Liberals claim to be the torchbearers of tolerance. But let’s be honest — it’s all empty rhetoric for them. True tolerance implies and necessitates the existence of dissent or disagreement. It literally means to “put up with” or to permit people to hold contrary views without punishing, ostracizing or physically assaulting them. That’s the American way. The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guarantees each citizen equal protection from being silenced, fired, prosecuted, persecuted or attacked for merely expressing unpopular beliefs or “politically incorrect” viewpoints. Well, at least it used to.
However, according to the liberal homofascists, tolerance flows only one way – towards liberals and their favored identity or “victim” groups. At least that’s how homosexual MSNBC contributor and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart defines the word.
Appearing as a guest on Monday’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Capehart rebuffed the notion that Michael Sam, the first openly gay player drafted into the NFL, and his supporters should have to tolerate the views of those who don’t agree with Sam’s lifestyle. His comments were in response to the more reasonable assertions of William Rhoden of the New York Times, who also appeared as a guest on the program.
Below is the key portion of the transcript from the segment:
WILLIAM RHODEN, The New York Times: Yeah, there was a lot of kissing. No question about that. I was at Radio City Music Hall when it happened. And it was a stunning moment because again, this big linebacker, you know, and his boyfriend kissing. And I think it caught everybody off guard. Now people argue, well, what happened — I’m not a big fan of it even when it’s like, you know, the guy and his fiancé. I’m like, you know, okay, enough is enough. But I get it. This is a barrier that’s been broken. We have to deal with it. One thing I would say is this, however. That when you are the first, okay? When you are the first, it can’t be just a one-way street. I mean, you have to expect to get pushback. And there’s going to be pushback … And it’s interesting that as we speak now, we have two dynamic things going on. In the NBA they’re dealing with racism. The NFL is now dealing with sexuality. And I think that to deal with things openly there has to be an open back-and-forth dialogue. Tolerance can’t just work one way. You can’t just be one way, that anybody who speaks out — now, I think you can speak out a certain — if you speak out of ignorance you can — but I think that people — this cannot turn into a Gestapo-type situation where if you express discomfort with something then you’re cast as a homophobe and you’re fined by the league. I think that there has to be a back-and-forth.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: But hatred’s not new. Bigotry’s not new. Ignorance isn’t new. And so when someone denigrates somebody else for who they are, it’s not — I understand you’re saying that it has to be a two-way conversation. But tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street. You cannot say to someone that who you are is wrong, an abomination, is horrible, get a room, and all of those other things that people said about Michael Sam, and not be forced — not forced, but not be made to understand that what you’re saying and what you’re doing is wrong.
Capehart’s seemly incidental remark — “get a room” — was probably intended as a passive-aggressive jab at ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith’s rational insights on the subject of true tolerance during a segment on the network’s program First Take. Unfortunately, Capehart doesn’t share Smith’s more sensible sentiments.
Listen closely to video (or read the transcript), and you’ll notice Capehart’s revealing Freudian slip. He inadvertently mentioned the word “forced,” and then he quickly corrected himself, hoping nobody would notice. However, we most certainly did catch what he initially said. And “forced” is actually the best word for what Capehart is so acrimoniously describing.
While his comments are chilling, at least we have a card-carrying member of the Gaystapo who’s willing to admit to the new Leftist definition of tolerance — and it’s more accurately identified as totalitarianism or a tyranny of immorality. That’s liberalism in a “gay” nutshell. If someone doesn’t share their “tolerant” beliefs, they must be browbeaten into submission. Tolerance, as it’s been classically defined, is intolerable, and disagreement with the approved liberal dogma is impermissible. The demagogues of deviancy must never be made to feel uncomfortable about their sinful homosexual lifestyle.
As Paul Bremmer of NewsBusters explains, “Real ‘tolerance’ according to Capehart, looks more like a posture of unquestioning acceptance and a self-imposed gag rule whereby social conservatives dare not say anything remotely critical of homosexuality.”
In the following exchange, Capehart attempted to utilize the typical homosexual tactic of intentionally twisting the words of one’s opponent.
CAPEHART: But he’s [Michael Sam] supposed to – what you’re saying is he’s supposed to be silent. That he’s supposed to stand silently by and let people disrespect –
RHODEN: I didn’t say that. No, what I said, there has to be a national back-and-forth discourse. It can’t just be a one-way thing that if anybody expresses discomfort then they’re cast as a hom[ophobe].
Capehart was surely surprised when the New York Times sports columnist William Rhoden refused to walk in lockstep with the liberal MSNBC orthodoxy. It surprised us as well.
Rhoden called for two-way tolerance — a real rarity for the rabidly liberal network.
Every freedom-loving American couldn’t help but cheer him on.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.