Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Disagreement vs. hate

Comments

Return To Article
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 21, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    To "mark" explain what modern liberalism means. I know what classical liberalism is, and that is almost exactly what Conservatives believe.

    I am only going off of the statements and actions of liberals. Since liberals are always looking for ways to use government to force others to do waht they think is good, tell us where they are fighting for personal responsibility and less government.

  • Mormon Book Worm ----------, UT
    April 20, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    Has the government heard of freedom of speech? I don't think so. We should be able to state our opinions without losing our jobs.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    Redshirt, it is clear you don't understand what liberalism means. What you are saying is as silly as if I said all conservatives are like Timothy McVeigh, or Cliven Bundy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    To "mark" actually they are not, if you read the words of the prophets and other LDS leaders. The main area where liberalism and LDS doctrine are at odds are where liberalism wants to force people to be good. Liberalism will force you to care for your neighbor. It will allow able bodied people to do sit around and be cared for by the workers. Liberalism, when it includes socialism has historically always lead to the government murdering people. The LDS church frowns on people that murder others.

    Joseph Smith said Socialism is wrong, so if you believe in that, you are already going down a path that is contrary to the LDS doctrine.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 18, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    Bob K....
    What bothers me with your comment about Prop 8 is that you focus only on what the LDS church did...

    The catholic put more money and people into Prop 8 than the LDS church ever did. The Baptist also had a lot of people pushes for this prop to pass...

    But yet, the LDS church is the only church vilified for supporting Prop 8... Why? could it be because of Prejudice, Hate, bigotry?

    Please explain why you focus only on this one church...

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Redshirt, that's the most inaccurate thing you have ever said here (and that's saying a lot). Open minded mormon's liberal views are in no way incompatible with LDS doctrine. To claim otherwise shows a deep misunderstanding of Mormon doctrine. In fact, if you want to get right down to it, his/her liberal doctrines are FAR closer to the LDS Church founder's, Joseph Smith's, then conservative believes.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 18, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" if you have such horrible experiences doesn't that meant hat maybe your political views could be contrary to the LDS doctrine?

    What you describe is similar to what an excommunicated neighbor is going through.

    Maybe you should look closer at the doctrine and teachings of the Prophets that lead the church you claim membership in. If you do, and do so with an open mind, you may find that much of your liberal ideals are contrary to LDS doctrine.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 18, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    Try going to church as a Liberal, non-Republican Mormon, in Utah.

    And my horrible experiences are just a tip of the ice berg others must experience -- daily.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 17, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    Geez, LDS Liberal and I actually agree on something. Walmart bad, and for the same reasons. I too don't want to fund the Chinese Military so I don't shop at Walmart.

    That said, the left and their minions are trying to paint any disagreement with them as hate, bigotry, homophobia, racism, stupidity, rashness, etc. It's basically to shut up concervatives from having a voice.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    April 17, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. The only thing we need to agree on is to agree to disagree.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 17, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    To "Bob K" you sound like you have an axe to grind. Prop 8 was not a manipulation of any church. Prop 8 was a voter referrendum that reflected the Constitutional right of the people. You may not agree with it, but it is the will of the people.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 17, 2014 1:22 a.m.

    RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    "To "LDS Liberal" actually, there are differences between the CEO of Mozilla and the Dixie Chicks. First, Mozilla in their public statement said that they operate in an enviroment of inclusiveness and diversity. If they are inclusive and like diversity, why pressure him to quit because he made a statement that they don't agree with? The other difference is why wait 6 years to bring this up?"

    --- It is a lie, a fabrication, a distortion, or whatever word is strong enough, when the right keeps turning "supported a campaign to de-legitimize our love and does not retract having done so" into "disagrees with".

    You also ignore that Prop 8 is considered a dishonest manipulation by the catholic church and Utah-based mormons which caused California parents to have unfounded fears.

    One does not "disagree" with someone who came into your home and violated it.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 16, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" actually, there are differences between the CEO of Mozilla and the Dixie Chicks. First, Mozilla in their public statement said that they operate in an enviroment of inclusiveness and diversity. If they are inclusive and like diversity, why pressure him to quit because he made a statement that they don't agree with? The other difference is why wait 6 years to bring this up?

    The Dixie Chicks were making their statements loud and in public for all to hear. They received instant feedback.

    The Board of Directors can do what they want, but don't you think it is rather odd that they waited 6 years to say anything?

    The attacks on Mozilla were also instigated by the "tolerant" people on the left. If they are so "tolerant", why go on the war path like that?

    I don't think you understand hypocrisy very well. If it is wrong to let the Dixie Chicks end their career because of a statement, why is it ok to allow anybody who supported Prop 8 to receive the same treatment? Your massive double standard will kill this nation.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 16, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU
    Andoria, UT

    what the CEO of Mozilla forgot is that his ability to market their Company was not based only on his product. His persona off stage also mattered.

    He market to mainly liberals and Democrats. So, he insulted the LBGT he made customers. If their customers don't want to buy Mozilla products, that is not the fault of the customers, but of the CEO of Mozilla.

    There are consequences to your actions. The CEO of Mozilla cost or destroyed much of the company with his actions.

    So -- the Board of Directors asked for his resignation before he was fired for it.

    I thought you wanted Government out of it,
    let the free markets decide yah-da-ya-da....

    Your waffling and hypocritical double standard is killing me.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 16, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    I think the main point of this article is what opinion is OK to have when people or policies are criticized. On that point we now have the President of the United States, and the Attorney General of the United States both implying that criticism of them is akin to racism. Is that over the line? If yes, then the fish is rotting from the head first. If not then let the hate filled comments continue, because I don't see where it will stop.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    April 16, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil" what the Dixie Chicks forgot is that their ability to market themselves was not based only on their music. Their persona off stage also mattered.

    They played music that was listened to mainly by conservatives and Republicans. So, when they insulted Bush they made their fans mad. If their fans don't want to buy Dixie Chick albums or listen to them on the radio, that is not the fault of the fans, but of the Dixie Chicks.

    There are consequences to your actions. The Dixie Chicks destroyed their careers with theirs.

    If you don't MTV to get your money, then why are you still paying for Cable or Satelite TV? You do realize that there are easier ways to get virtually the same programming.

    To "RanchHand" your rant shows how tyrants come into power. You show great tolerance for those opinions you agree with. However, once somebody disagrees with you, you want to destroy them and will support anybody who will destroy the dissenters.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 16, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    My brother gave my daughter a copy of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." She has watched it about 50 times, which has not been good for my sanity.

    On the other hand, her new favorite phrase is "Be excellent to each other."

    We need a little more of that.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    April 16, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    The Dixie Chicks were 100% right. They had every right to say the things they said about the wars going on over there. They are still going on. Obama hasn't started any new ones yet but he's keeping the old ones going.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 16, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @ Irony Guy
    Is OK not to support DCs or boycott (not buy) their records if you don't like what they do and say. They can still make music and perform for their fans. Its not OK to get someone fired because they exercise their constitutional right to support a cause they believe in. Getting someone fired for something unrelated to their job is a hate crime just as much as getting some fired from their job for being gay or supporting SSM. Its wrong no matter what side you support.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 16, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    It's OK to boycott the Dixie Chicks because they are wrong and awful. But it's not OK to boycott Mr. Eich because he is right and virtuous.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    April 16, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    I agree with the opinion voiced in this article.
    It must be hard to be a hypocrite. And it is sad to see the childish logic hypocrites use to justify their hypocritical positions. (they did it first, I think you are a bigot so its OK for me to be one too, you disagree with me so you must hate me therefore I hate you).

    It is really hard to take people serious when they discriminate, harm and demonstrate bias and bigotry then justify their actions claiming they are doing it because the person they target for their hatred is supposedly a bigot for having an opinion or supporting a cause they feel is right. This tactic doesn't change peoples minds it just reinforces hatred.

    You don't need to support or associate with people you disagree with. however, Its simply wrong to harm them believing somehow that it will justify your position if you bully people to think and belief as you do so you can get your way.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 16, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    Looking back on it, thr Dixie Chicks were right. They were right to complain about Bush. People should have listened. In 10 years or 50 years are we going to bs saying, "Well, looking back now, Chick-Fil-A and the CEO of Mozilla were right."

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    April 16, 2014 2:14 a.m.

    Well, the Dixie Chicks were motivated by the controversy to put out their best album artistically, as well as their most popular. And the Mozilla guy ain't exactly hurting for cash--his settlement was generous. The Duck Dynasty folks just had a very successful year financially. So maybe none of these people were much harmed.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 16, 2014 12:43 a.m.

    Hey folks! want to see a perfect example of what bullying and battering is like?
    They twist your words and put more in your mouth, all with a smug attitude.
    They put up ridiculous examples and claim you would agree.
    ... etc
    ----

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    @Bob K,
    Let's get it correct...

    So you're going to be OK if companies with Republican workers force any Democrats in their leadership to resign if it's discovered they donated to any causes they don't like??

    You're going to support forcing Democrat CEOs to resign if it's discovered they donated a little to Planned Parenthood (and the employees don't like or trust people who support aborting babies)?

    You're going to support running people out if they find you donated to a political campaign they didn't like... right?

    As long as you're planning on being consistent... and not flip when it starts happening to your side...

    Remember... You cannot lead if the employees do not trust you... right? What if they don't trust you because you voted for Obama??

    ===

    Let's get it correct... You are OK with it going both ways... right?

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    My central premise in this general debate is that you can be completely intolerant of what someone believes and yet not only tolerate but love the person believing it.

    I think that is precisely how God, our Father in Heaven, feels about each and every one of his children. That is, everyone on Earth, and, according to some people, an innumerable bunch of other planets.

    I think that is also the ostensible point of principles and practices in our legal and judicial system that are meant to encourage enforcement of the law with complete equity to each party in a dispute regardless of factors that are meant to be irrelevant, such as race, gender, political/religious affiliation, etc.

    Of course, sadly, we humans are not rational and dispassionate enough to meet that ideal all the time. Some almost never do.

    Nevertheless, it is a vitally important goal to strive for if we want to have any hope of maintaining our best-in-history, democratically oriented, society. Something for which I am heartily rooting.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    April 15, 2014 8:27 p.m.

    The great thing about social media influencing buying decisions with boycotts is that is the one thing our corporate owned government won't ignore. The corporations themselves won't ignore issues that affect their profits. The only vote left in America is the almighty dollar because we know the politicians votes are paid for.

    The original Boston T-party was a boycott of English tea with some illegal shenanigans thrown in with the theft and destruction of private property.

    Burn your CD's if you want, Tweet how much you don't like a CEO. It's fine.It's ok to boycott whatever and whomever you want. You can disagree and buy more chicken sandwiches if you want to support them. It's a whole lot better than violence.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 15, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    How many of you who are outraged about the CEO of Mozilla losing his position are equally outraged about the LGBT men and women who have lost their positions simply for being gay?

    Where is the outrage?

    It isn't just "disagreement" that leads people to vote to deny equality to others.

    It isn't just "disagreement" that leads people to beat up an LGBT couple simply for being together in public.

    It isn't just "disagreement" that leads people to shoot at a group of people in front of a synagog.

    It is bigotry and much of that bigotry stems from hate. Like it or not, reading the comments by many so-called "religious" people on the DN pages; one walks away with the feeling that these people really hate people who are different.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 15, 2014 5:21 p.m.

    "Ellen DeGeneres uses the line, “My haters are my motivators.” The fallacy in this perspective is the assumption that if we disagree with people, we must hate them."

    I'm pretty sure Ellen, like most other celebrities truly get hate mail. Not just people who disagree with them but people who really wish them harm.

    I admit i've been guilty of saying that I hate Rush Limbaugh. But actually, i don't know him as a person, but i truly hate his radio persona. And it isn't that i hate his radio persona because he is conservative. I hate it because he has trashed every demographic (except white conservative men) and he speaks to the lowest level of human decency. He's like a kid who never grew up, never learned manners, never grew in intellect.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 15, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    @Bob K,
    Let's get it correct...

    So you're going to be OK if companies with Republican workers force any Democrats in their leadership to resign if it's discovered they donated to any causes they don't like??

    You're going to support forcing Democrat CEOs to resign if it's discovered they donated a little to Planned Parenthood (and the employees don't like or trust people who support aborting babies)?

    You're going to support running people out if they find you donated to a political campaign they didn't like... right?

    As long as you're planning on being consistent... and not flip when it starts happening to your side...

    Remember... You cannot lead if the employees do not trust you... right? What if they don't trust you because you voted for Obama??

    ===

    Let's get it correct... You are OK with it going both ways... right?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 15, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    The wording is a little strong sometimes, but all of these are examples of simple boycotts.

    The Dixie Chicks got boycotted by fans who disapproved of their remarks. "Just because you're a successful music artist doesn't mean I have to agree with your political views".

    Eich and Mozilla were in the process of being boycotted by OK Cupid, and others on the Internet.

    Rosa Parks started a boycott of a bus company, and played an instrumental role in a great positive change for our nation.

    In the 80s when I was in college we pushed for divestiture (ie, boycotting) companies that did business with South Africa, pressure that played a part in ending Apartheid.

    I hear conservatives (and others) all the time talk about boycotting this movie star or that music artist because they disagree with their political views or lifestyles, or whatever.

    Parents "boycott" children who don't do as the parents desire, eg, "I'm cutting you out of the will if you don't go to rehab".

    I guess I just don't see what the problem is.

  • Daniel L. Murray, UT
    April 15, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    I agree with this article. I think the problem is we see peoples motivation for their actions through our own lens. When we accuse people of hate, it's because we feel hate towards them. When we accuse some one of being bigoted, we may be bigoted in our own judgement.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    April 15, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    So let me get this straight...

    Repubs can bash the traitorous Dixie Chicks for speaking out against Bush's illegal wars?
    But no one can speak out against racism and bigotry demonstrated against poor minorities and homosexuals?

    Ok. Got it.

    Gotta love this double standard for the 1st Amendment!

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    April 15, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    Jane Fonda says that conservatives can hold a grudge for a long time.

    Businessmen have been using the fake family man, country christian image to their benefit for a long time. Suddenly it's not always working in their favor when it includes bigotry. Too bad.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    April 15, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    Let's get it correct:

    The man HAD to resign from Mozilla, not "because he made a small donation", but because he backed a cause that most of the employees found to be hateful and an attempt by the catholic and mormon religions to control secular people.

    He refused to say that Prop 8 was wrong -- over 70% of Californians, and more like 85% in the area where Moxilla is located find support of Prop 8 to be repugnant and hateful.

    You cannot lead if the employees do not trust you

    And you cannot sit in Utah and speak for Californians -- that has been tried.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    We need to find ways to compliment people with whom we disagree. We need good will. The rancor in our public discourse hurts. I try to find ways to compliment, though I can't manage it with the right wing talk show guys who spill nothing by hate for Obama, and leftists like me.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 15, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    Hey Chris B - The tolerant left is intolerant of bigots.

    We tolerant Moderates don't tolerate bigots either.

    Get used to it.

    And isn't it interesting that your hero Rush Limbaugh is intolerant of the Pope and how "Marxist" he sounds.

    In your opinion, does Rush Limbaugh speak for God? . . . Or something better?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    You seem to be an "LDS judger"...

    I have lots of "Liberal" friends and neighbors. None as judgmental as the liberals on these pages... Especially not as judgmental of other people that share their faith. They have their opinions, and don't mind if others don't agree.

    You've said some pretty judgmental things about the people in your Ward over the years. You may want to try not judging them... and posting about them, and what you think about them, and what stereotypes you think they fit...

    ====

    There are some similarities between the Dixie Chicks situation and the Mosilla guy (and some differences). The difference is as I pointed out that one was "bottom-up" (from their fans) while the other was "top-down" (from company management that couldn't tolerate his donation).

    The similarity is the intolerance.

    DC Fans didn't tolerate Dixie Chicks expressing their hate for our President very well. And Mozilla management didn't tolerate his $1000 political donation very well.

    So there are similarities AND differences.

    I think we can agree that we should ALL be more tolerant of people with views that differ from our own (political or other views...

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    Re: "Try being a Liberal or Democrat Mormon."

    I did. For years. Intense cognitive dissonance and the rumblings of my conscience gradually and finally pushed me to abandon liberalism. There are just too many lies and contradictions liberals are expected to embrace.

    I've been assured by Church leaders I can be a Democrat and still be a good Mormon, though I've engaged in a mostly vain search for many years for a Democrat my conscience will permit me to support, politically.

    But, interestingly, I never felt the slightest twinge of hate from fellow Church members because of those thoroughly discredited liberal views. Disagreement, amazement, a sense of irony, even pity? Sure.

    But hate? Never. That, I never experienced from fellow Mormons until I admitted to some, not all of course, but to several liberal friends, my doubts about liberal orthodoxy.

    Makes me wonder if politics fully explains your experience.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    People vote with their feet. They avoid the DIxie Chicks because the DCs inappropriately mixed entertainment with politics and suffered the consequences. Watching Sean Penn it is difficult to separate his performances from his lunatic left politics. While I don't demand acceptance of my philosophy, there is a point where one finds it difficult to separate an individual's talents (sports, entertainment, politics) from their persona.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil
    Durham, NC

    We should be able to vote with our pocketbooks if an organization behaves badly.

    ========

    Agreed.

    Which is why I do not shop at WalMart.

    The irony is those who decry a rise in minimum wage as "Socialism",

    Yet, Walmart is subsidized by the U.S. Government via Food Stamps and Social Programs for it's employees,
    and buys nearly everything from "Communists" it China.
    And Those who hate Socialism and Communism shop their for Cheaper products sining the praises of Capitalism.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 15, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    2 Bits... when radio stations refuse to play them, when venues refuse to host them.... yes, it is very much the same thing. It is restraint of trade. It is denying someone the ability to earn an income. To pretend it is otherwise isn't being honest.

    That said..... I too firmly believe as a consumer, that if I don't approve of someone or their policies, I do not feel that I should be forced to support them. But this has become an almost impossible quest. I don't approve of MTVs programming, but whether it be cable or satellite, some of my money is funneled to that station. We should be able to vote with our pocketbooks if an organization behaves badly. But somewhere in there is a gray line when if we held true to this litmus test, we would not be able to do business with many.

    I like this opinion piece. You do see venom from one side to the other. You do sense that conservatives see liberals as a lower class of people, and visa-versa. Some of my best friends, I disagree with on something. Disagreeing should not lead to hate.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    I can relate to this

    ------------

    I am conservative but not very religious, and certainly not a member of the predominant religion.

    The "tolerant" left has accused me and other conservatives of being bigots or racists simply for disagreeing with people.

    ---------

    If someone disagrees with barack they are a racist

    -------

    If I agree with a view held my many religious people I've been accused of being controlled by my religion(which is funny because I'm not LDS but have been accused of having "my" lds church control me)

    -------

    I admit I do like to remind people here in Utah though of what their church leaders(who according to them speak for God) have said on different issues.

    Included in that is I like knowing Mormon prophet Monson(who speaks for God) and Pope Francis(speaks for God according to Catholics) and myself agree on the gay "marriage" issue.

    --------

    I have always shown 100% respect for other people's views, even when the "tolerant" left does not reciprocate.

    Its "do as I say not as I do" when it comes to the left and their "tolerance"

    ------

    But I rise above that and follow the Savior. Always have, always will.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    @2bits
    For Duck Dynasty yes, but for Mozilla there was plenty of fan outrage and they were stuck in that situation Koman was a couple years ago where one side was going to hate them no matter what they picked.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 15, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    It's hard to be consistent when you are comparing apples to oranges.

    The Dixie Chicks didn't suffer retaliation from their company (their managers). Their label didn't retaliate against them. Their FANS were offended and quit buying their records. They weren't forced to resign their jobs. They just lost some fans.

    I think it's kinda natural for fans to loose interest and stop buying their records if they find them offensive. Corporate retaliation is a different thing.

    The duck dynasty guy still had the support of the shows fans... the shows network shut them down.

    The guy at Mosilla was shutdown by the corporate leaders (not his fans). I'm a fan. I didn't want him to resign, but his company forced him to resign.

    The difference...
    Dixie Chicks lost fan support.

    DD and Mosilla guy still had strong fan support but were run out by some corporate people who didn't like their politics.