No, there is not. The second quote is just a cover, to try and stay within board rules. It’s the exact same thing some of you accused December of, namely being “polite” and a jerk at the same time.
You actually think that “Fucko off” is logic? You make me laugh.
Good God, are you that dense? You have been here for almost 3 years and 3,000 posts, yet you don’t recognize an obvious “in-board” cliche when you see one?
milroyj, your joke was not at all humorous. The issue is not whether or not I appreciated it, which I did not, but rather why you chose to deposit your little ball of deficate derision rather than deal with the explanation that was put to you by the previous posters.
Give me a break. This reminds me of the folks that think that a media outlet that quotes someone automatically agrees with the quote. While it’s possible that Aldebaran might be the biggest American basher to ever set foot on the earth (I wouldn’t have a clue, as I am relying on your links), the link you provided isn’t evidence of it.
If I make a note of the fact that many Americans bash the Islamic religion, as a whole, due to terrorist actions, I’m not bashing Islam myself, nor am I condoning the bashers (in fact, I think they’re idiots). I’m simply making an observation.
Gotcha ya!
I’ll go back to my cage and shut up now.
Then what you’re saying is that all the Republicans who were calling the President of the United States, his First Lady, and his Administration every name in the book between January 20, 1993 and January 20, 2001, including an attempt to remove him from office by the impeachment process, are guilty of un-American conduct, the damage of American prestige, and arguably of treason?
You may have a point.
But it was my impression that at least some of them were motivated by a patriotic impulse to protest and fight against policies they felt to be deleterious to American ideals, traditions, and the proper way to conduct our government.
Just as many of those who today protest and fight against Mr. Bush, his Administration, and their policies are.
:wally
milroyj, get a fucking thicker skin. Get this through your head-if people want to comment on the US-ESPECIALLY when it has an effect on other parts of the world, they damn well have that right.
If you don’t like it, well, tough titty said the kitty.
Coldfire, can you explain why the VVD and D66 participates in coalitions with both the PvdA and the CDA? Are they the center parties, or merely power whores?
(If you’re a member of either, please don’t take personal offense)
(And, FTR, I am playing a weird joke, based on comments made earlier in this thread. Please don’t ban me.)
Failing the skin thing, at least have the decency to occasionally pit the unamerican Sam Stone for expressing his opinions in re American foreign policy. The poor guy’s still a pit virgin !
Gee, that’s really big of you.
Damn, I forgot to add this :rolleyes: to my previous post!
But the fact is that you do permit hateful comments against religious groups.
There is no objective difference between “faggots are stupid” and “fundies are stupid”. Both are pejorative insinuations using purposely disparaging language. The difference is in perception only: a homosexual and his allies will take offense at the former, while a fundamentalist and his allies will take offense at the latter.
Indirect hateful comments not only are tolerated, they are officially on safe ground. Gaudere has expressed that Jesus, for example, is fair game for every manner of curse or invective simply because she sees Him merely as a celebrity. But if famous personalities are fair game, then “Martin Luther King Jr in a Noose” ought to be as permissible as “Christ on a Stick”.
I don’t blame Gaudere for not personally understanding why Jesus is not merely a celebrity, but I do blame her for refusing to see it another way. I believe that she tolerates “Christ on a Stick” because it does not offend her personally. And indeed, that is the nature of subjective judgment generally.
And, of course, it is naturally often the relative position of the person speaking that determines what is permissible: thus, Cecil (or Ed or whatever) can refer to retarded kids, while a newbie using the same term is pounced upon by The Offenderati.
I don’t begrudge you as Mods your authority to make judgment calls. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that the board is predominately atheist and liberal in viewpoint and that therefore anti-Christian and anti-conservative remarks are seen as less offensive to more people. But I do wish everyone would admit to his biases and stop pretending to be isolated in some artificial objective frame. People can’t be objective.
It would be refreshing, for example, if Czarcasm were to say something like: I allowed the post in question to stand because I don’t give a shit if someone is so deluded that he associates himself with his stupid god. In fact, before he was a Mod, when he was still Slythe, he made it clear that he would kill my God if he could. It would seem unnatural if he feigned concern about a fundamentalist Christian taking offense.
Those who determine what is permitted see our posts through their own subjective perceptions. It is possible, for example, that you and the other Mods could interpret this particular post in a variety of ways, from deeply insulting to mildly provocative to how it was intended — a dispassionate observation from someone outside most people’s political, religious, and racial spectra.
After all, a man needs a mirror to see his own eyes.
Concerning Fundamentalist Christians, first of all, I suspect DDG would be quite surprised to learn that Fundamentalists get banned. Second, I was, I think responsible for the poster who used to be known as His4Ever changing her name and leaving this board. She did so after I flamed her and after she exchanged a few e-mails with me and another poster. The reason I flamed her is because she continued to post incorrect and misleading information about the Church of Latter-Day Saints despite being repeatedly told her information was wrong. As I understand things, among the reasons she left are she felt her message wasn’t being heard here and she felt her reputation was too tarnished for it to be heard. I can’t disagree.
For the record, I am a very devout Christian (Episcopalian, not LDS), and I’m more public about that Christianity on this board than I am anywhere else except in church. I have gotten some flak for that here, but that’s what I get for participating in religious debates over in GD, and I consider the flak part of what GD’s about. I can take it in religious debates; it’s the political ones I don’t like, which is why I stay out of political debates.
Me, I tend to see far more nastiness coming from the right than from the left, but I also realize my perception might be shaped by my views. I don’t like it when I’m called “un-American” because I disagree with the president or when a friend of mine is called “immoral” because he’s a homosexual. As someone who emigrated to the United States when I was a child, I also don’t like it when I hear blanket references to “foreigners” or “immigrants” which is why I tend to wade into the latter debates. Others mileage varies.
I’ve heard harsh criticisms levelled against Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush (for some reason, George Bush seemed to draw less fire). At this point, I’m tempted to draw back and say, “A pox on both your houses.” No group of people, whether they share political views, interests, or membership on a message board is without jerks. I’d prefer the jerks take their attitude elsewhere, and here they wind up being encouraged to do so. That’s one of the main reasons I like this place.
CJ
CJ
As we used to say in my day, far out!
Lib –
Of course there is. I am aware of the fundies’ common patterns of reasoning and beliefs (what they are depends on the definition of the word “fundies”, but they certainly exist, by most definitions). If I deem those to be unreasonable, I can express this conjecture by saying “fundies are stupid”.
On the other hand, there is no reason to think that the homosexuals share any beliefs or patterns of reasoning, let alone that those are generally unreasonble.
“A pox on both your houses.”, CJ? That sounds a bit harsh. When Mercutio used the word “plague”, he may only have meant hail or locusts or something. 
Hey I agree with you to! Let me in on your hippy love-fest! I hate signs! Or don’t if you don’t!
Homosexuals share patterns of reasoning -the pattern of reasoning that suggests it’s allright to have sex with people of the same sex, despite the Lord saying it isn’t. And then the Lord said some other stuff. Wait, which one is the Lord?