RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Musicmystery -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 6:25:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
In this case, that "PC" label is more accurately a valid concern about his ability to fairly serve part of the public.


Unless you are in that political subdivision, that doesn't concern you. If he isn't your elected official, he can't represent you, can't serve you, and you have no say in his worth as a representative.

Should he have used that word? That all depends on what he meant. If he meant all the word implies, then, yes, he should have used that word. If he didn't mean what that word implies, then, no, he shouldn't have used that word. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with him. It's what he meant that matters. And, I'd rather someone state their actual beliefs, no matter who is going to get pissed off, so we know where that person stands.

Can an elected official who holds beliefs diametrically opposed to those held by a group of people fairly serve the constituents within that group?


1) Duh. His ability to serve those people is entirely the issue.

2) You're an idiot. The whole fucking nation is here when there's a Congressional seat up for grabs. That Palin, Beck, and Gingrich aren't from northern NY didn't stop them from campaigning for dipshit here--ironically, which helped him lose to the first Democrat elected here ever (the last time a Republican hadn't held that seat, it was a Whig).

3) I'm certainly allowed to consider relevant information in considering issues. If it just weren't up to us, then there's be no thread. That's how conversations work. I won't be voted there, but I've no trouble seeing why they're pissed off.




MercTech -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 7:47:54 AM)

I wonder who made that fellow's email public?

Look at that fellow's age.

This article reminds me of something my grandfather told me when I was five or so. After hearing the KKK speaker on the courthouse steps going on about "nigger this", "kike that", and "commie pinko fags"; I asked "what's a nigger". "A dumb redneck mispronouncing 'negro' which is simply Spanish for 'black'". Yes, this was in the deep south in 1963. Water fountains and bathrooms came in "colored" and "white". I wondered why only black people got to use colorful toilets and whites had to settle for plain white porcelain.





DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 8:14:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
In this case, that "PC" label is more accurately a valid concern about his ability to fairly serve part of the public.

Unless you are in that political subdivision, that doesn't concern you. If he isn't your elected official, he can't represent you, can't serve you, and you have no say in his worth as a representative.
Should he have used that word? That all depends on what he meant. If he meant all the word implies, then, yes, he should have used that word. If he didn't mean what that word implies, then, no, he shouldn't have used that word. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with him. It's what he meant that matters. And, I'd rather someone state their actual beliefs, no matter who is going to get pissed off, so we know where that person stands.
Can an elected official who holds beliefs diametrically opposed to those held by a group of people fairly serve the constituents within that group?

1) Duh. His ability to serve those people is entirely the issue.
2) You're an idiot. The whole fucking nation is here when there's a Congressional seat up for grabs. That Palin, Beck, and Gingrich aren't from northern NY didn't stop them from campaigning for dipshit here--ironically, which helped him lose to the first Democrat elected here ever (the last time a Republican hadn't held that seat, it was a Whig).
3) I'm certainly allowed to consider relevant information in considering issues. If it just weren't up to us, then there's be no thread. That's how conversations work. I won't be voted there, but I've no trouble seeing why they're pissed off.


You must have missed the part where I disagreed with him, but, that falls outside your blinders, so, it's not surprising.

We agree that he isn't fit for public service. But, since we aren't his constituents, it doesn't really matter what we think. There could be more people among his constituents that think he's fit for service than not. That's their right to choose, too.

I could be wrong, but I think Palin, Beck, Gingrich, Hannity, etc. are more likely to have audio radiance that reaches northern NY voters, than we have here in P&R.

No one stated that you can't consider relevant information considering issues.




Musicmystery -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 8:20:15 AM)

Again, duh.

You missed the part where I typed words.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 9:26:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Again, duh.
You missed the part where I typed words.


Now, if only those words were actually worth reading, I'd feel less cheated of my time.




Musicmystery -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 9:46:16 AM)

At least you're acknowledging that you're "refuting" points you've never read or considered.

That's why conversation with you is pointless.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 9:58:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
At least you're acknowledging that you're "refuting" points you've never read or considered.
That's why conversation with you is pointless.


You didn't even understand what I wrote. I feel cheated because your words weren't worth reading. Now, how could I have known that?

I look forward to your excusing yourself from a conversation that is beyond your understanding.




Musicmystery -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 10:03:58 AM)

I'm beyond "debating" silly playground taunts.

The points I raised are still there, if you decide to address them instead of dodging them.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 10:09:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I'm beyond "debating" silly playground taunts.
The points I raised are still there, if you decide to address them instead of dodging them.


Yeah, you're beyond calling someone names. [8|]

You raised no points worth addressing that I haven't already addressed.





Musicmystery -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 10:11:20 AM)

Maybe if you clicked your heels?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 10:18:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Maybe if you clicked your heels?


Kansas isn't my home. Good band, but not home.




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 2:05:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
(b) The article says of a black officer: When asked to comment outside the meeting, he said, "I'd love to, but I can't." I'd really like to know why he couldn't. Fear of retribution? PD policy? Something else?


I would say that it is probably along the same lines as someone in the military not being allowed to comment on the President. Right or wrong, a member of the PD can't criticize the commissioner. That would almost certainly get them fired.




vincentML -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 2:11:07 PM)

quote:

I find racists attitudes amusing, I usually do not react with offense, because it confuses them. And it's more effective. I like to show a racist that his wrong about my race by not reacting defensively or aggressively towards him. That's always been me, and also how I have won over racists that they don't see my colour anymore and made me their friend.


Maybe I am wrong but I have the impression from what you have written that you have little understanding or awareness of the history of the Civil Rights movement in America. You might not be so cavalier or dismissive if you were aware of the terror, oppression, and indignities that Black people suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws. You totally misunderstand the historical power the epithet has in this country. Your comments have seemed naïve at best.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 2:30:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

I find racists attitudes amusing, I usually do not react with offense, because it confuses them. And it's more effective. I like to show a racist that his wrong about my race by not reacting defensively or aggressively towards him. That's always been me, and also how I have won over racists that they don't see my colour anymore and made me their friend.

Maybe I am wrong but I have the impression from what you have written that you have little understanding or awareness of the history of the Civil Rights movement in America. You might not be so cavalier or dismissive if you were aware of the terror, oppression, and indignities that Black people suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws. You totally misunderstand the historical power the epithet has in this country. Your comments have seemed naïve at best.


Sounds like Greta has a successful response to racists there. And, if that's her response, and she's satisfied with that response, why would you think to change it? Should she really respond as to take out past wrongs that may not have had any impact on her or her family?

That's not how hate is reduced. That just keeps it rolling.




vincentML -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 3:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

I find racists attitudes amusing, I usually do not react with offense, because it confuses them. And it's more effective. I like to show a racist that his wrong about my race by not reacting defensively or aggressively towards him. That's always been me, and also how I have won over racists that they don't see my colour anymore and made me their friend.

Maybe I am wrong but I have the impression from what you have written that you have little understanding or awareness of the history of the Civil Rights movement in America. You might not be so cavalier or dismissive if you were aware of the terror, oppression, and indignities that Black people suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws. You totally misunderstand the historical power the epithet has in this country. Your comments have seemed naïve at best.


Sounds like Greta has a successful response to racists there. And, if that's her response, and she's satisfied with that response, why would you think to change it? Should she really respond as to take out past wrongs that may not have had any impact on her or her family?

That's not how hate is reduced. That just keeps it rolling.


I was referring to her casual dismissal of the impact of the N-word; not to her personal strategies. This thread was not about her personal strategies. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your last comment. That is not how hate is being reduced in this country. The historical effort has been massive and continues today fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Law. So, no. I don't buy your trickle up theory. I hope I haven't misread you.




evesgrden -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 3:03:02 PM)

FR~

Well, I read the first post and this last page.

Free speech doesn't protect you from your employment constraints and responsibilities. Announcing to the world that your boss is an asshole means you can be fired, but that's not an infringement on your right to free speech. Using a racial slur is the same thing. You might get fired for it because the company you work for wants to distance themselves from that kind of behavior, but you won't be imprisoned for it.

As far as the posts on page 4 here:
ok boys, yes the water is both cold AND deep.




vincentML -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 3:11:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden

FR~

Well, I read the first post and this last page.

Free speech doesn't protect you from your employment constraints and responsibilities. Announcing to the world that your boss is an asshole means you can be fired, but that's not an infringement on your right to free speech. Using a racial slur is the same thing. You might get fired for it because the company you work for wants to distance themselves from that kind of behavior, but you won't be imprisoned for it.

As far as the posts on page 4 here:
ok boys, yes the water is both cold AND deep.

No one has suggested imprisonment, Eve.




Politesub53 -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 3:15:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

I wonder who made that fellow's email public?

Look at that fellow's age.

This article reminds me of something my grandfather told me when I was five or so. After hearing the KKK speaker on the courthouse steps going on about "nigger this", "kike that", and "commie pinko fags"; I asked "what's a nigger". "A dumb redneck mispronouncing 'negro' which is simply Spanish for 'black'". Yes, this was in the deep south in 1963. Water fountains and bathrooms came in "colored" and "white". I wondered why only black people got to use colorful toilets and whites had to settle for plain white porcelain.




His age, and who leaked his emails, dont excuse him, nor do they change the fact he is a racist prick. The only question that needs asking is why are some on here defending his remarks. If you had read the Op you would have seen his remarks were made in public, He then sent an email to the woman who had overhead him and complained to the town clerk. In his email the commisioner then used the same term to describe President Obama. Its racism plain and simple and any still bleating about him maybe losing his job needs to grow the fuck up.

Edited for spelling




DesideriScuri -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 4:09:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

I find racists attitudes amusing, I usually do not react with offense, because it confuses them. And it's more effective. I like to show a racist that his wrong about my race by not reacting defensively or aggressively towards him. That's always been me, and also how I have won over racists that they don't see my colour anymore and made me their friend.

Maybe I am wrong but I have the impression from what you have written that you have little understanding or awareness of the history of the Civil Rights movement in America. You might not be so cavalier or dismissive if you were aware of the terror, oppression, and indignities that Black people suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws. You totally misunderstand the historical power the epithet has in this country. Your comments have seemed naïve at best.

Sounds like Greta has a successful response to racists there. And, if that's her response, and she's satisfied with that response, why would you think to change it? Should she really respond as to take out past wrongs that may not have had any impact on her or her family?
That's not how hate is reduced. That just keeps it rolling.

I was referring to her casual dismissal of the impact of the N-word; not to her personal strategies. This thread was not about her personal strategies. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with your last comment. That is not how hate is being reduced in this country. The historical effort has been massive and continues today fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Law. So, no. I don't buy your trickle up theory. I hope I haven't misread you.


You know what empowers people to offend you with words? Your reacting with outrage at their words. By reacting the way Greta reacts, you take that power away from others. It might cause a visceral response, but you still have the ability to choose exactly how you react.

You don't reduce hate by continually bringing up the past abuses every time they come up. It's good to not forget the past, but, at some point, the hate cycle has to be broken. You aren't going to stop people from thinking stupid things. You aren't going to be able to stop people from saying all the stupid shit they think. Not reacting back with hate helps to break that cycle.






Politesub53 -> RE: Hate speech or free speech or both? (5/17/2014 4:23:28 PM)

Laughable stuff DS......... Do you feel all the racist, homophobic and islamophobic speech would just end if no one reacted. No, I thought not. [8|]




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875