Toribash
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Denigrating something is not an example of tolerance.

"Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with."

Which is exactly what he is doing. I'm sorry Boredpayne but the definition is VERY clear.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
"If what you respectfully disagree with is "being different is okay" then you should be ostracized."

Are you serious? You want to ostracize someone just for having a different opinion even if it's harmless and none of your business...

Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
Are you for real? Anti-heterosexual discrimination? You can't actually believe- oh my god, you're serious.

Affirmative action exists to combat institutionalized racism. It is very easy for mid-20s straight white dudes to ponder "but doesn't that make YOU the real racists?" while ignoring the combined effects of decades of mistreatment of black people at the hands of white people, but that's a separate discussion for a separate thread where you will no doubt be the sole voice of reason advocating for the poor, mistreated not brown folk.

Affirmative action exists to bring under-represented groups up to the level of everyone else, not to abuse other groups in order to bring everyone down or to establish a new privileged class.

Affirmative action is not an excuse for racism against a majority.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne View Post
EDIT: LOL YOU CITE SOUTH AFRICA AS AN EXAMPLE FOR ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION IT WAS LITERALLY RULED AND CONTROLLED BY RACIST WHITE MEN UNTIL THE 1970S

Racism against blacks does not justify racism against whites.


You are being pretty ridiculous. I want a world without any discrimination, not a world where everyone is discriminated against equally. Blacks are not allowed to be racist against whites just because whites are racist against blacks. Whites shouldn't be racist against blacks just because blacks are racist against whites. How is this hard to understand?
No group, be it feminists, LGBT, racial minorities, have the right to abuse others just because they feel an injustice has been caused against them. There is no 'discrimination debt' that needs to be payed off, just don't discriminate.

Originally Posted by siku View Post
lets just close this while it's still in this universe
-----
gorman dumb

shitposting for a change? :/
Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
BP is obviously as far left as far left gets.

British Petroleum? I think I missed a joke here.
Originally Posted by isaac View Post
Since he was directly asked about it, he answered in a polite and honest way, and is tolerant of it. I also think though, it's similar to if he was asked about blacks and replied saying he doesn't like them, but he tolerates them. He isn't actively racist by discriminating against blacks or anything, but he'd anger any viewers that didn't like racists. I think the same applies here. He's not actively discriminating against homosexuals, but he might anger viewers that don't like people that don't like homosexuals. So I think it's somewhat right for him to have been suspended, if they didn't want to anger those viewers.

y'know guys?

Yup, I agree, but;
Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
Well, the same principle would apply for a TV show that had a homosexual cast member. He might anger homophobes by existing. Does a TV show have a right to suspend said cast member for that reason?

I don't think this would ever happen. So is it 'fair' for someone to be suspended for being anti-homosexual, when someone wouldn't have been suspended for being pro-homosexual?

Even if their opinion doesn't impact the show, and is not really controversial, and they are completely reasonable and tolerant about it? This show has 4 seasons, it obviously hasn't impacted his job at all.

EDIT:
George Takei shared this: http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...atures/5188784

Yet another example of LGBT receiving preferential treatment.

#gayprivilege
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Jan 8, 2014 at 05:09 AM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff