I’m genuinely trying to understand how **villa **views this particular issue. So unless you’re trying to get both of you banned by claiming to be his sock, I’m not sure why you’re answering for him.
While noting that this absolutely isn’t a violation of the man’s rights, and it’s perfectly *legal *to boycott the restaurant, I’d like to simply make the observation that Constitutional rights *do *make a handy guide for determining the ideals of our society. Which is why I, personally, am qualifying it as unAmerican to attempt harm to someone by attempting to cause their employer to coerce them against expressing a belief, however disgusting, in a forbink space.
I thought there was like a whole long conversation going on about it that other people were reading, but OK. If I was an Aston Villa sock I’d lose myself in the dryer, though.
Like you say, it’s perfectly legal. You could even say that it’s our constitutional right “to attempt harm to someone by attempting to cause their employer to coerce them against expressing a belief, however disgusting, in a forbink space.” So if we’re looking to the constitution as our guide, everything seems in order from my point of view, too.
I wouldn’t be objecting so much except that you were clearly attempting to answer *for *villa.
You seem to be confused between a *requirement *and an ideal. By your reasoning, it’s patriotic to be racist, because it’s legal.
The ideals enshrined in the Constitution include freedom of expression and equality of all human beings. So, just as it is *legal but unAmerican *for this douchecanoe to drive around with a bumpersticker that expresses his feelings that a given politician is sub-human because one of his parents is from Africa, so, too, is it *legal but unAmerican *for the creeptards in the OP to stalk someone to his place of employment and attempt to get him fired for an unsavory but legal opinion expressed in a forbink space and/or to curtail that forbink expression through the coercive power of his employer.
Whereas you seem to be confused about the difference between somebody who is confused by your not at all complex argument and somebody who can see where that argument is not compelling.
See, this is why I was talking to villa, not to you.
It was **villa **who said “Racism is by its nature a threat of violence.” Now, the sentiment “Barack Obama isn’t fit to be President because he’s Black” is a racist sentiment regardless whether or not the word “nigger” factors anywhere into the expression of it. So I’m trying to ascertain whether **villa **is talking about *all *racism–even racism expressed without words that are themselves inherently hateful regardless of context.
I don’t know if you’re the sort of person who only has “discussions” to play “gotcha ya” games with people, but when I ask a question, it’s usually because I want to genuinely know the answer and come to a better understanding of the other person’s position.
I’ll admit I don’t follow your posting schedule that closely. But I would have thought it wouldn’t take you very much time to repeat the stuff you’ve already posted.
You’ve already claimed you’re opposed to racism while defending it.
You’ve already claimed that trying to get one person fired is different from trying to get somebody else fired.
You’ve already claimed that I am a troll, a fucking retard, and a backbirth.
You’ve already claimed that you aren’t using any personal attacks in your arguments.
I’ve already addressed these claims so I see no need to repeat myself.
Glad to see your right to ad hominem arguments hasn’t been abridged.
And, in fact, I was right to the heart of the matter. You want to be a bully; your opinion is in the majority, and you want to flex some muscle and let people know you have power, perhaps get some validation, is my guess. Just because somebody used a term you didn’t like.
Listen, you are wanting to extort something from somebody because you don’t like the way they think. Think about this: How would you like it if somebody came to your job and did the same thing to you because you voted for Obama?
But, it’s alright if *you *do it, because *you’re *in the right.
Also, you clearly missed my point on costitutional rights. I don’t give two flips for your Constitution; I’m saying that you’d be crying about your rights, and squealing like a pig if somebody did that to you. if somebody vexed you in the manner you advocate, but, it’s quite alright for you to go harass somebody that acts differently and doesn’t think as you do, isn’t it?
Listen, what you want done is 1000 times worse than displaying a bumper sticker, no matter how disagreeable.
And, tell me, what of somebody that hates somebody that uses the word “Nigger.” Or, somebody who uses it?
What shall be done with them? You, surely, have a plan that doesn’t include letting them live their own lives without your interference, does it. Something like re-education, something punitive, I suspect…come on, isn’t that the truth?
Racists are human beings, too, in spite of what you have been taught.
Yes you do. And, there will be a demonstration at your workplace tomorrow, and they will be demanding of your boss why they tolerate your working there.
hh
Exactly. So is interring in camps for their protection. Also, removing the disaffected elements from the society.
Such as…hmmmm…well, a lot of Muslims I know wouldn’t like to be around my part of town. Me and the boys can straighten them out. Let them know they can’t push US around!
Also, there’s a bunch of them homos that have been passing on that there AIDS disease…people are dying by the millions from it. Well, I know where some of them work! Don’t worry, me and the boys…
Glad you see that it’s the best course to take, and are with me and the boys.
I think your demonstration will be a lot sadder than you imagine. What are you going to do? Gather up a few like-minded friends, dress up in your white sheets and homemade nazi uniforms, and loudly declare that Little Nemo is against racism?
And you think that’ll bother me? Hell, I’m proud to be hated by Nazis and Klansmen - it’s like a badge of honor. And I’m pretty sure my last boss, who was black, won’t be firing me for my anti-racist views. You’ll have your demonstration and people will be shaking my hand and spitting in your direction.
That’s what really bother racists nowadays, isn’t it? The good old days when racists could march down a public street with their burning cross and everyone would cheer them are over.
You say that like it hasn’t or doesn’t happen. Muslims and Homosexuals carry on despite the boycotts. You have a right to join those boycotts, just don’t be surprised as history marches over your bigoted ass. If McRacist was as justified in his behavior he could stand tall and wait for history to vindicate him, meanwhile he can wait for legal protections like the rest of us. By all means if you think his cause is deserving of legal protections write to your congressman and lobby to change the law.
Your statutory entitlement to non sequiturs is likewise safe, because what?
Nobody could do that to me, because I don’t put terrorist buzzwords on my property and display it publicly. If they did it because, for instance, I have a David the Gnome sticker on my car (no), then no, I wouldn’t squeal about it. I’d ask my boss why did you just call security a little while ago to have a batshit nutty person removed from the premises? This is not about the relative popularity of one belief vs. another. I don’t know why so many people have to keep repeating this: calling people niggers as a way to disparage them is a unique case historically, in that it is directly associated in a dangerous and violent way with by far the worst thing that has ever happened here. Other things are not like it, and that is an important part of the conversation. The fact that you want to talk about calling the president a nigger as if the problem is that it’s a “different way of thinking” suggests to me that you don’t know anything at all about the subject, to be honest, and I’m not taking a shot at you; I’m just saying I don’t think a message board post is really going to bridge this gap. “You’re a nigger” is not a difference in opinion. It’s not a belief to be credited in a philosophical sense. If it is a belief, as I have asked repeatedly and been ignored while asking, describe that belief to me. Who else has that belief? What are the hallmarks of this belief system of which I am risking the extirpation by saying it wouldn’t be so bad if it was hard to function in society while owning it publicly? Is there anything about that belief system that makes it a likely exception to the rule in a way that, for instance, being a Muslim would not be?
Anyway, I don’t “want anything done.” What I’ve said in this thread has been that it isn’t morally wrong or un-American to boycott a business because its employee called the president a nigger. I think everybody should go to whatever restaurant they want, for whatever reason they want, and if they feel like telling the proprietor about it, they should. And if the proprietor thinks they’re full of shit he should hamhandedly mash out poorly-punctuated screeds on the internet about it. I hereby acknowledge that you think that’s worse than any hate speech, I’m a Nazi, etc.
P.S. when you quote somebody saying something is innocuous, and then respond by saying
the best explanation is that you didn’t read so closely. It goes downhill from there.
Not quite. I am saying that racist language is an explicit threat of harm. Well, to be honest, I have found myself backed into to much of an extreme position. I’ve found myself moving from the concrete position of the bumper sticker to thinking of time back home and dealing with the National Front and BNP. So I have probably taken it further than I really mean.
Now I need to draw a distinction. I don’t think the language of this bumper sticker meets the legal definition of an explicit threat. In other words I don’t think punching the guy in the mouth should be legal, nor do I think the bumper sticker should be banned. But I do draw a distinction between community and individual action I can support and governmental action I can support.
Looking at this bumper sticker, it’s purpose is clear to me. It is not just saying “Don’t reelect Obama” - a statement with which I have no problem. The language is deliberately chosen to include the racist sentiment. It is saying that Obama should not be reelected because of his skin. It is stating that people with that skin tone are of less value. And using a particular word that is extremely loaded.
That’s a good point. I think it comes down to the choice of language, and the history behind the word nigger, which you cannot avoid.
Well that depends. Are we assuming that octopuses have rights that should be respected? That there is a history of octopuses being discriminated against? And that the word “eighty” is one that is inextricably linked through history to violence against octopuses both by the state and private individuals? Because if yes, then I would object less vehemently in the first situation.
I don’t deny racists are human beings. If they weren’t, I wouldn’t hold them responsible for their actions and beliefs. But the simple fact of being a human being doesn’t mean someone can do anything they want and avoid getting smacked in the mouth.
