quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Ah yes. "Politically correct". I'd *love* to see a definition of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
It isn't even a matter of being PC.  Some things are just so outrageous, they shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society.  

i strongly disagree with you. the foundation of American society and laws is to protect the right of even the most vile opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

what you're suggesting is even more vile than flippantly suggesting corrective rape. and more dangerous because this is some shock jock mouthing off to get ratings and attention, while you're seriously suggesting fascism without even realizing it.

sure, the shock jock was absurd. what get's me is the chorus of people condemning the obvious (rape); and the only person who stood up for the right to speak is slammed down. granted, a one liner saying this is PCism wasn't the best way to state the obvious (freedom of speech).

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

I guess I don't get how kissing another girl makes her lesbian any more than I get the screwed straight thing meaning rape.

I am gonna go with ignorance IS bliss on this one!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

the other side of that coin no one wants to admit, is that the shock jock also made what he considered a logical jump (however unlikely it is) - that it's possible for a gay person to have straight sex without it being rape. there's a name for that - it's called being bi, or bi-curious.

Actually, thats not what he meant. Someone who is bi will have already had been fucked by someone of the opposite sex and fucking them again would not "straighten" anything out.

i agree it's absurd thinking you can "convert" someone. they are what they are.

all i'm saying is just like some people made logical jump that it had to be rape, i pointed out that it's possible for a gay person to have straight sex, and it's not rape. we can't have it both ways, where one side gets to assume it has to be rape, while not allowing the other side to point out it doesn't have to be. both are making logical jumps, both are valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
from websters : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
It isn't even a matter of being PC.  Some things are just so outrageous, they shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society.  

i strongly disagree with you. the foundation of American society and laws is to protect the right of even the most vile opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

what you're suggesting is even more vile than flippantly suggesting corrective rape. and more dangerous because this is some shock jock mouthing off to get ratings and attention, while you're seriously suggesting fascism without even realizing it.

sure, the shock jock was absurd. what get's me is the chorus of people condemning the obvious (rape); and the only person who stood up for the right to speak is slammed down. granted, a one liner saying this is PCism wasn't the best way to state the obvious (freedom of speech).

nope Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

•Obscenity
•Fighting words
•Defamation (includes libel, slander)
•Child pornography
•Perjury
•Blackmail
•Incitement to imminent lawless action
•True threats
•Solicitations to commit crimes
free speech is not limitless speech Why Rush is in hot water. Calling somene a slut and aprostitute on public airwaves is defamation and slander if they are not a slut and a prostitute but instead a law student.

quote:

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

To me, the first problem addressed here is that anyone would take bad advice from a radio DJ and actually follow through with it. If the collective intelligence of our society is so low that we have to worry about someone hearing something this outrageous and actually doing it, well, that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of intelligence in our culture.

Clearly the statement was over the top, rude, offensive, and otherwise something most would vehemently disagree with, but I stand on the side of free speech and have to say, everyone should have the freedom to say, write or otherwise broadcast whatever they think, feel, believe or otherwise want to express. It is the cornerstone of our free society to be able to do so, and limiting it, even in the case of someone so infantile and irresponsible as this DJ obviously is, even if he were joking or otherwise being sarcastic, is to further the erosion of free speech about virtually any belief or topic you may at some point wish to express yourself.

The simple solution for those who disagree with this DJ's views, including myself, is to simply not listen to what he has to say. As that stance reaches consensus, the DJ finds himself out of work and talking to himself.

Sociologically, we are rapidly approaching a point where if we don't learn to keep our nerves under our skin, and make choices based on our own internal guidance systems, we are going to find ourselves in a spot where we are not allowed to voice our opinions at all. And for the crowd that frequents this website, that could turn into a very ugly way of life. Imagine if those who had the influence in our society were able to use these very posts as a means to imprison you because you choose an alternative lifestyle that they for whatever arbitrary reason consider offensive and undesirable for free people in our society? Then you find yourselves whisked away to a camp for indoctrination. Not a pretty scene (though some masochists might like the idea, at least in fantasy).

It all boils down to this, you have to live the courage of your convictions, and if you do, what other people say simply doesn't matter all that much. It's a price you pay for being free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
It isn't even a matter of being PC.  Some things are just so outrageous, they shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society.  

i strongly disagree with you. the foundation of American society and laws is to protect the right of even the most vile opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

what you're suggesting is even more vile than flippantly suggesting corrective rape. and more dangerous because this is some shock jock mouthing off to get ratings and attention, while you're seriously suggesting fascism without even realizing it.

sure, the shock jock was absurd. what get's me is the chorus of people condemning the obvious (rape); and the only person who stood up for the right to speak is slammed down. granted, a one liner saying this is PCism wasn't the best way to state the obvious (freedom of speech).

While I agree with your defense of the first this isnt protected speech (inciting crime is one of the exceptions) and the airwaves themselves have other limits via regulation

quote:

To me, the first problem addressed here is that anyone would take bad advice from a radio DJ and actually follow through with it. If the collective intelligence of our society is so low that we have to worry about someone hearing something this outrageous and actually doing it, well, that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of intelligence in our culture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
This is PC run amok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
from websters : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Nope. That doesn't work as a definition because it's far too inclusive. The political sensibilities of the Right are frequently offended by the language and practices of the Left, but it's rare to hear the phrase invoked in those cases.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
It isn't even a matter of being PC.  Some things are just so outrageous, they shouldn't be tolerated in a civilized society.  

i strongly disagree with you. the foundation of American society and laws is to protect the right of even the most vile opinions in the marketplace of ideas.

what you're suggesting is even more vile than flippantly suggesting corrective rape. and more dangerous because this is some shock jock mouthing off to get ratings and attention, while you're seriously suggesting fascism without even realizing it.

sure, the shock jock was absurd. what get's me is the chorus of people condemning the obvious (rape); and the only person who stood up for the right to speak is slammed down. granted, a one liner saying this is PCism wasn't the best way to state the obvious (freedom of speech).

While I agree with your defense of the first this isnt protected speech (inciting crime is one of the exceptions) and the airwaves themselves have other limits via regulation

agree, incitement to violence is unlawful. TOTALLY disagree this shock jock came anywhere remotely close to that. not even in the ballpark. i studied this a long time ago, and my recollection is that the incitement must be for an imminent act, with a real danger of someone acting it out. i don't think it's settled law, and courts disagree on how to judge it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

To me, the first problem addressed here is that anyone would take bad advice from a radio DJ and actually follow through with it. If the collective intelligence of our society is so low that we have to worry about someone hearing something this outrageous and actually doing it, well, that leaves a lot to be desired in terms of intelligence in our culture.

There is something like 330 million Americans around at the moment. Of those, it can be safely assumed that many hundreds of thousands, if not a few million would have nodded silently in agreement with the sentiments the DJ expressed. Is there any one here who hasn't heard such sentiments expressed?

Sadly there are many millions both in your country and mine, who get their opinions pre-packaged for them by morons like the shock jock in question here.

So my guess is that there are at least tens of thousands of people out there, who might potentially act on such incitations. It's not a matter of collective intelligence at all. It's a matter of how low the lowest denominator gets.

And when it comes to men behaving badly with women, that lowest denominator is set abysmally low - as the rape statistics tell us very clearly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
from websters : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

Nope. That doesn't work as a definition because it's far too inclusive. The political sensibilities of the Right are frequently offended by the language and practices of the Left, but it's rare to hear the phrase invoked in those cases.

I'm sorry but can you give me some examples of non right wing people talking about political correctness? I pointed out the meaning because it is so maligned and misunderstood. I'm not exactly sure but I dont think you get to decide what a word means when you dont like the actual meaning. I believe the Websters dictionary is the best source on the english language. It would get confusing if we all decided to have out own definitions of words wouldnt it? People on the liberal side understand it to be basic civility. It doesnt mean they all proctice it but damn oppossing the concept seems to be a conservative core beleif

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure

yeah the dittoheads dangerous folk

What percentage of violent crime in the United States is committed by Rush Limbaugh listeners?

Or do you just consider anyone who disagrees with you to be "dangerous".

K.