EDIT: Expecting a uniform measured response from 100% of a terrorized, decimated, displaced people who've lived a living hell for years, some growing up in it, to a plan that seems to remove any hope of escape to a place where they might live a normal life, an escape they've worked towards for years at great expense and hardship, and in some cases escaping certain death due to helping America....no culture or people on earth are going to live up to that. American's certainly don't. We go off half cocked over 1% of that hardship and fly planes into federal buildings.

...Says the person advocating blaming and ruining the lives of innocent people for the acts of those that attacked and displaced them. Destroying the lives of random innocent people will never make the situation better, it will create more hatred for the US. That's the behavior I'd expect from a racist or Nazi because they're seeing everyone with a certain demographic as terroristic. We don't need more people with intolerant and inflexible attitudes.

I think it's the racism and xenophobia they already had coupled with a sudden influx of "others" that are now in their daily lives that turns them to extremism, because they've been primed to do so by the far right. If it was only a matter of "my feels got hurt" and nothing else, we wouldn't have international outrage at our horribly thought out, disastrously implemented, clearly racially and theologically motivated travel ban, but it hurts far more than feelings, it will kill some people.

HA!!!! All those groups have been labeled terrorists at one time, and all of them have committed terroristic acts. Every. Single. One. You just pulled a Bob and used an example that totally destroys your point.

Read some history, Christian extremism puts Islamic extremism to shame.

I'm certain this does happen, just as you've described. But I can't agree that it's a measured response.

Terrorizing random innocent people will never make the situation better. That's the behavior I'd expect from a racist or a nazi (because they're seeing as everyone within a certain demographic as guilty) We don't need more of people with intolerant and inflexible attitudes.

And although the xenophobia could be the last straw which turns someone to extremism, I think it's most likely because they've already been primed to do so. Because if it was only a matter of "my feels got hurt" and nothing else, then we'd be seeing terrorism by minorities such as gays, Jews, aboriginals, Tibetans and so on. But we don't. And while these groups act out in some pretty extreme ways, it's not anywhere near on the immoral levels as we've seen from islamists.

Yep, you can't fight intolerance with even more extreme intolerance.

The right is not radical. It is the left that is intolerable.

Global warming debate is not settled.
Gay marriage is a sin,
so is divorce, adultery and a lot of other stuff.

An you call me a homophobe ? really. SIN IS SIN
Each will be judged.

You argument is silly.. If I speak up about being gay I am repressing others.. When Gays demand I am to be silent I am begin repressed. The only difference is that I stand in the right.

The right does not want to screw the poor. We want all to succeed. But the poor stay poor by government policies, mostly created by the Democrats. Poor people are enslaved by these policies, that what what pisses off Republicans.


You would be wise not to cast GOD into the failings of man.. After all that is why he sent his SON.

Intolerance is a virtue.

With all love and respect to my friends in this thread, I wasn't joking and I don't apologise. Barack Obama is a subhuman nigger and he should be strung up to die like a nigger.

When you participate in the sort of widespread oppression and generalised evil that he has, both as an individual and a member of an unabashedly fascist government; when you, say, lock free people in cages because you don't approve of the things they choose to put in their own bodies; when you commit those crimes against humanity, you lose any claim you might have had to be considered a part of our species.

So he's a nigger - as you would expect him to be, plebiscite systems won't elect human beings while humanity is in the extreme minority in every country in the world.

The fact that you're all less concerned with the hundreds of thousands of real lives this megalomaniacal nazi turd-demon has destroyed (what a guy) than you are with a little name-calling, speaks to the total moral degeneracy of today's faux-progressive orthodoxy.

This has become more layered than a baklava....we're now talking about one group's intolerance for another group's intolerance of the first group's intolerance.
It's like a Russian nesting doll of intolerance!

has your intolerant political nonsense gathered up enough social points for yourself? grow up.

Crap....I was going to upvote the basic idea of producing cartoons of Muhammad, but then they started, and of course it was all brainless far right wing whining bullshit not even just associating all Muslims with terrorism but outright accusing them of actively supporting it...so forget it.
You don't combat ignorant hatred with ignorant hatred unless you plan to become the ignorant and intolerant group you despise.

Southpark did it the way I think it should be done. Muhammad was part of the Super Best Friends, religious Super Friends...and had the power of fire. All religions given equal deference and equal disrespect....and Seaman.

That bit of sarcasm was worth it simply to troll bait bobknight into a downvote. He either thinks I'm being intolerant to my friend PlayhousePals, who upvoted my quite obvious silly comment, or he's giving me a bit of the ol' counter sarcasm. Tough cookie that bob. Committed enough for a hilarious downvote.

Being a bit intolerant aren't you?

Meanwhile in Canada, Black Lives Matter staged a sit-in interrupting the Pride parade.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823

They included a list of demands for the Pride Parade organisers. The demands included that the parade will no longer have police floats.

IMHO, the western world is losing it's mind. We are reaching so far with 'protecting' minorities from intolerance that our movements themselves have become intolerant.

When the push goes so far as to declare that dissenting opinions are in and of themselves oppression, then we necessarily lose fundamental freedoms. It becomes inevitable that each special interest group will declare rights for themselves that are incompatible with each other. For example, something like BLM interrupting a Pride event.

This sincerely worries me as freedom of religion as an idea already addressed this. Why is an entire generation seemingly ignoring such an important historical lesson? We have granted each and every religious system the right and freedom to believe and teach what they wish, necessarily including the belief they are 'right' and any or every other religion is 'wrong'. So long as live and let live is the resulting action and everybody respects the others rights to practice their beliefs as well, everything is good. When you go out and declare that disagreement with your beliefs should be punishable, you are in the wrong. It doesn't matter if it's your religious belief, safe space, or social cause, if you class disagreement as fundamentally wrong you are part of the problem.

I already defined bigoted farther up the thread.

But again, back to the Oxford:

Bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Even dictionary.com gets it right this time. I don't know where you got your definition of "bigot".

1) It wasn't any of those though.
2) It wasn't bigoted innuendo though.
3) Not wanting to allow radicalised muslims who will engage in criminal behaviour into your country (which is what this is about) is not bigoted (just as you aren't considered bigoted for not wanting criminals engaging in criminal behaviour in the community). Making a temporary ban until you can institute a more rigorous vetting process is not bigoted. I.e. he accepts non-radicalised Muslims and their views, but they will have temporary visa restrictions until a better vetting system is in place.
4) Assuming the worst about a group is not bigotry. Being intolerant of the group's views is.

No, since they aren't bigotry, they couldn't be used as examples in a dictionary.

Saying disparaging things about a group is not bigotry. E.g. someone could say "I fucking hate Australians, they suck". That's not bigotry. Or, "All Australian's are dicks". Also not bigotry. Now on the other hand if they said, "I don't accept the views or opinions of Australians", then that is bigotry.

In response to your response.....the definition....
Bigotry-intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Bigot-a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

1) It is bigotry if they're revoked based on race, religion, sexual preference, difference of opinion, or any other groupings.
2) It is if it's bigoted innuendo.
3) Not wanting to allow Muslims (specifically Middle Eastern Muslims) into your country because you unfairly purport that they're all radical Islamists is bigotry.
4) Assuming the worst about Muslims as a group is bigotry.

It's a bit funny, because all the things you mentioned could be listed as examples of bigotry in the dictionary.

If he's wrong, and he knows it, about something disparaging he said about some group, that's a "bigoted lie".

As for the Supreme Court nomination (not appointment), you are technically correct with your statement, but not your meaning, his "litmus test" for acceptable nominees would be bigoted if it starts with "they must revoke the rights of [group X that I disagree with so doesn't deserve equal rights]".

If you're appalled at him then you more than likely have confirmation bias.

I'm going to guess that there is not much that Trump says that doesn't greatly irk you.

I don't think narcissism (love of oneself) or bigotry (intolerance of others) can be easily mixed up. On the other hand the label of bigot is often misused.

So much for "I'll defend you in court", huh. Just about as honest as everything else he says though.
*promote his real message of intolerance and xenophobia (look it up, Trump supporters).
It's just astonishing to me that SOOOO many pretend they don't really understand he only wants to make America hate itself again....but Southpark was right, at least 1/4 of all people are completely mentally retarded. (and no, that's not a slur against the actually mentally challenged, it's an apt description of people who, for various personal/political reasons, intentionally do not mentally evolve)