War I. You can be firm in your foreign relations but you can get much more accomplished with the pen than with the sword.

When used in the correct context, I don't see how it can be offensive. I've never used it before but I can see how someone can be offended by it when the term is used incorrectly.

Thanks for posting that link, Katie.

I do think that people use terms without necessarily knowing the "real" meaning. For instance, people use Neo-Con to describe Bush and anyone who supports him, and like Amy said with "liberal" the offense is taken when it appears that there is a sneer implied in the writing of the word. For a while, Amy's interpretation would have been right on the money, but the word has evolved. It doesn't mean "radical" (like "neo-con" has), but is just a description.

It's actually the same with "Fundamendalist" in any religion. It used to/traditionally has meant to believe as literal truth, whether referring to the Torah, Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, whatever. Now it has taken on the meaning of "radical" religious beliefs or even cult. Don't blame me for it - blame the media for using the term "Fundamentalist Islam" to describe the terrorists' religious beliefs.

My Father fought the Germans in WWII and he ALWAYS spoke VERY higly of the German Army, always. They even had a mutual cease fire at Christmas, and they used to yell over stuff between the two sides while in the fox holes and not fighting. Sorry, a little off topic there.

Wow the original neocons were liberal democrats, what a surprise.

I like the very pro-Israel stance and pro-military. That is my biggest problem with the Dems, I feel they are not concerned enough with our national defense. Guess I am pretty much a Neo-Con except for a few things.
Hoo-Rah

the term neo-conservative as a discriptive term is not, but when used to describe a group of people, like Bush, or in the case of the person I know, the Federal Conservative government, it appears as if there is a sneer when it is said (or written) and so it is unacceptable in political circles. However the term is widely used in political studies in its true form.

Liberal as a term can have the same problem, although I think not to the same extent as neo-con as people talk about the liberal media etc and more people are aware that there is more than one meaning to it.

Regardless - try saying that someone is a neo-con in political circles, or in the media when you are involved in politics and watch the backlash.

I'm not sure that the term liberal evolved, but rather, people called liberals started to gain power and became proud of that label. Being liberal was no longer an issue once the dems regained control of the house and senate. Neo-con has simply replaced liberal as the word to jab people with. I can see the pendulum swinging the other way once the government turns over again.

Kind of my simple little point. I always wonder why someone feels the need to add so many descriptives, and when in a thread on politics for instance, I "imagine" it's not complimentary. My bad, I could well be wrong.

I recently read "neo-con" used here, and it had to do with why someone was not in a party..perhaps I mis-understood.

Heavens knows I pop in and out of here pretty fast since I'm usually trying (unsucessfully) to do at least 3 things if not 4, at the same time

Very welcome, Bryan! I found it interesting as well

As far as describing political views, I find the term "tree-hugging, bleeding heart liberal" to be a bit derogatory, and I've seen that plenty of times but I'm still proud to be one!

Not to try to revive that dead horse again , but did anyone stop to consider that when Sarah, in posting her (now) infamous quote, that she really and honestly did not know that all Fundamentalist Christians weren't like that? That the Westborough Baptist Church is a rogue organization with completely different ideals than what is deemed acceptable? I'll admit when I think of a fundamentalist I used to envision picketing and the like, but thanks to the thread in question I have been educated that most Christians do not want to have anything to do with them, and I think that is what everyone here is trying to achieve in one fashion or another, to eduate someone in what, as they believe it, is the truth. Sometimes from intolerance can spring tolerance if you are only willing to listen (or read as the case may be) with an open mind. Now, I'm not going to run out and adopt Christianity, but I did change my viewpoint in this particular instance.

This world is not black and white, but many many shades of gray and if you're not willing to open your eyes and take a peek beyond your personal beliefs, you will never see them.

At the risk of going off topic a little more I wanted to expand on this. There was a certain level of respect between the American and German armies. The late historian and author Stephen Ambrose said this was because the American GI identified most closely with the average German soldier than any other nationality in Europe. This respect ended when it came to SS, they were treated with nothing less than contempt, sometimes to the point of NOT taking any surrenders.

Anyway, to get back on topic....

Well said. As with most things education is the key. Radical is a better way to refer to Westborough Baptist Church than "fundamentalist" in my opinion. They can express their belief all they want but I don't believe they have any right to express that belief during a solemn event like a funeral. Especially when the person being buried has nothing to do with what they are protesting, such as the case with soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

True, indeed.

Very nicely said.

I was using the term as it is used in everyday blogs/ conversations/forums. It's not used as a flattering term. Now there may well be folks who like it being applied to themselves, along with left wing or liberal or..etc.

I am making the point that I personally, think it is a mistake to continue to use such phrases in such ways, instead of simply stating what you think, why you think it. , i.e. "I heard the neo-cons think such and such and I would never..." doesn't really explain a thing to me.

Please tell me when you've seen someone on this forum use "neo-con" in a complimentary manner? I've not seen it.

I have come to realize I would have greatly enjoyed taking comparative religion courses in college, unfortunately, way to late to have done so.

I've found myself very interested in the past in the BaHa'i faith, Judaism, Paganism and more. Like different languages, each religion provides a different filter for how one sees/hears/interprets the world.

First, I want the thank the mods for taking on, what can be, the thankless task of moderating IMO.

Also, when I hear the term "fundamentalist" I think "extreme" as in cult, Westboro, David Koresh, fundamentalist Mormon sects (recently in the news). Evidently, is not the literal term. I was raised Pentacostal, Assembly of God, etc - I believe those would be considered pretty much fundamentalist since the bible is the final word. Yet, I know of no one that refers to themselves as fundamentalist.

When I saw Sarah's post, I envisioned someone like Westboro - not the average christian.

To those who posted about the inequality of power, thank you. You all said it so much better than I ever could

LOL...it really ISN'T thankless, after all, there are LOTS of TCSers that thank the mods for their work over and over again - like you just did yourself!

I'm starting to get lost following this thread. Are LABELS intolerant in and of themselves, or is it the individual who uses them the intolerant one?

Finally! Thank you! Just one comment from the only outspoken Muslim here...

PLEASE

1. Do not TAR all Muslims with the same brush.
2. Do respect the difference between RELIGION and CULTURE...there IS a HUGE difference between the two.

And that's all I'm going to say!

Labels, in and of themselves, are not intolerant, as long as the person is self-labeling.

Take me, for example. I am: feminist, liberal, spiritual, lesbian, white, activist, working class.

I picked those terms; I have their definitions - as they apply to me - clear in my head, and I am able to explain what those labels mean to me. When I use them, I'm certainly not being intolerant. I am describing myself, my beliefs, my place in the world. Labels are helpful for doing that.

When labeling someone else, it certainly gets trickier. If you're using a label that they wouldn't necessarily give themselves, if your own personal definition is different from theirs, or if you are using a label in an intentionally derogatory manner, you run the risk of offending someone and being accused (rightly or wrongly) of being intolerant.

When "labeling" (which some people are uncomfortable with all together) someone, it helps if you have common definitions and are approaching it for the sake of conversation, ease of discussion, convenience, etc. and not from the angle of creating antagonism.

I think the real key is communication. When you use a potentially politically (or otherwise) charged word to describe someone else, or a group of someone elses, it might be helpful to clarify your understanding of that term right away... or to do so when someone challenges you, in the spirit of debate, communication, and respect.

And it's very much appreciated by us, so thank you

The only time I see it is as a slur on right wing conservatives (which is amusing since new conservatives are generally more centrist than the true blues of the older (timeline not age-wise here) conservatives)

The thing is, you have just said yourself that you label yourself as a lesbian, but with a slur attached to it from someone else who is known to be homophobic or religious to the extent that they do not believe in same sex marriage, the exact same wording could be seen as intolerant, but a poster or a moderator.

For instance I could take

to mean that you are a crazy left wing lesbian (with a slur in my mind on the lesbian)

OR

that you are confident with your sexuality and politically aware.

The same line could mean 5 different things to 5 different people, but it is one person reporting, or one or more moderators making a decision that need to decide how it was meant - and without being the person who said it, I do not think they can make that decision.

I used it in this thread: http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=11
and I go by this "standard" definition (#2): http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/neoconservative
and articles such as this one from Foreign Policy Review: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/l...opup_delayed=1
A search at that site using "Perle" will give you further insight into the real meaning of the term, which you may have misinterpreted.

But what can you do if people, for whatever reasons, choose to cast aspersions on others who actually use "neocon" not as a synonym for any conservatives (seeing as there is a difference, which Denice explained so well in this post: http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=32), but to describe a particular political philosophy?

You'd think that we just arbitrarily remove threads for the sheer joy of it by this assessment.

When we say that we have pulled a thread for review, we mean just that. Most likely the reason it was pulled was because of reports on the thread, many time multiple reports. Then it is actually reviewed by all eyes of the moderating team, which means at least 12. Many times the 2 administrators and 1 owner will also look at a particularly difficult thread. So in addition to the members who have reported it, you also have up to 15 people who either see the reason for the complaint or not, and if the thread can/should be edited and returned or just removed. There is almost always a consensus within the team if a thread is pulled and not returned. If there is room for differences in interpretation (i.e. the Fundamentalist comment discussed to death here), the thread stays and is allowed to run its course unless it gets too heated and flames start erupting.

Whether a thread or post is removed or stays, if it is complying with the Rules of the forum, is not a matter of each of our personal judgment. Trust me, every one of us has been personally offended at one time or another by something that was said and was allowed to stay up. I know I have been. And I learned to sit on my hands, rant to my husband or just walk away until I could address the areas I disagreed with intelligently, and without attacking the person just the argument.

Debating is an artform, which has unfortunately been lost by most of society. Look at what we call "Debates" in the primaries and presidential campaigns. That's mostly mudslinging, not debating. In a public forum like this one, everyone has to remember the "audience" of the posts - which could be any member of the group you are talking about. Think about it - would you say "x" to someone's face who is a(n) "x"? If not, don't post it.