Teabaggers used "faggot" and racial epithets as insults

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Teabaggers used "faggot" and racial epithets as insults

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/menacing.php#more?ref=fpblg

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88041-cbc-member-says-health-bill-protesters-called-rep-lewis-the-n-word

 

---

 

Just after Frank rounded a corner to leave the building, an older protestor yelled "Barney, you faggot." The surrounding crowd of protestors then erupted in laughter.

 

---

Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) said Saturday that healthcare protesters at the Capitol directed racial epithets at him and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) as they walked outside. 

Lewis was one of the leaders of the civil rights movement alongside Martin Luther King. Jr. 

Asked if racial epithets were yelled at him, Lewis responded, "Yes, but it's OK. I've heard this before in the '60s. A lot of this is just downright hate."

---

 

 

Sadly, this seems par for the course for them. 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
the real question is when

the real question is when havent people done this? When have people not insulted people they disagree with? If hes black call him a nigger if hes not call him a faggot. If its a woman shout go back to the kitchen u dyke, if its a lesbian black woman then u really in for it.

 

hmm are these alcaholic rednecks from the south or people you wouldn't except this from? oh wait its everyone who does this, there is no one you wouldnt expect it from. But yes its sad that this is par for the course for them although not unexpected.

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/menacing.php#more?ref=fpblg

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88041-cbc-member-says-health-bill-protesters-called-rep-lewis-the-n-word

 

---

 

Just after Frank rounded a corner to leave the building, an older protestor yelled "Barney, you faggot." The surrounding crowd of protestors then erupted in laughter.

 

---

Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) said Saturday that healthcare protesters at the Capitol directed racial epithets at him and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) as they walked outside. 

Lewis was one of the leaders of the civil rights movement alongside Martin Luther King. Jr. 

Asked if racial epithets were yelled at him, Lewis responded, "Yes, but it's OK. I've heard this before in the '60s. A lot of this is just downright hate."

---

 

 

Sadly, this seems par for the course for them. 

 

 

It has RIGHTFULLY been all over the news.

However, please be sure to point out the context. These things were not terms of endearment nor were they done in a South Park sense of humor way. These were clearly bigoted remarks from hatemongers and extremely inappropriate.

HAVING SAID THAT, as awful as those comments were, the way to stop them, is not to outlaw them saying what they said, but to use your own voice, like you are doing here now. In the end the marginalization without force of law can do the trick.

In no uncertain terms, from a moral standpoint, these acts should be condemned. But from a legal standpoint, unless you want those in seats of power, such as cops, judges, lawmakers and juries, deciding for you what you can or cannot say, I'd advise you to allow them to say it legally and merely fight back with your own voice. Please understand not only are you gay, but you are also an atheist and unless you want some fundy saying, "you cant say fuck Jesus" or "Jesus is fiction", leave it to THIS TACTIC, being what you are doing right now in making others aware.

Every rational person here reading this, INCLUDING most of  our theists who have been here a while, ARE WITH YOU on this.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I don't think you can judge

I don't think you can judge the people based on the fact that they laughed. I laughed when I read that but I also though it was wrong.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It has

Brian37 wrote:

It has RIGHTFULLY been all over the news.

However, please be sure to point out the context. These things were not terms of endearment nor were they done in a South Park sense of humor way. These were clearly bigoted remarks from hatemongers and extremely inappropriate.

HAVING SAID THAT, as awful as those comments were, the way to stop them, is not to outlaw them saying what they said, but to use your own voice, like you are doing here now. In the end the marginalization without force of law can do the trick.

In no uncertain terms, from a moral standpoint, these acts should be condemned. But from a legal standpoint, unless you want those in seats of power, such as cops, judges, lawmakers and juries, deciding for you what you can or cannot say, I'd advise you to allow them to say it legally and merely fight back with your own voice. Please understand not only are you gay, but you are also an atheist and unless you want some fundy saying, "you cant say fuck Jesus" or "Jesus is fiction", leave it to THIS TACTIC, being what you are doing right now in making others aware.

Every rational person here reading this, INCLUDING most of  our theists who have been here a while, ARE WITH YOU on this.

doesn't America have hate speech laws?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Brian37 wrote:It

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It has RIGHTFULLY been all over the news.

However, please be sure to point out the context. These things were not terms of endearment nor were they done in a South Park sense of humor way. These were clearly bigoted remarks from hatemongers and extremely inappropriate.

HAVING SAID THAT, as awful as those comments were, the way to stop them, is not to outlaw them saying what they said, but to use your own voice, like you are doing here now. In the end the marginalization without force of law can do the trick.

In no uncertain terms, from a moral standpoint, these acts should be condemned. But from a legal standpoint, unless you want those in seats of power, such as cops, judges, lawmakers and juries, deciding for you what you can or cannot say, I'd advise you to allow them to say it legally and merely fight back with your own voice. Please understand not only are you gay, but you are also an atheist and unless you want some fundy saying, "you cant say fuck Jesus" or "Jesus is fiction", leave it to THIS TACTIC, being what you are doing right now in making others aware.

Every rational person here reading this, INCLUDING most of  our theists who have been here a while, ARE WITH YOU on this.

doesn't America have hate speech laws?

In some jurisdictions yes, but I am against them. We already have laws against discrimination. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY we already have common law that says that you cannot harm, or advocate harm to anyone FOR ANY REASON, be it money motivated, jealousy motivated ect ect ect. But what we have in common with those who hate us, which is what most forget, is the COMMON LAW of wanting to bitch and blaspheme that which we don't like.

If I had a nickle for every hateful thing said to me, face to face, or in a post, because I was an atheist, I'd make Bill Gates look like a street bum.  I am not going to potentially long term, because I am a minority, give government the power to silence me because I might find it offensive that someone says mean things about me.

The government cannot play thought police. It can have people arrested for harming others. I don't care what my detractors say about atheists, I have heard it all before. But what we and they DO have in common is wanting the ability to blaspheme and bitch about things we don't like.

What one finds offensive another may not. I am not going to give the religious majority the ability to make that call when common law applies to everyone.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:In some

Brian37 wrote:

In some jurisdictions yes, but I am against them. We already have laws against discrimination. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY we already have common law that says that you cannot harm, or advocate harm to anyone FOR ANY REASON, be it money motivated, jealousy motivated ect ect ect. But what we have in common with those who hate us, which is what most forget, is the COMMON LAW of wanting to bitch and blaspheme that which we don't like.

If I had a nickle for every hateful thing said to me, face to face, or in a post, because I was an atheist, I'd make Bill Gates look like a street bum.  I am not going to potentially long term, because I am a minority, give government the power to silence me because I might find it offensive that someone says mean things about me.

The government cannot play thought police. It can have people arrested for harming others. I don't care what my detractors say about atheists, I have heard it all before. But what we and they DO have in common is wanting the ability to blaspheme and bitch about things we don't like.

What one finds offensive another may not. I am not going to give the religious majority the ability to make that call when common law applies to everyone.

was wondering about the harm thing. seems fine

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://underthenews.blogspot.

http://underthenews.blogspot.com/2007/01/brazoria-texas-wants-to-outlaw-n-word.html

This is a story a couple years back about the use of the word nigger in a Texas local. The people who protected it's usage were mixed and the people against it were mixed. I am FOR it's usage, but not from a moral standpoint or a "use it whenever you like",not because I like bigots, but because you don't want to wipe out all contexts of it's usage that have nothing to do with hate.

I am not going to tell people ESPECIALLY those withing a label using it amongst themselves to take the sting out of the word, OR in the context of making fun of bigots, that they should NEVER use the word.

Hate, no matter what, IS going to happen. We can even look at this site and the posters here who proclaim their hate of theism( although I would warn them to separate the person from the claim).

My issue is, does anyone here want to give up their right to bitch or blaspheme others because they were targets themselves?

Ending bigotry is a good goal. But we should not set ourselves up LONG TERM, as a society to play thought police via force of law. It can and does backfire on the very people it is supposed to protect.

Ireland is a perfect example today. They passed a blasphemy law, and right after that an atheist group defied it posting "offensive" quotes from famous people. If we are to support always "don't offend me laws" this atheist group could have been put out of business and it's members arrested.

"Nigger and fagot" ARE offensive. But South Park isn't, Dave Shapel isn't, Carlos Mancia isn't. And I am quite sure there are plenty of Christians who would find "Jesus is fiction" offensive. All things considered, I'd rather the words fly than to lose my right to bitch.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

 A group of people calling someone a faggot and then laughing at them is something that can't be excused.

 

If you don't like someone, that is fine. If you don't like them for their policies, fine. But calling someone something like "faggot" in a clearly bigoted and hateful way is more than shameful.

 

The same goes for racial slurs. This is plain bigotry and unacceptable. I half expected this uncivilized behavior from the teabaggers since they are already known for racism and ignorance, but wow. This is a new low for this group of people. They deserve nothing but to be condemned for their actions. Maybe some of them will find some shame for it.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: A group of

ClockCat wrote:

 A group of people calling someone a faggot and then laughing at them is something that can't be excused.

 

If you don't like someone, that is fine. If you don't like them for their policies, fine. But calling someone something like "faggot" in a clearly bigoted and hateful way is more than shameful.

 

The same goes for racial slurs. This is plain bigotry and unacceptable. I half expected this uncivilized behavior from the teabaggers since they are already known for racism and ignorance, but wow. It is a new low to do this directly to someone in front of them for that group of people. They deserve nothing but to be condemned for their actions. Maybe some of them will find some shame for it.

 

 

Quote:
If you don't like someone, that is fine. If you don't like them for their policies, fine. But calling someone something like "faggot" in a clearly bigoted and hateful way is more than shameful.

AGREED! What makes you think I don't agree with you?

I just don't want you in your RIGHTFUL fighting back to shoot yourself in the foot or mistake other contexts as always being all bad.

I think you have read enough posts of mine, EVEN if you don't agree with me, that if I called you a faggot, that you "EVEN IF YOU THINK" the word shouldn't be used, I think I have explained myself enough on this issue, that you KNOW I don't mean it the same way you take it from the REAL bigots who REALLY hate you.

AGAIN you make this about YOU being gay, but this could apply to ANY label, any minority.

WE ARE WITH YOU ! Ok? I am on your side and in this context what they did was wrong! BUT unless you want your right to say, "Jesus is fiction" to be squashed the only things humans can collectively do is agree that we all like to bitch and for YOU to say you don't is as absurd. I AM NOT AGREEING WITH THE MESSAGE.

The problem with using law to outlaw what they did is simple, "WHO GETS TO DECIDE"

It is easy beyond label to find common ground agreeing not to harm others or advocate harm to others. Deciding what is or is not "offensive" is not a power I want to give to those who outnumber me.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
And clockcat uses the term

And clockcat uses the term “teabaggers” in yet another thread title because he hates anyone who disagrees with him. This time, he did it to make a point about hate speech.

 

Dude, I am totally bowled over by the contradiction. Nobody must ever call Barney Frank a queer but it is OK to say that people who disagree with you engage in a specific sexual practice (which happens to only really be a thing among gays).

 

In addition, you make the fallacy of assuming that all members of a group are identical to the worst members of the group. Just for fun, what happens if you replace the word teabagger with the word nigger? Yah, you turn into exactly the same moral douche bag that you wish to decry.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I must be slow because I

I must be slow because I thought that "teabagger" was an insult because it's suggesting the person is a carpetbagger, but it's saying that a person sucks balls which I guess is worse than even being a carpetbagger. That's bringing the level of discourse pretty low now that I think about it.

 

It's a weird kind of political dispute where one person says "I'm against income tax."

then the other person's retort is "You suck balls."

the ball-sucker says "Oh yeah, well you're a faggot."

and the faggot says "can you believe that ball-sucker called me a faggot?"

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

I swear we already discussed this. They called themselves teabaggers. They wanted to "teabag the liberal dems" and "teabag obama". Leaders of the tea party movements even called themselves and their movement teabaggers repeatedly. This is why the rest of the media picked it up a year ago after Fox News got them going with the "Teabag America" campaign and Glenn Beck started preaching for people to do this (send teabags to people in DC along with notes telling them they were just teabagged). Because it was funny. Fox News kept on hyping it up and started the "tea party express" as well as going to cover all the events as an anti-democrat movement. They made it mainstream and what it is today, even going as far as to fund the 9/12 protest by paying for busses to cart people there and signs to hand out along with the freepers so they could get good limited shots of the crowd.

 

I'm not calling them teabaggers because I hate them. I'm ashamed of them. I'm ashamed that people can act as low and as uncivilly as they do, running as little knowledge as they do, and be led around as easily as they do. It is the name of their movement, as they named it. Yes, it is funny, and yes maybe they didn't know the meaning when they said they wanted to teabag the democrats, and teabag obama, and even go calling themselves teabaggers, but it stuck.

 

I mean, "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" Really?

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html 

 Look at this from over a year ago.

http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/the-tea-baggers-and-their-tea-party/

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

Gauche wrote:

I must be slow because I thought that "teabagger" was an insult because it's suggesting the person is a carpetbagger, but it's saying that a person sucks balls which I guess is worse than even being a carpetbagger. That's bringing the level of discourse pretty low now that I think about it.

 

It's a weird kind of political dispute where one person says "I'm against income tax."

then the other person's retort is "You suck balls."

the ball-sucker says "Oh yeah, well you're a faggot."

and the faggot says "can you believe that ball-sucker called me a faggot?"

 

Are you trying to be insulting to me with that comparison?

 

I'm calling them what they call themselves and have told the media to call them over a year ago. They are teabaggers. They have their tea parties and hold signs up telling people they are going to teabag them. They seem to harbor a number of racists, and apparently homophobes too. Klansmen were walking around with them on 9/12, captured on video (and is on youtube) with the same signs they had.

 

One of the leaders of their movement (one of the earliest starters, and organizer of many of the events) has an image of himself smiling at one of the events in the admin area with a sign he is holding that says "NIGGARS" on it.

 

And then there was what happened the other day. And the day before that. And the day before that. And a few days before that, with the Parkinsons guy. For such a small group of people there are an awful lot of these events. Their biggest event was one of the smaller protests DC has seen. The gay protest was over 3x larger than that, as well as the immigration reform one that happened recently. But Fox News covered the teabaggers they created and payed for completely with minute by minute coverage for most of it, while not even mentioning the much larger gay protest the next month at about the same time.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Clockcat,At least for me and

Clockcat,

At least for me and I only speak for myself here. What you, and other minorities, including well intended theists and atheists of all stripes seem to forget, is that we all bitch and we all have things we hate. I don't think you want to have your right to bitch and blaspheme taken away. I am simply saying that to protect your rights you have to protect EVERYONE'S rights, even of those who may offend you. Otherwise you can long term, potentially have your own rights affected.

HAVING SAID THAT, completely separate topic.........

We ALSO use pajoritives. "Fundy" "Rethuglicans" and we also call Jesus a zombie god and we call the god of Abraham a tyrant. All of those things are seen by theists as offensive, so lets not say we don't do it ourselves.

Even "teabaggers" has been used as a slur to describe pilgrim bible thumper revisionists,.

The goal of civility is a good one, but many rightfully seeking it make the mistake of missing the fact that humans all have the same range of human emotions including the desire to speak one's mind even at times being offensive to others.

So the only way we can maintain that civility is to get beyond our differences and accept what we have in common. What the right winger and left winger have in common is not their label or their belief. What we have in common with those we hate and those who hate us, is the common interest of not wanting harm to come to our person. When we accept that as a society, we CAN say what we want without fear of each other. What we cant do is play thought police through government,

Clock, you need to face the fact that not everyone is going to like you, nor do they have to like you by force of law. But what no one has the right to do is harm others. We all have that in common, all labels aside.

It is a utopia to expect people to never say mean things about anyone else, it is going to happen. We do it and they do it. The key to civility is not to silence people, but to agree not to harm each other no matter what is said and arrest people who do harm others. You cant hide behind your label and think you are special because of the history of how gays have wrongfully been treated. Fight back with your voice like you are doing here, but don't expect taboos to work as a solution.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

Brian37 wrote:

Clockcat,

At least for me and I only speak for myself here. What you, and other minorities, including well intended theists and atheists of all stripes seem to forget, is that we all bitch and we all have things we hate. I don't think you want to have your right to bitch and blaspheme taken away. I am simply saying that to protect your rights you have to protect EVERYONE'S rights, even of those who may offend you. Otherwise you can long term, potentially have your own rights affected.

HAVING SAID THAT, completely separate topic.........

We ALSO use pajoritives. "Fundy" "Rethuglicans" and we also call Jesus a zombie god and we call the god of Abraham a tyrant. All of those things are seen by theists as offensive, so lets not say we don't do it ourselves.

Even "teabaggers" has been used as a slur to describe pilgrim bible thumper revisionists,.

The goal of civility is a good one, but many rightfully seeking it make the mistake of missing the fact that humans all have the same range of human emotions including the desire to speak one's mind even at times being offensive to others.

So the only way we can maintain that civility is to get beyond our differences and accept what we have in common. What the right winger and left winger have in common is not their label or their belief. What we have in common with those we hate and those who hate us, is the common interest of not wanting harm to come to our person. When we accept that as a society, we CAN say what we want without fear of each other. What we cant do is play thought police through government,

Clock, you need to face the fact that not everyone is going to like you, nor do they have to like you by force of law. But what no one has the right to do is harm others. We all have that in common, all labels aside.

It is a utopia to expect people to never say mean things about anyone else, it is going to happen. We do it and they do it. The key to civility is not to silence people, but to agree not to harm each other no matter what is said and arrest people who do harm others. You cant hide behind your label and think you are special because of the history of how gays have wrongfully been treated. Fight back with your voice like you are doing here, but don't expect taboos to work as a solution.

 

 

 

That is asinine. You clearly do not live as a targetted minority where being called something like "faggot" and isolated for it may mean your life is at stake. I live in a place this can easily be the case. One of my friends I graduated high school with was "stoned" by kids in his high school before transferring over. They threw rocks at him. The teachers watched and laughed as he was injured and called a faggot.

 

When this stops happening then you can act like it is nothing more than a pejorative. What I see is the people who do things like this finding heroes to vindicate them and their activities, just like the Attorney General of Virginia right now, and the teabaggers. They do it and don't even think it is wrong. They think they have a RIGHT to do what they do. 

 

Teabaggers named themselves that. Fuck you, and fuck your pathetic attempt to excuse them for this.

 

 

Your attempt to compare that to myself calling teabaggers by the name they themselves pushed, saddens me. This has nothing to do with "left" or "right". This has nothing to do with "force of law" or preventing people from saying their ideals. This has to do with a group of ignorant racists and homophobes, as they have well proven again and again in the one year of their existence, ridiculing someone for being born different and mocking them for it with dumb gales of laughter. Just because it is legal to say something does NOT mean you should not be ashamed of it. The fact you don't even think they should feel ashamed for it makes me not want to associate with you. I wouldn't care if you were a teabagger. If you were one, I would hope you at least have the common sense to find embarrassment over trying to excuse this behavior. 

 

 

 

I'm done.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Clock, is it OK for a white

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Brian37

ClockCat wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Clockcat,

At least for me and I only speak for myself here. What you, and other minorities, including well intended theists and atheists of all stripes seem to forget, is that we all bitch and we all have things we hate. I don't think you want to have your right to bitch and blaspheme taken away. I am simply saying that to protect your rights you have to protect EVERYONE'S rights, even of those who may offend you. Otherwise you can long term, potentially have your own rights affected.

HAVING SAID THAT, completely separate topic.........

We ALSO use pajoritives. "Fundy" "Rethuglicans" and we also call Jesus a zombie god and we call the god of Abraham a tyrant. All of those things are seen by theists as offensive, so lets not say we don't do it ourselves.

Even "teabaggers" has been used as a slur to describe pilgrim bible thumper revisionists,.

The goal of civility is a good one, but many rightfully seeking it make the mistake of missing the fact that humans all have the same range of human emotions including the desire to speak one's mind even at times being offensive to others.

So the only way we can maintain that civility is to get beyond our differences and accept what we have in common. What the right winger and left winger have in common is not their label or their belief. What we have in common with those we hate and those who hate us, is the common interest of not wanting harm to come to our person. When we accept that as a society, we CAN say what we want without fear of each other. What we cant do is play thought police through government,

Clock, you need to face the fact that not everyone is going to like you, nor do they have to like you by force of law. But what no one has the right to do is harm others. We all have that in common, all labels aside.

It is a utopia to expect people to never say mean things about anyone else, it is going to happen. We do it and they do it. The key to civility is not to silence people, but to agree not to harm each other no matter what is said and arrest people who do harm others. You cant hide behind your label and think you are special because of the history of how gays have wrongfully been treated. Fight back with your voice like you are doing here, but don't expect taboos to work as a solution.

 

 

 

That is asinine. You clearly do not live as a targetted minority where being called something like "faggot" and isolated for it may mean your life is at stake. I live in a place this can easily be the case. One of my friends I graduated high school with was "stoned" by kids in his high school before transferring over. They threw rocks at him. The teachers watched and laughed as he was injured and was called a faggot.

 

When this stops happening then you can act like it is nothing more than a pejorative. What I see is the people who do things like this finding heroes to vindicate them and their activities, just like the Attorney General of Virginia right now, and the teabaggers. They do it and don't even think it is wrong. They think they have a RIGHT to do what they do. 

 

Teabaggers named themselves that. Fuck you, and fuck your pathetic attempt to excuse them for this.

 

 

Your attempt to compare that to myself calling teabaggers by the name they themselves pushed, saddens me. This has nothing to do with "left" or "right". This has nothing to do with "force of law" or preventing people from saying their ideals. This has to do with a group of ignorant racists and homophobes, as they have well proven again and again in the one year of their existence, ridiculing someone for being born different and mocking them for it with dumb gales of laughter. Just because it is legal to say something does NOT mean you should not be ashamed of it. The fact you don't even think they should feel ashamed for it makes me not want to associate with you. I wouldn't care if you were a teabagger. If you were one, I would hope you at least have the common sense to find embarrassment over trying to excuse this behavior. 

 

 

 

I'm done.

OF COURSE THE MORONS WHO SHOUTED THOSE THINGS SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED! Who is excusing anything? I am talking about legal matters and you are mistaking that as condoning an action.

Stop it. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and stop pretending gays are the only persecuted minority. In Iran Jews and Christians have even MORE to fear from their society and government than you do here. Go talk to Iranians in general who managed to escape. Your label doesn't entitle you to claim to be the only ones to ever suffer in human history.

You keep talking about "what should be" when my issue is not about "what should be", but the ability to deal with reality as it is. REALITY! There are 6 billion people on this planet and to try to force people to always only say nice things about each other is absurd and causes more division and harm than the problems you RIGHTFULLY are trying to solve.

You cant change human behavior. What you can do is find common ground in common law. AGAIN, there is plenty here at this site that WOULD BE considered by believers as offensive. So if your policy is "never say mean things" then go talk to Christians who see this site as "mean" to them. Do you want the Christian majority to have the power over government to decide what "mean" is?

Recognizing reality does not mean I condone what they did. It merely means that I accept the reality that it is going to happen. If you want to try to force people to only say nice things in every context, in every situation, via force of government, who do you think the majority of theists who sit  in government  would if given the power, do to a website like this?

Don't hide behind your label and expect special treatment. You act as if atheists have never been demonized or equated to monsters like Hitler and Stalin. Native Americans and women and blacks have suffered at the hands of bigots as well, being gay doesn't make you special. Certainly those movements HAVE made it easier for atheists, but that doesn't mean that gays are the only label in our species history who have suffered.

YOU KEEP FALSELY equating my argument as your label being the issue when TACTIC is the issue.

CLOCK, do you want to be seen as a minority? Or do you want to be seen as a human? I see you as a human. Despite what you want to falsely believe because I don't side with you on HOW you chose to approach the problem of bigotry.You do realize that EVERY HUMAN is a minority to other groups somewhere in the world. FACT, WE as humans wont always like each other.

The only way YOU can say what you want about others is to protect their right to say what they want about you EVEN WHEN it offends you. THAT IS NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD CONDONE IT!

TWO SEPARATE ISSUES:

1. Legal matters, NO ONE has the right to be free from being offended. WE offend theists all the time. If you want the ability to offend the fans of Jesus or Islam the only way to protect it is to protect the rights of those who don't like you. Special treatment is what religion has used to keep you demonized. I don't think you need to take the same tactic they have used especially since theists outnumber gays and atheists.

2. Moral objections, HOW does one go about stopping bad behavior WITHOUT dictating. Go after the bigots and fight them with your own voice, but do not use force of government to silence people. That can and does backfire long term.

You are confusing the two when NEITHER have anything with the label "gay". You could replace ''gay" WITH any label and my argument would STILL be the same. If you don't think others are special because of their label, YOU ARE RIGHT, but if you can accept that then YOU should accept that YOU are not special either.

I am not special and no human is special and we are all capable of the same range of human emotions and actions. I see you in your rightful condemnation of their actions wrongfully seeking a utopia via force of law.

I am truly sorry that you fail to see that I am on your side. I simply see you as falsely taking a blanket approach to a problem when life is never black or white.

I hope someday you can see what I am saying without taking it personally. I really do like you and your intent. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about problem solving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

Brian37 wrote:

I am not special and no human is special and we are all capable of the same range of human emotions and actions. I see you in your rightful condemnation of their actions wrongfully seeking a utopia via force of law.

I am truly sorry that you fail to see that I am on your side. I simply see you as falsely taking a blanket approach to a problem when life is never black or white.

I hope someday you can see what I am saying without taking it personally. I really do like you and your intent. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about problem solving.

 

 

Please identify where I stated the first point.

 

Please identify what you intend to do if condemning their behavior is somehow incorrect in your eyes.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Brian37

ClockCat wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am not special and no human is special and we are all capable of the same range of human emotions and actions. I see you in your rightful condemnation of their actions wrongfully seeking a utopia via force of law.

I am truly sorry that you fail to see that I am on your side. I simply see you as falsely taking a blanket approach to a problem when life is never black or white.

I hope someday you can see what I am saying without taking it personally. I really do like you and your intent. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about problem solving.

 

 

Please identify where I stated the first point.

 

Please identify what you intend to do if condemning their behavior is somehow incorrect in your eyes.

You don't have to state it, you act like it. And my only point is that I think you are unaware that that is what you are doing, or would like to think you don't do that.

If you accept that taboos are unacceptable for other labels, then you cant say, "I can be mean to others but they cant be mean to me". Humans statistically, no matter what, ARE going to say mean things. I am simply suggesting a more realistic approach to dealing with human behavior other than dictating to others.

I already told you what I would do and what you can do. Use your own voice which is what you are doing here and now. I am simply saying that force of law fails to take into account "who gets to decide". That being the case the best approach to law is not banning something, but finding common ground while maintaining the right to be offensive and be offended.

You keep falsely make this about being gay, when that is not my issue. My issue has nothing to do with you being gay, but everything ANYONE OF ANY LABEL in HOW and the issue being TACTIC in dealing with human behavior.

If you don't like being dictated to then it stands to reason that those you disagree with have those same feelings. THAT goes for any human, not just you or me but anybody that has a disagreement with someone else.

Life is not always pretty and since we don't like their utiopas forced on us, I don't think we need to use force of law to set up taboos ourselves. Unless you want them to decide for you what they think is "mean". I think it would be stupid for atheists to allow a theistic majority to decide what "mean" and "offensive" are.

The better tactic is to use your own voice to counter what they say, which is what you are doing here.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

mellestad wrote:

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

 

What a terrible comparison. Racial epithets are not something that matches that.

 

Honestly, one is an ideology the other is something you are born as.

 

 

 

And no they did not name themselves that. They are not a one year old political group. The word has years of beatings, hangings, slavery, and persecution behind it. When you hatefully call someone a "nigger" and then spit on them, it is not the same thing as myself talking about that group of people by the name many of them still call themselves and the media reports their name as. If some of them don't like the name, then they can condemn the people in their own movement and the people that cover their fake grassroots movement like the Fox News anchors that still use it.

 

 

Maybe some of them like the name and some of them don't. I see them using the terms as much or more than anyone else though. 

 

 

 

Beyond that, you are missing the entire fucking point.

 

I could call them idiots, ignorant fools, or whatever I want in order to point out my disagreement. They could call any of the senators they don't like liars, crooks, or anything else. However, it is not appropriate to call a leader of the Civil Rights movement a "nigger" and then spit on them. It is not appropriate to single out Barney Frank and call him a 'faggot" as an insult, following it by ridiculing laughter. Like existing is something he should be ashamed of.

 

There is a large difference here. I would honestly fucking hope you see that by now. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

Brian37 wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am not special and no human is special and we are all capable of the same range of human emotions and actions. I see you in your rightful condemnation of their actions wrongfully seeking a utopia via force of law.

I am truly sorry that you fail to see that I am on your side. I simply see you as falsely taking a blanket approach to a problem when life is never black or white.

I hope someday you can see what I am saying without taking it personally. I really do like you and your intent. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about problem solving.

 

 

Please identify where I stated the first point.

 

Please identify what you intend to do if condemning their behavior is somehow incorrect in your eyes.

You don't have to state it, you act like it. And my only point is that I think you are unaware that that is what you are doing, or would like to think you don't do that.

If you accept that taboos are unacceptable for other labels, then you cant say, "I can be mean to others but they cant be mean to me". Humans statistically, no matter what, ARE going to say mean things. I am simply suggesting a more realistic approach to dealing with human behavior other than dictating to others.

I already told you what I would do and what you can do. Use your own voice which is what you are doing here and now. I am simply saying that force of law fails to take into account "who gets to decide". That being the case the best approach to law is not banning something, but finding common ground while maintaining the right to be offensive and be offended.

You keep falsely make this about being gay, when that is not my issue. My issue has nothing to do with you being gay, but everything ANYONE OF ANY LABEL in HOW and the issue being TACTIC in dealing with human behavior.

If you don't like being dictated to then it stands to reason that those you disagree with have those same feelings. THAT goes for any human, not just you or me but anybody that has a disagreement with someone else.

Life is not always pretty and since we don't like their utiopas forced on us, I don't think we need to use force of law to set up taboos ourselves. Unless you want them to decide for you what they think is "mean". I think it would be stupid for atheists to allow a theistic majority to decide what "mean" and "offensive" are.

The better tactic is to use your own voice to counter what they say, which is what you are doing here.

 

Go fucking project your fearful "imposed laws" on a wall. I never said any of what you are attributing to me. I never said I wanted what they said to be illegal. You are attributing things to me that are not there.

 

I don't have a damn utopia to force on you. Get over yourself. All I said was these people acted shamefully, and you froth yourself up some kind of paranoid worldview where people are being silenced and free speech is gone. What these people did should be condemned. It is something people should be embarrassed over. I have never argued for more than that.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:mellestad

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

 

What a terrible comparison. Racial epithets are not something that matches that.

 

Honestly, one is an ideology the other is something you are born as.

 

 

 

And no they did not name themselves that. They are not a one year old political group. The word has years of beatings, hangings, slavery, and persecution behind it. When you hatefully call someone a "nigger" and then spit on them, it is not the same thing as myself talking about that group of people by the name many of them still call themselves and the media reports their name as. If some of them don't like the name, then they can condemn the people in their own movement and the people that cover their fake grassroots movement like the Fox News anchors that still use it.

 

 

Maybe some of them like the name and some of them don't. I see them using the terms as much or more than anyone else though. 

 

 

 

Beyond that, you are missing the entire fucking point.

 

I could call them idiots, ignorant fools, or whatever I want in order to point out my disagreement. They could call any of the senators they don't like liars, crooks, or anything else. However, it is not appropriate to call a leader of the Civil Rights movement a "nigger" and then spit on them. It is not appropriate to single out Barney Frank and call him a 'faggot" as an insult, following it by ridiculing laughter. Like existing is something he should be ashamed of.

 

There is a large difference here. I would honestly fucking hope you see that by now. 

"Not right" and "legal" are two separate issues. You are missing my point.

And as far as the "spitting" part, that is already under the common law of "battery" and "assault". If someone spit on you because you wouldn't give them five bucks, would that make it any more or less wrong? People assault each other every day over relationships and property. Does that make it less of a crime because it wasn't based on a label?

"Domestic violence" that is one phrase I cant fucking stand. It keeps women and men separate in the eyes of the law. If violence is violence then it shouldn't matter if you are hitting your wife or a complete stranger. And it shouldn't matter if you are being "spit on" because you are gay, or nerd or a Muslim.

If you want people to get beyond labels then common law, not common likes, is how you go about it. Otherwise you put government in the position of playing thought police for you.

Of course it was wrong to call him "nigger" but you fail to see why it should be legal. Why something should be legal is not the same as condoning it. HOW you go about it is important, not just simply saying "dont do that"via force of law.

I think the word "minority" needs to die in our human lexicon. It gives any given majority an excuse to demonize the outsiders. Majorities get special treatment and set up taboos in order to  maintain their status in a society. I think humans in a minority label do themselves a disservice by using that same tactic,

You cannot tell me FOR EXAMPLE saying "fuck Jesus" isn't offensive or wouldn't be seen as mean. If you don't see yourself as special then you can set up a taboo to solve the problem. What you can do is us your own voice.

I find ridicule a much better weapon to combat bigotry than force of law in setting up taboos. My only issue with you is that you are so hurt by life that you cannot see that "never" as a tactic is a bad idea. No one would or should discount your personal pain and it should always be remembered and you should always talk about it to keep it fresh in humanity's mind.

Taboos are my issue with you, not your intent. You really are a decent guy from what I read here. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about solving the problem.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:mellestad

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

 

What a terrible comparison. Racial epithets are not something that matches that.

 

Honestly, one is an ideology the other is something you are born as.

 

 

 

And no they did not name themselves that. They are not a one year old political group. The word has years of beatings, hangings, slavery, and persecution behind it. When you hatefully call someone a "nigger" and then spit on them, it is not the same thing as myself talking about that group of people by the name many of them still call themselves and the media reports their name as. If some of them don't like the name, then they can condemn the people in their own movement and the people that cover their fake grassroots movement like the Fox News anchors that still use it.

 

 

Maybe some of them like the name and some of them don't. I see them using the terms as much or more than anyone else though. 

 

 

 

Beyond that, you are missing the entire fucking point.

 

I could call them idiots, ignorant fools, or whatever I want in order to point out my disagreement. They could call any of the senators they don't like liars, crooks, or anything else. However, it is not appropriate to call a leader of the Civil Rights movement a "nigger" and then spit on them. It is not appropriate to single out Barney Frank and call him a 'faggot" as an insult, following it by ridiculing laughter. Like existing is something he should be ashamed of.

 

There is a large difference here. I would honestly fucking hope you see that by now. 

 

Christ Clock.  *everyone here* agrees that they are wrong.  Some people, like me, are just pointing out that you are doing the equivalent of calling them mother-fuckers every time you reference them.  That's it!  If you feel the need to go on a tirade because I am pointing that out, then get it out of your system, I guess.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:ClockCat

mellestad wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

 

What a terrible comparison. Racial epithets are not something that matches that.

 

Honestly, one is an ideology the other is something you are born as.

 

 

 

And no they did not name themselves that. They are not a one year old political group. The word has years of beatings, hangings, slavery, and persecution behind it. When you hatefully call someone a "nigger" and then spit on them, it is not the same thing as myself talking about that group of people by the name many of them still call themselves and the media reports their name as. If some of them don't like the name, then they can condemn the people in their own movement and the people that cover their fake grassroots movement like the Fox News anchors that still use it.

 

 

Maybe some of them like the name and some of them don't. I see them using the terms as much or more than anyone else though. 

 

 

 

Beyond that, you are missing the entire fucking point.

 

I could call them idiots, ignorant fools, or whatever I want in order to point out my disagreement. They could call any of the senators they don't like liars, crooks, or anything else. However, it is not appropriate to call a leader of the Civil Rights movement a "nigger" and then spit on them. It is not appropriate to single out Barney Frank and call him a 'faggot" as an insult, following it by ridiculing laughter. Like existing is something he should be ashamed of.

 

There is a large difference here. I would honestly fucking hope you see that by now. 

 

Christ Clock.  *everyone here* agrees that they are wrong.  Some people, like me, are just pointing out that you are doing the equivalent of calling them mother-fuckers every time you reference them.  That's it!  If you feel the need to go on a tirade because I am pointing that out, then get it out of your system, I guess.

THANK YOU!

Human emotions transcend labels and my only warning to Clock is to not ignore that.You must always keep in mind that you are no more or less human and are capable of the same range of emotions and actions. The utopia tactic of taboos sets humans up to treat each other as a different species, which we are not, including those who hate me, as an individual, or as a label or both. I refuse to allow myself to think I am incapable of something. What prevents me from doing anything, isn't my label, but the fact that I am not special. And since I am not special I am not entitled as an individual, much less an atheist, I am not entitled to be free from verbal arrows if I am going to throw them myself.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

Brian37 wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

 

What a terrible comparison. Racial epithets are not something that matches that.

 

Honestly, one is an ideology the other is something you are born as.

 

 

 

And no they did not name themselves that. They are not a one year old political group. The word has years of beatings, hangings, slavery, and persecution behind it. When you hatefully call someone a "nigger" and then spit on them, it is not the same thing as myself talking about that group of people by the name many of them still call themselves and the media reports their name as. If some of them don't like the name, then they can condemn the people in their own movement and the people that cover their fake grassroots movement like the Fox News anchors that still use it.

 

 

Maybe some of them like the name and some of them don't. I see them using the terms as much or more than anyone else though. 

 

 

 

Beyond that, you are missing the entire fucking point.

 

I could call them idiots, ignorant fools, or whatever I want in order to point out my disagreement. They could call any of the senators they don't like liars, crooks, or anything else. However, it is not appropriate to call a leader of the Civil Rights movement a "nigger" and then spit on them. It is not appropriate to single out Barney Frank and call him a 'faggot" as an insult, following it by ridiculing laughter. Like existing is something he should be ashamed of.

 

There is a large difference here. I would honestly fucking hope you see that by now. 

"Not right" and "legal" are two separate issues. You are missing my point.

And as far as the "spitting" part, that is already under the common law of "battery" and "assault". If someone spit on you because you wouldn't give them five bucks, would that make it any more or less wrong? People assault each other every day over relationships and property. Does that make it less of a crime because it wasn't based on a label?

"Domestic violence" that is one phrase I cant fucking stand. It keeps women and men separate in the eyes of the law. If violence is violence then it shouldn't matter if you are hitting your wife or a complete stranger. And it shouldn't matter if you are being "spit on" because you are gay, or nerd or a Muslim.

If you want people to get beyond labels then common law, not common likes, is how you go about it. Otherwise you put government in the position of playing thought police for you.

Of course it was wrong to call him "nigger" but you fail to see why it should be legal. Why something should be legal is not the same as condoning it. HOW you go about it is important, not just simply saying "dont do that"via force of law.

I think the word "minority" needs to die in our human lexicon. It gives any given majority an excuse to demonize the outsiders. Majorities get special treatment and set up taboos in order to  maintain their status in a society. I think humans in a minority label do themselves a disservice by using that same tactic,

You cannot tell me FOR EXAMPLE saying "fuck Jesus" isn't offensive or wouldn't be seen as mean. If you don't see yourself as special then you can set up a taboo to solve the problem. What you can do is us your own voice.

I find ridicule a much better weapon to combat bigotry than force of law in setting up taboos. My only issue with you is that you are so hurt by life that you cannot see that "never" as a tactic is a bad idea. No one would or should discount your personal pain and it should always be remembered and you should always talk about it to keep it fresh in humanity's mind.

Taboos are my issue with you, not your intent. You really are a decent guy from what I read here. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about solving the problem.

 

What makes you think I want words to be made illegal? Go make a thread about laws. I don't care. My method of solving the problem is ridiculing these people for reprehensible acts, and this deserves nothing but condemnation and shame. If you disagree with me, fine. Stop trying to make an argument that doesn't exist. I never said I wanted any words to be illegal. Also, just because something is taboo doesn't make it illegal. I think that it is common sense in public for epithets on race and sexual orientation to be taboo. Especially when used hatefully against strangers. Especially when you vindicate homophobia and racism to people by trying to make it appear acceptable in society as an insult.

 

Stop trying to project your paranoid worldview on me. I don't care for it. I don't want free speech gone. I just think the people that did this should feel properly ashamed of themselves for their behavior. It should be universally castigated  by society. No matter what someone says or does, I would not condemn them for merely existing. Nor would I approve of such. It is reprehensible. It is shameful. It should not be accepted or tolerated by people standing around. 

 

If it was just an insult to the congresspeople, I wouldn't of even made this thread. It is an insult to entire groups of minorities for being born the way they are. That is something that should never be "on the table" as a pejorative. Gay rights are sliding back in places of this country, thanks to people like this and the AJ of Virginia. People that are homophobic and racist see this and if it is not condemned by society, find it valid and accepted. They find their prejudices exonerated by public figures accepted holding those same prejudices.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

mellestad wrote:

Christ Clock.  *everyone here* agrees that they are wrong.  Some people, like me, are just pointing out that you are doing the equivalent of calling them mother-fuckers every time you reference them.  That's it!  If you feel the need to go on a tirade because I am pointing that out, then get it out of your system, I guess.

 

If they called themselves "motherfuckers" and the news media reports them as "motherfuckers" and the leaders of these motherfuckers call their group "motherfuckers"....then you know what I would call them?

 

 

Motherfuckers.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Brian37

ClockCat wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Clock, is it OK for a white person to call a black person a nigger just because some blacks use the same word?

 

I have to agree with the others...teabagger is a slur.  I am on some forums with ultra-conservatives and libertarians and they all get riled up every time someone uses the word.

No-one is excusing their behavior, they are pointing out your own 'bad' behavior.

 

 

What a terrible comparison. Racial epithets are not something that matches that.

 

Honestly, one is an ideology the other is something you are born as.

 

 

 

And no they did not name themselves that. They are not a one year old political group. The word has years of beatings, hangings, slavery, and persecution behind it. When you hatefully call someone a "nigger" and then spit on them, it is not the same thing as myself talking about that group of people by the name many of them still call themselves and the media reports their name as. If some of them don't like the name, then they can condemn the people in their own movement and the people that cover their fake grassroots movement like the Fox News anchors that still use it.

 

 

Maybe some of them like the name and some of them don't. I see them using the terms as much or more than anyone else though. 

 

 

 

Beyond that, you are missing the entire fucking point.

 

I could call them idiots, ignorant fools, or whatever I want in order to point out my disagreement. They could call any of the senators they don't like liars, crooks, or anything else. However, it is not appropriate to call a leader of the Civil Rights movement a "nigger" and then spit on them. It is not appropriate to single out Barney Frank and call him a 'faggot" as an insult, following it by ridiculing laughter. Like existing is something he should be ashamed of.

 

There is a large difference here. I would honestly fucking hope you see that by now. 

"Not right" and "legal" are two separate issues. You are missing my point.

And as far as the "spitting" part, that is already under the common law of "battery" and "assault". If someone spit on you because you wouldn't give them five bucks, would that make it any more or less wrong? People assault each other every day over relationships and property. Does that make it less of a crime because it wasn't based on a label?

"Domestic violence" that is one phrase I cant fucking stand. It keeps women and men separate in the eyes of the law. If violence is violence then it shouldn't matter if you are hitting your wife or a complete stranger. And it shouldn't matter if you are being "spit on" because you are gay, or nerd or a Muslim.

If you want people to get beyond labels then common law, not common likes, is how you go about it. Otherwise you put government in the position of playing thought police for you.

Of course it was wrong to call him "nigger" but you fail to see why it should be legal. Why something should be legal is not the same as condoning it. HOW you go about it is important, not just simply saying "dont do that"via force of law.

I think the word "minority" needs to die in our human lexicon. It gives any given majority an excuse to demonize the outsiders. Majorities get special treatment and set up taboos in order to  maintain their status in a society. I think humans in a minority label do themselves a disservice by using that same tactic,

You cannot tell me FOR EXAMPLE saying "fuck Jesus" isn't offensive or wouldn't be seen as mean. If you don't see yourself as special then you can set up a taboo to solve the problem. What you can do is us your own voice.

I find ridicule a much better weapon to combat bigotry than force of law in setting up taboos. My only issue with you is that you are so hurt by life that you cannot see that "never" as a tactic is a bad idea. No one would or should discount your personal pain and it should always be remembered and you should always talk about it to keep it fresh in humanity's mind.

Taboos are my issue with you, not your intent. You really are a decent guy from what I read here. I simply disagree with you on HOW to go about solving the problem.

 

What makes you think I want words to be made illegal? Go make a thread about laws. I don't care. My method of solving the problem is ridiculing these people for reprehensible acts, and this deserves nothing but condemnation and shame. If you disagree with me, fine. Stop trying to make an argument that doesn't exist. I never said I wanted any words to be illegal. Also, just because something is taboo doesn't make it illegal. I think that it is common sense in public for epithets on race and sexual orientation to be taboo. Especially when used hatefully against strangers. Especially when you vindicate homophobia and racism to people by trying to make it appear acceptable in society as an insult.

 

Stop trying to project your paranoid worldview on me. I don't care for it. I don't want free speech gone. I just think the people that did this should feel properly ashamed of themselves for their behavior. It should be universally castigated  by society. No matter what someone says or does, I would not condemn them for merely existing. Nor would I approve of such. It is reprehensible. It is shameful. It should not be accepted or tolerated by people standing around. 

 

If it was just an insult to them, I wouldn't of even made this thread. It is an insult to entire groups of minorities for being born the way they are. That is something that should never be "on the table" as a pejorative. Gay rights are sliding back in places of this country, thanks to people like this and the AJ of Virginia. People that are homophobic and racist see this and if it is not condemned by society, find it valid and accepted. They find their prejudices exonerated by public figures accepted holding those same prejudices.

Clock, it is not paranoia. I confront everyone on this issue, not just you and not just at this website. There are people who want such laws. I spent threads and threads with you debating this topic and I am quite sure, you personally know others or are aware of groups who would suggest laws censoring speech. I highly suspect though you wont admit it, that if such laws are passed you'd be for them. Your passion gives you away without admitting it.

Having said that, if censorship through government law is not what you suggest, GREAT. Then there really is no disagreement. There behavior deserves public condemnation. Agreed. But there is a huge difference between using your own voice and censorship. Just remember that.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:|

Brian37 wrote:

THANK YOU!

Human emotions transcend labels and my only warning to Clock is to not ignore that.You must always keep in mind that you are no more or less human and are capable of the same range of emotions and actions. The utopia tactic of taboos sets humans up to treat each other as a different species, which we are not, including those who hate me, as an individual, or as a label or both. I refuse to allow myself to think I am incapable of something. What prevents me from doing anything, isn't my label, but the fact that I am not special. And since I am not special I am not entitled as an individual, much less an atheist, I am not entitled to be free from verbal arrows if I am going to throw them myself.

 

 

 

Making words taboo does not make them a crime nor does it make it a utopia. People should be prohibited by their own shame of the ignorance of slurs against people for being born a different color or with a different sexual orientation. To do that, others in society have to not accept them as insults, and have to condemn the behavior and bigotry for what it is.

 

This is why some language is not used publicly. It is not appropriate, because words have meanings. Some words have more meanings than others. Making fun of someone for an ideology or calling them names is not comparable to isolating and showing open hatred to someone for simply being gay or black. Which is what happened here. And why I made this thread.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Brian37

ClockCat wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

THANK YOU!

Human emotions transcend labels and my only warning to Clock is to not ignore that.You must always keep in mind that you are no more or less human and are capable of the same range of emotions and actions. The utopia tactic of taboos sets humans up to treat each other as a different species, which we are not, including those who hate me, as an individual, or as a label or both. I refuse to allow myself to think I am incapable of something. What prevents me from doing anything, isn't my label, but the fact that I am not special. And since I am not special I am not entitled as an individual, much less an atheist, I am not entitled to be free from verbal arrows if I am going to throw them myself.

 

 

 

 

Making words taboo does not make them a crime nor does it make it a utopia. People should be prohibited by their own shame of the ignorance of slurs against people for being born a different color or with a different sexual orientation. To do that, others in society have to not accept them as insults, and have to condemn the behavior and bigotry for what it is.

 

This is why some language is not used publicly. It is not appropriate, because words have meanings. Some words have more meanings than others. Making fun of someone for an ideology or calling them names is not comparable to isolating and showing open hatred to someone for simply being gay or black. Which is what happened here. And why I made this thread.

Clock there really isn't as much disagreement as you'd like to think. My only issue is that "never" is a bad tactic and life is situational and not black and white.

And again, just because YOU separate ideology from race and sexuality doesn't mean those who have an ideology are capable of making that distiction and DON'T OR WONT CARE and WILL see them as being the same. Don't give them the power to use that against you.

But again regardless, humans ARE going to hate and express that hate, it is going to happen, like it or not. Recognizing human behavior is not the same as condoning it. I am merely warning you not to hand over a potential weapon that could be used against you.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It has

Brian37 wrote:

It has RIGHTFULLY been all over the news.

However, please be sure to point out the context. These things were not terms of endearment nor were they done in a South Park sense of humor way. These were clearly bigoted remarks from hatemongers and extremely inappropriate.

HAVING SAID THAT, as awful as those comments were, the way to stop them, is not to outlaw them saying what they said, but to use your own voice, like you are doing here now. In the end the marginalization without force of law can do the trick.

In no uncertain terms, from a moral standpoint, these acts should be condemned. But from a legal standpoint, unless you want those in seats of power, such as cops, judges, lawmakers and juries, deciding for you what you can or cannot say, I'd advise you to allow them to say it legally and merely fight back with your own voice. Please understand not only are you gay, but you are also an atheist and unless you want some fundy saying, "you cant say fuck Jesus" or "Jesus is fiction", leave it to THIS TACTIC, being what you are doing right now in making others aware.

Every rational person here reading this, INCLUDING most of  our theists who have been here a while, ARE WITH YOU on this.

Translation: "I just loooooooove hearing myself talk even if I'm spouting off complete nonsense."

Seriously, Brian? Do yourself a favor and just STFU for five minutes and LISTEN. You're the only one who gives a shit what you think, and no one here needs your precious permission to think what they do, nor do they require your half-baked, uninformed "corrections." Every time you spout off, you just make yourself look more and more like an uneducated idiot with white male hetero privilege oozing pathetically out of your every orifice. Read some Angela Davis or SOMETHING and get a fucking clue. Until you do, your insensitive, condescending, hypocritical bullshit does no more than just irritate me.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Brian37

smartypants wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It has RIGHTFULLY been all over the news.

However, please be sure to point out the context. These things were not terms of endearment nor were they done in a South Park sense of humor way. These were clearly bigoted remarks from hatemongers and extremely inappropriate.

HAVING SAID THAT, as awful as those comments were, the way to stop them, is not to outlaw them saying what they said, but to use your own voice, like you are doing here now. In the end the marginalization without force of law can do the trick.

In no uncertain terms, from a moral standpoint, these acts should be condemned. But from a legal standpoint, unless you want those in seats of power, such as cops, judges, lawmakers and juries, deciding for you what you can or cannot say, I'd advise you to allow them to say it legally and merely fight back with your own voice. Please understand not only are you gay, but you are also an atheist and unless you want some fundy saying, "you cant say fuck Jesus" or "Jesus is fiction", leave it to THIS TACTIC, being what you are doing right now in making others aware.

Every rational person here reading this, INCLUDING most of  our theists who have been here a while, ARE WITH YOU on this.

Translation: "I just loooooooove hearing myself talk even if I'm spouting off complete nonsense."

Seriously, Brian? Do yourself a favor and just STFU for five minutes and LISTEN. You're the only one who gives a shit what you think, and no one here needs your precious permission to think what they do, nor do they require your half-baked, uninformed "corrections." Every time you spout off, you just make yourself look more and more like an uneducated idiot with white male hetero privilege oozing pathetically out of your every orifice. Read some Angela Davis or SOMETHING and get a fucking clue. Until you do, your insensitive, condescending, hypocritical bullshit does no more than just irritate me.

Who says you need my permission to do or say anything? I am not your boss or your dictator nor will I ever claim to be. If you don't like me you don't have to, there is no law requiring you to like me or agree with me. I think you have me all wrong though. And I'm sorry you feel that way.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
I know i will be in the

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended waaaaaay too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:I know i

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended Way too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

 

The Imus issue didn't have anything to do with the first amendment though, did it?  I thought that was a purely private thing...

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Rich Woods

mellestad wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended Way too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

 

The Imus issue didn't have anything to do with the first amendment though, did it?  I thought that was a purely private thing...

I don't have a problem with competition, even with blasphemy that might offend me. I have a problem with legislation on any side that is short term thinking that favors one side over the long term reality that power shifts happen.

The only way to insure that those on the bottom in any point of history can have a shot is to insure that blasphemy is protected and that means the ability to offend.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:mellestad

Brian37 wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended Way too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

 

The Imus issue didn't have anything to do with the first amendment though, did it?  I thought that was a purely private thing...

I don't have a problem with competition, even with blasphemy that might offend me. I have a problem with legislation on any side that is short term thinking that favors one side over the long term reality that power shifts happen.

The only way to insure that those on the bottom in any point of history can have a shot is to insure that blasphemy is protected and that means the ability to offend.

 

That is what I mean, I didn't know there *was* any legislation involved.  I thought he just got fired by his employer.  Was there some kind of law created?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
If Clockcat is offended by

If Clockcat is offended by the coarse language, then he shouldn't play Call of Duty online.

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Making fun of

ClockCat wrote:
Making fun of someone for an ideology or calling them names is not comparable to isolating and showing open hatred to someone for simply being gay or black. Which is what happened here. And why I made this thread.

It's acceptable as long as you don't hate them? 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3563
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:I know i

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended waaaaaay too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

  I'm in agreement with you on this issue.  I think the PC speech code mentality , despite being advocated mostly by so-called "progressives", is actually a step backwards and reminds me of a more puritanical, Victorian attitude where shame is used to manipulate behavior.

  I'm offended by all kinds of things but all the laws that embody hate speech just piss me off.  In certain countries ( Germany ) to speak contrary to accepted political doctrines can actually land one in prison.  Most violations are views that express an extreme right wing pov.  I'm not certain but I believe even Canada has similar laws where expressing/advocating views not sanctioned by the state can land you in the slammer.  If that's not facism then what the hell is ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Rich Woods

mellestad wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended Way too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

 

The Imus issue didn't have anything to do with the first amendment though, did it?  I thought that was a purely private thing...

 

Hi Mel... Yes and No.... While it was NBC who fired Imus... make no mistake it was because of political pressure.... Al Sharpton (enemy of the state)... Hillary Clinton (ole' cankles herself) and Jon Corzine (biggest douchebag in the history of NJ) *ALL* politisized(sp?) the issue...and forced NBC's hand...

Here is an article I wrote a while back: http://ezinearticles.com/?Stuck-in-the-Middle&id=730138 Granted, its just more self important ramblings from me... But this took 2 cups of coffee to finish, so i figured I post it here...


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:mellestad

Rich Woods wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended Way too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

 

The Imus issue didn't have anything to do with the first amendment though, did it?  I thought that was a purely private thing...

 

Hi Mel... Yes and No.... While it was NBC who fired Imus... make no mistake it was because of political pressure.... Al Sharpton (enemy of the state)... Hillary Clinton (ole' cankles herself) and Jon Corzine (biggest douchebag in the history of NJ) *ALL* politisized(sp?) the issue...and forced NBC's hand...

Here is an article I wrote a while back: http://ezinearticles.com/?Stuck-in-the-Middle&id=730138 Granted, its just more self important ramblings from me... But this took 2 cups of coffee to finish, so i figured I post it here...

Since when is raising your voice against something you don't like an "enemy of the state". I agree it was political pressure. But it wasn't the government having Imus arrested, it was his opposition raising their own voice and a private company responding to that pressure. If Imus had been handcuffed by the cops, you'd have a case.

NBC is a business, they are going to blow where the money blows, in the case of Imus, they saw more long term damage being done to them because of the blow back of citizens raising their voice LEGALLY to what Imus legally said.

Do you want a society where we can't compete? Do you want a society where someone who might not agree with you gets to decide? Or should we all use our own voice to compete with each other?

I am not saying I agree with Sharpton or Imus. I am saying that the pressure was not due to law, but voice. If we want our own voice ourselves, the only way to protect our own voice is to insure that those who dont agree with us have one too. Otherwise the fascism kicks in and the government plays thought police for everyone.

The only "enemy of the state" I have is a law that tells me who to like or what to think. Other than that, we all bitch, they do it, and we do it. Imus lost in this case, but there was nothing fascist on the government's part that got him fired.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:mellestad

Rich Woods wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Rich Woods wrote:

I know i will be in the minority here,,,, But political correctness has conditioned us to become offended Way too easily....and far too often...

 

Awww....Did some big Bad toothless church going teabagger call you an offensive name?...Get over it you PC Jizzbuckets...

 

I am of the opinion that The Don Imus "Nappy headed Ho" indident was a huge blow to the first ammendment... because now freedom of speech does not have to be circumvented through legislation... rather through pressure from special interest groups and political lobbies...... advancing *THEIR* political agendas... *BOTH* parties try attempting to censor any language they deem innapropriate...

 

Congressmen are getting offended by name calling?...these corrupt assholes should be concerned that some of these teabagging sociopaths aren't going to send them a hollow point 9mm insult...

 

 

The Imus issue didn't have anything to do with the first amendment though, did it?  I thought that was a purely private thing...

 

Hi Mel... Yes and No.... While it was NBC who fired Imus... make no mistake it was because of political pressure.... Al Sharpton (enemy of the state)... Hillary Clinton (ole' cankles herself) and Jon Corzine (biggest douchebag in the history of NJ) *ALL* politisized(sp?) the issue...and forced NBC's hand...

Here is an article I wrote a while back: http://ezinearticles.com/?Stuck-in-the-Middle&id=730138 Granted, its just more self important ramblings from me... But this took 2 cups of coffee to finish, so i figured I post it here...

I'm with Brian on this one.  You can reject the backlash against him, but saying it is a 1st amendment issue is just rabble rousing, because it isn't true.  Unless those politicians were threatening government action, they did not 'force' NBC's hand.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian... Mel...I'll tell

Hi Brian... Mel...

I'll tell why I respectfully disagree... I am only on my second cup of cofee...so I hope this reads coherantly

Political correctness has evolved to a point where circumvention of the first ammendment doesn't have to be legislated, rather it can be done through threats and political/social pressure.... The thing about the Imus incident was that a radio has a dial where one can turn the station... certainly there are things on many different stations that offend people's sensibilities... Sharpton and his political suck-asses didn't ask the public to turn the dial...they inisted he be fired (silenced)...In this instancethere was no "competition" of opinions... any more than one can negotiate with a guy stealing your wallet at gunpoint... I'll offer an example:

Here we are at the RSS...and we are all enjoying our feedom to express our views on theism... But how would it be any different   if this site was only able to stay in business because of ad revenue...and a Christian fundamentalist group threatened its advertisers if they didnt pull out (exactly what the National action Network did to Imus advertisers)... No one would have to have *legislated* against our freedon to express our Atheism... The dirty work would have been done without having to pass a law...

Competition occurs when Sharpton could have gone on *his* radio show and explain why he thought Imus was an asshole... By this reasoning... the louder, more threatening group will always be able to silence their detractors...and it will only be a matter of time before Dawkins and Hitchens will become such pariahs that no network dare have them on...

Here is another example... on why Sharpton's tactics are not really freedom of speech any more than than the Gambino Crime family when they insist youo take protection money...

Staples, The office supply giant was the first to pull their ads from Imus' show... due to pressure (Threats of angry black mobs picketing stores) from Sharpton..;.. Howeveer prior to that, the AFL?CIO, which has a much larger member and ecomonic base than does Sharpton's National Action Network was also campaigning against Staples... How did staples respond to the AFL/CIO?... essentially by telling them to go fuck themselves... However they caved to political (correctness) pressure in *ONE* day from the NAN

Essentially what I am trying to say, that when people are silenced...however it occurs.... there is no competition of thought or ideology...and hence, there is no opportunity for debate, or grow through an enchange of ideas...

 

Time for more coffee...


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:I don't think

Gauche wrote:

I don't think you can judge the people based on the fact that they laughed. I laughed when I read that but I also though it was wrong.

I laughed my ass of when the bear fell off the pole and got shocked on the way down..smoking..all the way down, lol. It's WRONG but funny.

Some things get taken too seriously. The R word, that one irritates me more than faggot. Faggot actually can be described as a bundle of sticks or some such. Retarded is a descriptive term for mentally handicapped people. I rarely use the term, but to ban it, is..retarded.

What's the next word to ban? Stupid, because there are stupid people and they may be offended?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:Hi Brian...

Rich Woods wrote:

Hi Brian... Mel...

I'll tell why I respectfully disagree... I am only on my second cup of cofee...so I hope this reads coherantly

Political correctness has evolved to a point where circumvention of the first ammendment doesn't have to be legislated, rather it can be done through threats and political/social pressure.... The thing about the Imus incident was that a radio has a dial where one can turn the station... certainly there are things on many different stations that offend people's sensibilities... Sharpton and his political suck-asses didn't ask the public to turn the dial...they inisted he be fired (silenced)...In this instancethere was no "competition" of opinions... any more than one can negotiate with a guy stealing your wallet at gunpoint... I'll offer an example:

Here we are at the RSS...and we are all enjoying our feedom to express our views on theism... But how would it be any different   if this site was only able to stay in business because of ad revenue...and a Christian fundamentalist group threatened its advertisers if they didnt pull out (exactly what the National action Network did to Imus advertisers)... No one would have to have *legislated* against our freedon to express our Atheism... The dirty work would have been done without having to pass a law...

Competition occurs when Sharpton could have gone on *his* radio show and explain why he thought Imus was an asshole... By this reasoning... the louder, more threatening group will always be able to silence their detractors...and it will only be a matter of time before Dawkins and Hitchens will become such pariahs that no network dare have them on...

Here is another example... on why Sharpton's tactics are not really freedom of speech any more than than the Gambino Crime family when they insist youo take protection money...

Staples, The office supply giant was the first to pull their ads from Imus' show... due to pressure (Threats of angry black mobs picketing stores) from Sharpton..;.. Howeveer prior to that, the AFL?CIO, which has a much larger member and ecomonic base than does Sharpton's National Action Network was also campaigning against Staples... How did staples respond to the AFL/CIO?... essentially by telling them to go fuck themselves... However they caved to political (correctness) pressure in *ONE* day from the NAN

Essentially what I am trying to say, that when people are silenced...however it occurs.... there is no competition of thought or ideology...and hence, there is no opportunity for debate, or grow through an enchange of ideas...

 

Time for more coffee...

 

He was removed precisely because his employeer did not want his listeners to 'turn the dial' away, thereby losing ad revenue.  If he had his own, private blog/show he could say whatever the heck he wanted to, just like you.  But when you work for someone, you get to follow their standards.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: He was

mellestad wrote:

 

He was removed precisely because his employeer did not want his listeners to 'turn the dial' away, thereby losing ad revenue.  If he had his own, private blog/show he could say whatever the heck he wanted to, just like you.  But when you work for someone, you get to follow their standards.

 

Not True, sir... Imus had great ratings, and was hired by His Network to be this type of "edgy...they were well aware that they were about to take a huge financial loss by firing him (as they did)... This is the same reason that businesses here in NJ pay far too much to have their garbage hauled away... it's because they dont want to have the legs broken by the mob...

 

and dont get me wrong... I think Imus sucks, personally...especially now that he's been nuetered...


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Clockcat, I really don't

Clockcat, I really don't care how many links you have to support some view that a name has been used.

 

You could just as easily provide links to black people calling themselves niggers to support the idea that it is OK to call black people niggers. They do that. It does not matter.

 

If you want to call yourself a fag/queer/cocksucker/whatever, that is fine by me. However, when you use hate speech, you use hate speech.

 

Your use of the word teabagger is hate speech. There is no if, and, or but about it. You are engaging in hate speech.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13415
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Clockcat, I really don't care how many links you have to support some view that a name has been used.

 

You could just as easily provide links to black people calling themselves niggers to support the idea that it is OK to call black people niggers. They do that. It does not matter.

 

If you want to call yourself a fag/queer/cocksucker/whatever, that is fine by me. However, when you use hate speech, you use hate speech.

 

Your use of the word teabagger is hate speech. There is no if, and, or but about it. You are engaging in hate speech.

 

The fact is you are not going to stop it. I think what you can do, rather than demand other's silence is stick to promoting something all humans have in common, the agreement that no one has the right to harm, or advocate harm of others. But bitching is bitching and there ARE things and people I hate, to deny that is absurd.

I hate the pope. I hated Jerry Falwell. But I do not advocate physical harm to people I dont like. But just as they want the right to bitch about me, in order for me to have that same right, I have to protect even that which I find offensive.

I am sure even if Clock doesn't hate me personally most certainly he hates my opinion on this issue. My point to him is that he has the right to bitch about what he hates. Not in the context of a private medium, but in the sense that the government should not have him arrested for ANYTHING that he may merely disagree with.

I don't like the term "hate speech" as it has become widely used today. It denies people a normal human emotion rather than placing personal responsibility on one's own actions.

I don't want my government telling me what to think or what I can or cannot say about others. What none of us have the right to do is harm others. As long as everyone abides by that common law, we can all bitch without fear of each other.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
 Agreed Brian... when it

 Agreed Brian... when it comes right down to it, it is impossible to police thought... True hate is about intent... All political corectness does it takes true Hate/racism/sexism/general douchbaggery and forces them to change the words.... The intentions are the same, and perhaps ill feelings heightened in response...

It's been my experience that those pointing the accusing fingers of censorship are often (IMHO) the very ones exhibiting hateful behavior... and their wrath comes in the form of politically corect rhetoric

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3563
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  A quick read from

  A quick read from Salon.com regarding "hate speech" laws in Canada...

 

  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/canada

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.