I agree with most of what you’ve added. And think the nits you’ve picked are significant. But I’d ask, is violence that only way one can demonstrate hate toward the country? I think not. For example, protesting in a way as to to prevent ships in the Port of Oakland from supplying our troops seems to qualify. (Although some violence did occur, on both sides, that was not the intent of the heart if the protest.)Giving a speech at a university saying that the U.S. should suffer “a million Mogadishus” qualifies in my book (Professor DeGnova, Columbia U.). As does those that carry a protest banner that states “We support our troops, who kill their officers.” (may not be the exact quote.) My point is that violence is not a necessary ingredient for hating America. Would you agree?
The short answer is no, I do not. However, there are some caveats, so please read below.
And, in addition to fear and violence as evidence of hate, I should have added inciting others to violence. I think it was implied, but I don’t think that you were taking specific exception to that. If you were, please excuse me for not making that clearer before this.
If you mean “express”, then no, words can be used for that; it is up to the reader or listener to interpret as they see fit. I think that people may get caught up in the moment and say things that they they not mean, especially if they are on camera. But actions speak louder than words, and by saying “demonstrate”, then you are at least implying actions. I think that hate speech implies the use or threat of violence.
With respect to actions: I suppose that one could hate the country so much that one leaves in anger, and that is truly the best way for one who hates America to show their disdain. I don’t think that many people would have a problem with that. The problem that we have is with people who don’t want to leave the country, and therefore take action so that the country will align itself with their own views. And yes, I think that most of these actions are expressed in violence.
To make my position clear; I agree with Mark Twain. “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” There is a difference between protesting the government of a country, and protesting against the country itself. Just as there is no contradiction in objecting to a war while being in support of the men and women who are fighting there.
I don’t know enough about this to comment, but in general: I can’t find fault with non-violent protest (I do live in Thoreau country, after all). Non-violent protesters know that there are consequences to their actions, and accept them. If the actions prevented the military from performing their actions in a time of war, then the protesters should have accepted that they would hauled away. If violence did occur, it was at the expense of the credibility of the protesters. I can’t say that protesting the war is an example of hating the country. You may say that they are denying the troops support, but I could argue that the government knowingly sending them into battle with inadequate armor did the same thing. Does the government hate America?
Unless Columbia University has a campus in San Francisco, this detracts from the argument that SF is “Hate Central”. I’ll assume that this offered as an example of hate speech in general. The statement was stupid, and hyperbolic. Clearly the standards for professorship are in decline. It was said at an anti-war teach-in; if I had to guess at what he was saying, it would be something like “America isn’t going to learn to mind their own business until they have their asses handed to them.” He found a fucking stupid and insulting way of saying it, but I doubt if he was calling on anyone to kill Americans. If he was, though, it was an incitement to violence, and it qualifies as hate speech.
Just a personal note here: Many of us who opposed the war in Viet Nam found Jane Fonda to be an embarassment and a detriment to our aims. People who go off the deep end can only undermine their own agenda by focusing attention on their behavior rather than the goals. I’d like to end this war too, but no way am I going to come to the support of this nutjob.
This is reprehensible, and execrable. And not just because I like using the word execrable. It is an insult to every member (past and present) of the armed services, and to their families, and to any who wish them well. And, if it incites anyone to actually follow up on this fucktarded idea, then it is definitely an example of hate speech. But then again, violence is the message here.
Plynck: Again, I’d say I agrre with a lot of what you’ve offered. By you seem to be saying two things I don’t agree with. One is that a violent action, or the encitement of, is the only action that can qualify as a Hate America action. What do you think about spies? What do you think of someone who shares national secrets? Mind you, they are not all military and therefore automatically covered by the broad umbrella of “potential violence.” Or how about someone who gives aid and comfort to the enemy during time of war. Theoretically, if the U.S. was infiltrated by another nation and we were in a state of war, wouldn’t some of those (not all, I’d say) helping the enemy be fairly characterized as an enemy of America?
I didn’t use "hate’ in the last sentence because it is an emotion or a feeling, not an action, and thus, it is often difficult to pinpoint where it resides. But, I think you’d agree, that just because it may be difficult to pinpoint, or measure, doesn’t mean it doesn’t actually exist. This is one of the reasons some say that today’s racism is even more insidious than the old strain. We know it is there, but it has gone underground and can’t be confronted.
And hate is an emotion, that may or may not be expressed with an action. I hate liver, but have never acted on that feeling in any way. I thiink it as reasonable to asume that some people hate America as it is that some people hate rap music, or violence on TV, or brussel sprouts, or modern art, or the tax system, or the death penalty, or misogony, or pistachio ice cream. So it does exist in our population, and it needn’t ever express itself.
I maintain that those who are on the extrem left AND hate America do exist. To assume that more of them will reside in places that are more liberal and have more people who are on the extreme left (in general) seems perfectly logical. That San Francisco is one of these places is undeniable. Ditto for Madison, Wi.
For the record, I think the same logic could be fairly applied to those America Haters on the extreme right. Where their Hate America Central is I don’t have as good a handle on. But I think it’s safe to say that it is not the Bay Area and probably either in the South (Texas?) or militia country (Montana?).
And just so I’m clear, I am NOT saying that being on the left, or even the extrem left equals being someone who hates America. Only that some from those ranks do, and that San Francisco has more than their share of them.
Well, magellan, you’ve finally made some reasonable points. However, you’re being defensive by accusing those (which included your new friends Miller and Troy McClure) who didn’t “get” your original post of being unable to read beyond a 9th-grade level. You said SF was “Hate America Central” and backed it up with examples of anti-Bush bumper stickers, then turned into a shrill little bitch when you were called out on it. Anyway, like Plynck, I still have issues with some of the “Hate America” examples you’ve given - thinking our policies are evil and/or arguing for the redistribution of wealth to the third world are certainly naive and simplistic (as is tossing out terms like “Hate America Central” without offering anything to back up your claim), but don’t necessarily equal hatred IMHO. Even things like the “We support our troops who kill their officers” BS, while certainly detestable, don’t automatically mean the person hates this country - there are plenty of idiots who believe the military has corrupted the ideals this country was founded upon, but still respect (in their own dogmatic ways) what they perceive those ideals to be. I heard plenty of that rhetoric when I was in the Army and traveled around in uniform - mostly it was knee-jerk anti-establishment posturing, and usually, after talking over a few beers, you’d find they weren’t as hardcore in their closed-mindedness as you’d have thought from the initial impression. I don’t know - I wouldn’t say there aren’t Americans who hate America; I just think that, in most cases, I find it easier to write that kind of stuff off as moronic jargon (coming from either end of the political spectrum) and reserve the “Hate America” label for those who would attempt to blow up the Powell Street Mall or send anthrax to the governor or whatever (IIRC, the protesters at the Port of Oakland didn’t really succeed in doing much of anything except getting clubbed - did they actually stop supplies from getting to the troops?). The ones who talk shit don’t bother me too much, because they don’t have any power to effect real change.
woodstockbirdybird,
Fine. I see your points regarding what constitutes hating America, and let’s just say we draw the lines in slightly different places.
But regarding your harkening back to the nonsense that the shithead started, and with which you seemed to agree at the time (maybe it was a heat of the moment thing), as I’ve explained it to the shithead, you are confusing posts 145 and 151. If not, please show me where Miller or Troy McClure SF once commented on my post 151, which was the one containing the hyperbolic statement.
And now that things have calmed down, I ask you to take an honest look at Post 151 yourself and judge afresh: Hyperbole? Or serious statement? Please be sure to take into consideration the part of tomndebb’s quote that I had selected to respond to.
First of all, magellan01, no matter what your intentions are or were, you’re coming across as a real asshole.
Second of all, you’re confusing hating America with hating the government. There are many people who love America, respect the constitution, are proud of being Americans, and who happen to hate the government. The people who are at the wheel are the targets, not the country or even our system of government. Example: I hate George Bush, and yet somehow I still love America. Or: I feel we should not be at war because I love America. Get it? I can hardly believe you live in San Francisco and are so uneducated about liberals.
Third of all, one of the reasons you don’t see as many leftist bumper stickers outside of San Francisco and Berkeley is that rabid W fans actually vandalize cars and flip you the bird or scream and yell at you on the highway, endangering the lives of those around them. (This has happened to me and to friends of mine.) They also fire their employees who they disagree with politically (cite). So those of us who choose not to put these stickers on our cars may very well be doing it to protect their life, property and/or job. Thanks to W supporters, liberals feel that their LIFE, PROPERTY and/or JOBS are threatened…and you’re saying liberals hate America? Get a fucking clue.
:smack:
From one asshole to an asshole who can’t read, did you even attempt to read this page of the thread? Show me where I said that one cannot criticize, or even hate the government, and still love their country. I suggest you (re)read post #175, which I thought, and others seemed to understand, clarified my thinking. Is there something in #175 that you object you specifically? If so, I’d be happy to clarify.
And it might interest yo to know, Mr. Fairness, that vandalism is not something the assholes on the right have exclusive claim to. My friend had two of his cars vandalized because of his Bush stickers: one in LA and one in Palo Alto. And it is my very strong opinion that any car parked in SF sporting a Bush sticker would suffer the same fate. I am not a fan of Bush, but if I were, I wouldn’t put a sticker on my car to tempt the assholes. So if you want to come off as this fair and reasonable guy, why not be fair and reasonable? Just a thought. :rolleyes:
I’d rather come off as a fair and reasonable gal, actually.
Point 1: I retract nothing.
Point 2: I still retract nothing. I get the impression that you think that the number of “America-haters” is far, far larger than it is. In post 183, you are still talking about “America Haters” as though a significant number of them exist in this country. I disagree with you on that point. Please provide a cite showing that there are people who hate America that live in San Francisco. I propose that the number of people who actually Hate America and live here is miniscule. (FWIW, I’d put Hate America Central somewhere around Baghdad right now.) I conclude that you are confusing hating America with hating the people in charge (and their decisions).
Point three: I agree that it works both ways. But please provide even one example of someone being fired for being a Republican or Bush supporter. It’s give you more credibility.
Point 1: I retract nothing.
Congratulations.
:smack: You can “get the impression” and “conclude” all you want. Even if it is contrary to what I’ve explicitly stated. Knock yourself out. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, it seems that I’ve overestimated you. I suggest a primer on logic.
And if you have any requests of me, I will entertain them after you have done the very basic things I’ve asked of you. Specifically:
•Show me where I said that one cannot criticize, or even hate the government, and still love their country.
•Tell me if there is there something in #175 that you object you specifically?
If you’d rather not bother, that would probably be best for both of us.
Ah, my mistake then. I thought all the hubbub was over post 145, so I was indeed confusing which post was being referenced. Post 151 can be easily read as hyperbole.
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to re-examine things.
I’m sure that all of the various people in the military brass (and the government in general) who are opposed to gays in the military have long and reasonable-sounding arguments to support their positions. And I’m sure that in the late 40’s, before the military was integrated, the people who were opposed to integration, knowing that outright “negroes-are-inferior”-style-racism was on its way out, had long and reasonable-sounding arguments to support their position. Some of them (then and now) might even truly believe those arguments. But I’m 100% certain that if there were no homophobia at all, it would never occur to anyone to have a restriction on gays in the military. I’m also 100% certain that there’s an ENORMOUS correlation between people who truly are homophobic (and there are WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY more of them in the US than there are people who genuinely hate America) and people who oppose gays in the military. (To be precise, what I’m saying is that while there are probably some people who oppose gays in the military who aren’t homophobic, there are very few homophobes who don’t oppose gays in the military.)
Anyhow, this is kind of drifting away from my point, which is that until you’ve been a gay man in America, particularly a patriotic gay man who wants to respect and trust the military the way so many of us, even liberal Bush-bashers like me, tend to do, you have no right to complain if some gays aren’t particularly rah-rah pro-military.
Injustice is still injustice when it is taking place in the ranks of an organization that is protecting us from greater injustice. We shouldn’t be unwilling to criticize the police just because the police protect us from robbers and rapists who are, obviously, far worse than some random dirty cop.
Anyhow, I have to throw my two cents into the general discussion of your remarks and their hyperbole.
(1) When you say something, and a whole bunch of basically well meaning people (that is, people who came into this thread hoping for vigorous and perhaps slightly sarcastic debate, not people who came into this thread saying “oooh, I sure hate dem republicans… maybe I’ll find one here to bash”) misinterpret it, you should apologize for the miscommunication. You should NOT proclaim that no one could possibly have misinterpreted you without being a lackwit of some sort.
(2) You should also recognize that when you say things that may be far more extreme and hateful than what you believe, but which are 100% in line with the precise literal views expressed by large numbers of extremely popular pundits, you should not assume that people will recognize that you intend hyperbole
(3) You should also realize that the best way to have a reasoned discussion with a lot of liberals is NOT to ever use the phrase “hate america”, because it’s truly hateful slander and it pisses us off and doesn’t necessarily leave us in the best mindset for properly detecting hyperbole. “America-hater” may not be quite as bad as “mother raper” or “traitor”, but it’s sure as heck a lot more vitriolic than “idiot” or “lackey” or “sheeple” or “stupid dirty hippie” or plenty of other insults that get tossed around. Has anyone ever told you that you hate America? More to the point, do you live in a country where someone can write a book claiming, in apparently 100% serious black and white prose, that you hate America, and then have that book become a bestseller? Trust me, it gets under the skin eventually…
While I accept your larger points, two things trouble me greatly. One is that anyone who professes 100% certainty about something that can’t be proven—especially in the realm of human feelings—is doing himself, and the world, an injustice. It simply closes off debate and prevents a closer examination of the truth. The second thing is the notion that because someone is not gay, or black, or handicapped, the victim of a violent crime, or the member of some other minority group, that he cannot either empathize and understand the issues or, more importantly, weigh in on the discussion. While I will never have the understanding you do, having walked in your shoes, neither can you fully appreciate my point of view having not walked in mine. And since we are all part of the same society, I think it is critital the dialogue is encouraged, not shut off. The more we communicate and understand one another the better.
I’m not sure what that is specifically directed at, but I think we are in comlpete agreement. Where we might disagree is with the notion that an action barring gays from the military is, de facto, homophobic and irrational. Do you think that all those who seek to bar women from combat hate and/or fear women? That there is no sane rationale on the side of the debate wishing to bar them? As I said, I personally don’t see what the big deal is. If someone is willing to risk his life in service to this country, they have my respect and support. But I am not a military expert, nor have I ever been in the military or in a combat zone. I could be wrong, but I simply cannot conclude that they would put irrational bias ahead of national security. Because that is what it comes down to for me. Especially at a time when recruitment levels have dipped, it seems that unless there were a rational argument for doing so, that military experts would not seek to turn away candidates, some of whom are doubt highly qualified.
Yes, but you do NOT describe the situation here. We have one person who stated that he was unable to see my post as hyperbolic, and two who expressed general agreement with him. Of those two, one, woodstockbirdybird volunteered that he thought a different post was the topic being discussed and that the post in question was, indeed, hyperbolic.
When the issue first came up, because I agree that the benefit of the doubt goes to the reader, I went back and reread my post (#151). I stand by my position that it IS hyperbolic and clearly so. Failure to see that is a problem with reading. I invite you to revisit it for yourself, as woodstockbirdybird did, and see if you come to the same conclusion.
I agree. And I feel that I was careful. I even, at the last minute, made sure to add the smilie face that I was responding to. Sometimes, people choose not to read and inject their own thoughts into what is written, especially with an emotionally charged issue. That can only be controlled so much. Some responsibility falls to the reader.
Why in the world should the phrase be off base? For the left, or the right? That individuals from both ends of the political spectrum qualify for the label is beyond question. I understand that part of the flak that arose here was that people thought I was equating two different groups (the extreme left with the very extreme Hate America left). And when I understood that to be the confusion I clarified my thoughts. Adequately, it appeared.
No. No one has ever told me I hated America. I’m a bit confused by the rest of this. Maybe you can clarify. (By the way, I live in SF, so we’re in the same country.) But I will say that I am glad that I live in a country where a person can write a book on anything they want. And that people can buy that book without fear of repraisal.
I never asserted that you said that. (In fact I believe you did not mean that or say that.) If you want, point out where I might have made that comment. I don’t think you’ll find it.
Well, there’s this:
To reiterate, I disagree with your assertion that there is a significant number of people in San Francisco that hate America. I still think you are confusing hating America with hating the government. Your comment equating people “working against American interests or against the idea of America” with people that hate America is dumb. For example, I believe that GWB is working against American interests. That does not mean he hates America. You are saying that it does.
I think you are wrong. I do take issue with these fringes being described as hating America.
Perhaps we are working with different definitions of America. I think of America as the land, the people, and the constitution which defines our system of government. And I do not believe that someone who disagrees with our actions and policies hates America. I think that if you hate America that means you want to destroy the land, the people and the constitution. And I think there are few people, even in San Francisco, who actually want to do that.
Then why did you type this?:
And just now, this?:
I’d say that it means that you want to destroy what the constitution and the people have created, and you are willing to operate outside the law to do so. I think it also menas that you are willing to throw the America of today down the drain, hook line, and sinker (or blow it up, or have others conquer us) and start over to create an America that is more in line with what you think it should be. Of course, I mean “you” in the general sense, not the personal. And for the last time, I don’t know how many there are, just that there are more per capita here than elsewhere.
You may draw the distinctions in places different from where I do. That is fine. I accept that it makes sense for you.
Hopefully, that answers your questions, as I think that may be it for me in this thread.
Fair enough.
Well, that’s a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, if I say “hey, what’s it like to be gay in America?” and get the response “oh, you’re straight, you couldn’t possibly understand”, well, that’s not a very helpful response. It’s probably also not an accurate response. I might not ever be able to FULLY, TRULY, DEEPLY understand it, but that doesn’t mean I can’t make analogies or comparisons or what have you. However, that’s not really what I was talking about. What I was saying is that if a gay man says to me “I refuse to treat the military with respect because I find their anti-gay policy so hurtful”, it is preposterous of me to say “ahh, but I know how you SHOULD feel, and you are wrong to feel the way you do”.
It’s specifically directed at the precise paragraph of yours it was responding to, in which you were saying “we all owe a lot to the military, particularly those of us (gays and women) who would suffer greatly if militant Islamics took over the country”. Which is doubtless true, but basically irrelevant.
Well, the usual argument is not outright homophobia, but is what one might refer to as second-level homophobia, ie “well, all the soldiers in the army are uncomfortable around gays, so even though I personally have nothing against gays, if we were to allow them, it would freak out all the soldiers, and reduce the effectiveness of our fighting force, so, sorry”. The thing is, by that argument, we never should have integrated the military racially. It’s NOT OK for lots and lots of soldiers to be homophobes. It’s NOT something that we should just accept and shrug our soldiers and say “gosh, faggyboy, I’d love to let you in but my soldiers just don’t like your kind”.
If there’s a DIFFERENT argument which has even the slightest shred of rationality behind it, you’d think that someone on the SDMB would know what it was and be able to reproduce it for us here… anyone? anyone?
This issue is particularly frustrating because the military has such potential to do good. If the military suddenly said “OK, we’re now just as sexual-orientation-blind as we are race-blind in our policies”, and 10 years later gay men were dying in the trenches next to their straight brothers-in-arms, it couldn’t help but have a positive impact on society on a whole…
But there’s no point to revisiting it. The question is not “will a reader, after calmly considering the issue, reading the entire thread including all of your disclaimers, taking two aspirin and having a cold shower, conclude that your post is hyperbole”. The question is whether a reader who is reading the thread in a typical reading-the-thread mindset conclude that your post is hyperbole. That’s all that really matters. And speaking just for myself, when I first came upon your post, it seemed dead serious to me, PARTICULARLY as the second part of post #146 seems dead serious, and hardly more exaggerated or extreme.
It’s not “off base” in the sense that I’m trying to say you shouldn’t be allowed to use it. I’m saying that if your objective is to have honest communication with decent thinking liberals, then you are more likely to succeed in that aim if you don’t use that phrase, because so many other people have taken that phrase and applied to to all or most liberals, that it’s a bit of a sore spot.
See “Coulter, Ann”. (I mean, how can what I said be any more clear? Ann Coulter wrote a book saying that all liberals are traitors. As far as I can tell, she absolutely means every word of it. There seems to be no smirk, no hyperbole, no cleverness there. And it’s a BEST SELLER! How the hell is that SUPPOSED to make me feel?)
Absolutely. (Did anything I said even remotely hint that I would want things to be otherwise?)
I’ve got one: I don’t think gays should be allowed to serve in the military until I am past the age in which I could realitically be drafted, should we ever re-institute the draft.
Not very likely to happen, I admit, but I want to keep my bases covered.
I’ll offer something. A company I worked for banned any dating amongst the employees. And they were strict about it. If two people did date and the owner found out about it, he very politely told them that one of them had to leave. Either they could decide who, or he would. And he carried through on this. The reason he did this (more than a tad extreme if you ask me) was that he belived that these affairs of the heart were distractions frome the task at hand, namely, making him even richer.
Anyway, I THINK the military keeps women off the front lines, in part, for this reason. If that is the case, then barring gays from the military follows the same logic (no, I know it’s not apples to apples, but the logic is the same even if the lines being drawn are being drawn in different places). Ironically, if I am right about the reason they keep women out of combat positions, then the military is looking at the relationships between man/woman and man/man as equal in kind.
Anyway, just a shot at what the military might have as a “rational” argument for barring gays. As I’ve stated earleir, I have no idea what their reasons are, only that I have to assume they have them. Because if they are reducing the size of our military and depriving it of many who, no doubt, have special skills simply because they find homosexuality icky, I’d try them for treason.
I’m not sure that’s the reason why women aren’t allowed in combat positions: I thought it had more to do with the fact that women, on average, don’t have as much physical strength and stamina as men do. But let’s run with that hypothesis. Women and men can’t serve together in combat positions because they’ll have sex and damage moral. This could also be a problem if gays were allowed in combat positions. Fair enough. But women are still allowed to serve in the military in a non-combat capacity. Gays are not allowed to serve in the military in any capacity. Last year, several Arabic translators (of whom we are in desperatly short supply) were discharged for being gay. These weren’t frontline guys. They weren’t going to be patrolling the streets of Fallujah in a Humvee. They were going to be sitting at a desk transcribing telephone conversations. I don’t see any way that that’s a defensible decision.