I was commenting on someone else’s comment. Not about me.
If you really think I am an asshole because I called the Australian Cricket team arrogant and made a pseudo apology about it, then I care not about your opinion.
What I said was you should stick by your assertions no matter who you are talking to. I did not say that you have to call the President an asshole to his daughter. Can you see the difference?
You said “rule”. I said at the end of my humorous reply that I assumed you were kidding. Giving you the benefit of the doubt. You charge in, guns blazing, to defend your little “joke” as if it were the very gospel of your heart. So, let’s see - which seems more likely - you either really meant it at the time, or you’re such a humorless lump that my clearly-labelled response joke offended your sensibilities anyway.
Frankly, it’s a toss-up. Go watch your stories, Edith.
Well, as a White Male aged 18-45, that would mean I had a stable, well-paying job, a nice house (with the latest in appliances, no less!), a wife who cooked, cleaned, and raised the kids, and I could spend my spare time at the pub with my friends from work, whilst on the weekends we had family outings to the beach and could go for drives in our massive, 1950s style car, Britain, France, and Spain still had Colonies, WWII surplus firearms were cheap and plentiful, and when I came home from work, I’d take off my fedora and say “Honey, I’m home!” and my wife would appear with a Martini and the kids would come and show/tell me what they’d done at school, and then after dinner, I could sit in the lounge and read the paper, maybe watch some TV, and maybe- if I was feeling particularly daring- smoke a pipe!
What’s the downside again? 
This is “guns blazing”? “Actually, I think that our society’s cultish insistence that all that matters is being “true to yourself” is ridiculous, and I think people do need to be encouraged to repress their own feelings a little bit.”
If that’s “guns blazing”, then maybe the problem is that you’re simply too delicate to discuss anything with. Meanwhile, your suggestion that I’m in any way promoting “conformity” is a childish appeal to adolescent rebellion, and completely inaccurate (and rather offensive). I said nothing about “conforming” in any way. I guess maybe you’re stuck in some teenage fantasy world where saying you’re sorry or thank-you notes is giving in to The Man, but maybe you’ll understand the difference between basic politeness and “conformity” one day. You know, like if they find a cure for lead poisoning.
Nothing I said was said with “guns blazing” until you pulled the ridiculous reference to the Constitution, and the only vitriol I directed your way was because it was such a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say that I lost all patience. Your continual references to “thinking differently” were in every respect a straw man, though - I never said anything to encourage “going along with the crowd”. I just suggested that maybe, just maybe, personal insults aren’t the best use of our capacity for speech. You’ve been putting words in my mouth in a very insulting way for no discernible reason, and I’ve been far more tolerant and friendly to you during this discussion than you deserved. I’m beginning to think that was a mistake.
Apology accepted.
Daniel
This may be the most unintentionally funny thing I’ve seen all week, and I just got back from a screening of Poseidon.
Let’s say you’re talking to someone who, you realize during the conversation, is a total nut-job. Say, this guy believes that Martians are using earth dogs as aircraft carriers for their invasion of earth in which they’ll pose as fleas. You insult him by failing to take his insane ideas seriously at first, but he gets so hot that you realize that an apology would help, yet you don’t want to be perceived as agreeing with him, since there’s virtually nothing you agree with him about.
Can’t you say “I’m sorry for saying what I said to you before”? “I’m sorry, I was out of line”? “I’m sorry–I hadn’t realized how much this meant to you”? “I’m sorry–I was being flippant about a subject you obviously care deeply about”?
Are any of these not true? Are any of them not sincere apologies?
You’d have to wear a grey flannel suit. 
Well, there’s a fun bit of revisionist history. No, this is more the “guns blazing” portion:
The Constitutional comment? Was a reference to the reason behind the First Amendment, not it’s protective powers. Why do we have it? Because the Founders believed people should be free to speak their minds. Which would run counter to that rule you suggested that you’ve now tried to retroactively label a “joke.”
Sorry, Edith. Not buying it.
There is a certain aura of irony to it, isn’t there?
Yeah, after you had accused me of somehow promoting “conformity”. That’s insulting, and I’ve been around here long enough that it’s plenty clear that I’m anything but a supporter of conformity.
Hey, fuckhead - the Constitution was a model for a government, not a society. Trying to read a model for a government as some sort of architecture for a society makes no sense at all. It was a government they were designing, and one specifically created to ensure individual freedom - of course they enshrined specific government protections on free speech. But looking to the structure of the Constitution as a model for society is nonsense. Does the Third Amendment mean that the framers of the Constitution implicitly didn’t think soldiers should be allowed to live in houses at all? Did they explicitly make prosecution for treason difficult because they wanted people to commit treason? Did they enshrine strong protections against unfair criminal prosecution because they wanted this to be a nation where criminals could feel safe? Of course not. Looking at the freedoms the Constitution includes as evidence for the founder’s hopes for the form of a society is ridiculous. Not that it matters what sort of society they wanted anyway - are you a rural farmer? Because Thomas Jefferson did explicitly promote the idea of a nation of independent farmers - but that’s not remotely what the United States has become. And why should it?
Further, evidence suggests the Founding Fathers didn’t feel nearly as strongly about free speech as we do now - after all, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed not very long after the Constitution.
Besides, you keep operating under the implicit assumption that I have some desire to limit people’s freedom to speak their minds. I don’t, and once again, you are a moron to interpret what I said that way, and you owe me an apology for it because it’s tremendously insulting. I have stated over and over that I think people should exert some self-control - which is the opposite of encouraging the government or any other force to control people. Your paranoid implications that I’m promoting a society of conformists are nonsense, as I’ve specifically limited my commentary to people who use “honesty” as an excuse to insult other people. I have not even vaguely suggested that people shouldn’t share new ideas, or call for social change, or shout their political views from the rooftops, or any of the other things the First Amendment was designed to protect. (And yes, according to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment’s protection of political speech is the most important free speech protection - laws restricting political speech must pass much tougher tests than those restricting other forms of speech. Let me know if you need me to explain this in shorter words.)
Christ, limit yourself to talking about things you remotely understand, you fuckhead. And stop imputing things to me that I never said.
A small price to pay for the benefits of living in a 1950s Public Service film, I say!
Why yes, I did watch Pleasantville the other day. Why do you ask?
In a post explicitly labelled as a joke. Have you lost your reading glasses again, Edith? Besides, the quote I excerpted to show your zeal is from the same post as the quote you excerpted, supposedly in good faith, claiming you saw no such zeal.
I’ll make the point one final time, in small words, very slowly : The First Amendment was referenced as an indicator that, “Hey, people care enough about being able to say offensive things that the founding fathers, way back when, actually inserted an amendment to protect it.” Sedition aside. It’s a basic human desire. Nothing to do with what the amendment’s power is, nothing to do with what it’s role is.
I really need to see that movie. And I’ve seen far too many 50’s educational films on MST3K to want to live in one.
As a joke, it doesn’t even make sense. Nor was it remotely funny.
Hey, CandidGamera! You’re a complete fucking moron!
Ha ha, just kidding! Funny joke!
(Okay, so I wasn’t really kidding.)
Nothing in the First Amendment specifically protects the right to say asinine, insulting things and then not apologize. That’s an effect of the freedom of speech, of course, but you must have absolutely no understanding of what a Constitution is and does if you think that’s the purpose. And insulting other people is generally not something repressive, totalitarian governments have outlawed anyway (unless the insult was directed at the Great Leader, perhaps.) The first amendment simply has no relevance here, as I was certainly not calling for any law against being a jackass. Nor did I even call for an oppressive social system that discourages people from speaking their minds. I just said I thought people should shut up sometimes. Once again: controlling your own mouth has absolutely nothing to do with any imaginary outside forces controlling it for you. Your argument here is absolute, unadulterated nonsense.
You have absolutely no understanding of the English Language if you think I was talking about the purpose of the Amendment. Final time : The motivation/mindset that caused it to be included. Why it came to be. Not what it’s for.
“Why it came to be” is in order to prevent an oppressive government from controlling people’s speech. That’s why a lot of things in the Constitution came to be. If you want to try to put forth an argument here, do it, but you haven’t remotely done so yet. Especially since - once again, and try to understand this time - I was not recommending any sort of control on people’s speech.
God damn you are dense. I can’t figure out why in the name of God you’re still clinging to your argument, but whatever point you were trying to make has become even less comprehensible the more you try to argue it. Jesus Christ.
Don’t mind Edith, folks. She’s forgetful.
And once again, I was recommending that people exert some self-control. If you think the first amendment is there because the authors of the Constitution feel that no one should exert any control over what they say, then argue it, you jackass.
You know, at this point, I’m convinced that not even you could possibly be stupid enough to believe what you’re arguing. You’re just doing this to be an asshole, aren’t you? Well, congratulations. You’re an asshole.