Or, if he had clearly stated that religious zealots of any stripe are subhuman savages. For me, that would include hand-stabbing atheists of the MMO type, Christians who bomb abortion clinics, and Muslims who beat up reporters.
Yay, one of the Admins finally admitted the truth. The board slants liberal, duh. I disagree with the notion of “Fighting Ignorance” is well-served by doing so.
If the Board slants liberal, try leaning in the other direction to maintain balance - like being on a ship.
What do you suggest? Quotas?
Nah. It’d be better if someone, say, milroyj, contributed nothing whilst foaming at the mouth like a rabid squirrel about persecution.
Oh, wait…
No silly, but I would suggest that the rule against Hate Speech be enforced more equitably.
e.g. hate speech against Christians should not be allowed, since hate speech against Muslims is not allowed.
Likewise, hate speech against Americans should not be allowed, since hate speech against Pakistanis is not allowed.
But there has been anti-American hate speech allowed on the SDMB.
After 9/11, there were hateful posts about how America “deserved it”. No, nobody on this earth, past, present, or future, deserved what happened that day.
And again at the start of the war in Iraq, at least one poster wished for a lot of American casualties. Wishing death on American soldiers is somehow NOT hate speech?
IMHO, YMMV.
THEN USE THE REPORT BUTTON. Report any post that you think is hate speech. However, be warned that just because YOU think that something is hate speech, doesn’t necessarily make it so.* We can’t read EVERY post, you know, and I don’t even try any more. In particular, the Pit is very tough to monitor, it’s very soul-draining.
*Criticism isn’t necessarily hate speech. In fact, it usually isn’t hate speech.
remember folks, the next meeting is Tuesday at the regular place. Nominations for the best “hate speech against Americans on SDMB” will be held.
Are we to submit our own original compositions? Or can we nominate from posted submissions? Can we nominate ourselves or must we pretend to admire someone else’s post more than one’s own?
Whoops. Very strange. 
And the Fireman rushes in, from the pouring rain…
<snicker>
And I was going to post something oh so interesting. Oh well. Back to my macramé.
My ex used to be in to macrame. Fits. She was strung out, knotted up and kinda twisted.
But where did she put the beads?
Wherevrer.
Huh. I have no clue about Dogface’s posting history, but the way I read the quote from the OP was, “why do we even keep pretending that [hooligans who dispense violent vigilante justice] deserve even the tiniest shred of consideration as human beings?”
Why is it reasonable to assume the worst?
Or 3) Approximately 15 young men ages 15 to 18, described as having brown hair, attacked the poor man…Why do we even keep pretending that these creatures deserve even the tiniest shred of consideration as human beings?
In other words, the “described as” phrase was just that: descriptive, not meant to define the class under consideration. Hell, they were described as “young men” too. Why isn’t anyone assuming he thinks all young men are savages?
Because you have no clue about Dogface’s posting history.
That sounds like a reason not to assume the worst to me.
I don’t understand why people who are so firmly convinced of his bigotry based on his other posts are spending time analyzing this one which is ambiguous at best. Flame away at that stuff that’s demonstrably wrong, not stuff you have to interpret in the worst possible light to find fault with.
First, I gotta say, my hat’s off to you for seriously considering the arguments and reversing your position. Andros’ argument is very good, and it required a keen interpretation of a really subtle point. It almost had me convinced.
However, the way I originally read the statement under question, it still makes perfect sense with the “keep pretending” part:
“Why do we even keep pretending that [people who commit these types of violent acts] deserve even the tiniest shred of consideration as human beings?”
I have to admit that when I read it this way, I agreed with it. It wasn’t until I read other people’s outrage that I saw the potentially bigoted meaning.