I don’t mean that the discussion is, necessarily, directly with the people (though personally I will go pretty far in trying to engage and understand people). No, I mean that when an idea you think is wrong is expressed in the public forum, you should respond with your counter-ideas in the public forum. Convincing that person is never as important as putting the better perspectives in front of the general audience.
Not that that was the question. If you agree it’s insulting at all, it can’t be one hundred percent less so than any other insulting term.
Not trying to speak for Little Nemo, but by we in that statement I would mean anyone who isn’t an inbred, mouth-breathing cracker.
You act like the two are incompatible. There are many of us who didn’t want assholes like that in our town, on our streets, in our bars. It’s perfectly possible to argue against the racist scum as well as take more direct action when that action is called for. And if one of the results of that direct action is losing a minimal amount of support from people like you who want your hands completely clean, that’s life. Except it wouldn’t, because unless it was in your community you would never hear about it.
I think we just disagree about what direct action is called for, and when. To my understanding, some of your imagined action sounds worse than what you’re responding to, and I presume that many in most communities would agree.
To be clear, you are saying that you are potentially in favor of assaulting people (without talking to them first) on the basis of their bumper stickers?
For a bumper sticker, probably not. As I started in this thread, I won’t shed any tears I’d his truck got vandalized though. I also wouldn’t shed any tears if he got a slap, though I don’t think that’s necessarily called for.
The guy with the bumper sticker has the right to be express his odious and racist opinions, and in the OP’s place I couldn’t have been bothered to confront him or try to get him fired. But that the opinion expressed by his bumper sticker is racist is obvious. It is patently obvious that you are trolling.
Newsflash: there are and will always be bigots. What do you, say, if you’re cable service is provided by AT&T and discover that one of their employees is an asshole bigot?
Our American friends are correct when they say that the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects them from their own government; and by extension, government agencies and similar. No government body may take adverse action against an individual or group because of what that individual or group says. However, the First Amendment offers no protection from actions taken by private individuals or businesses or similar; so if the restaurant chooses to fire the pickup truck owner, it can. Subject, of course, to the procedures or requirements found in any employment legislation in place in the jurisdiction.
Cat Whisperer, you may be interested to know that we have the same protections from the government here in Canada under our own constitution, and we also enjoy an extremely broad definition of free speech. Yes, we have hate speech laws, but those are rarely invoked in spite of all the nasty things that Canadians can and do say to and about others. A survey of the statute and case law involving hate speech shows that there are specific elements necessary to make out a case in hate speech, and I don’t think those elements are present in the bumper sticker referenced in the OP. The upshot is that the sticker may be offensive, but it would be permissible to display such a sticker in Canada.
Starving Artist’s position: “be a nice little black person, and we’ll give you your rights.” (That may not be your intention, but that’s the impression you leave, SA. Civil RIGHTS shouldn’t be something a person has to earn. That’s why they’re called “rights”.
Ugh. I did find the “Willy Nelson for President” amusing. Considering that Willy’s a pot-head leftist.
Using racial slurs makes one racist, dumbass. “Nigger” is a racial slur.
And once again, the guy has every right to express his views. And I have the right to think that he’s a fucking asshole.
“Tolerance” doesn’t mean being so open-minded your brain falls out.
First, while this is likely, it is an assumption. Many places in crowded areas do not allow employees to park in their lots due to limited space. It also assumes that he even drives to work. My point is that this isn’t a necessary situation. On the other hand, if when you pull into a lot and see a sign or a bumper sticker on a car, you do have the right to leave. Or even to mention it to the owner. But what do you do if the car belongs to a patron, and not an employee?
No, I was responding to Starving Artist’s post that was right above yours. I was writing my response (which was originally longer) at the same time you were posting yours.
There are two groups of people in the world. Normal intelligent people who know calling somebody a nigger is racist and racism is wrong. And there’s brain-damaged inbred short-dicked racist morons.
I’ll go on record saying I’m in the first group. I was willing to assume you belonged to the first group as well. But ultimately it’s your choice.
So it’s wrong. So what. Are you going to vandalize someone’s car or try to have them fired because of their “the earth is flat” or “the earth is 6,000 years old” sticker?
Their flat earth sticker is relatively harmless. Their OEC sticker is also not designed to instill fear in a community. Racism is meant to threaten, and it does.
Not necessarily. And I think the bumper sticker in question is an example of one that does not threaten. While it shows the owner to be an asshole, the only action it implies is VOTING Obama out of office.
IANAL, but I’m not so sure about that. The bumper sticker, while racist, is also political speech, and as such, could not be used as grounds for firing someone. Like religious speech, I’d say?
Unless the bigot in question is being obvious about it at work, there are no grounds to fire him based on his bumper sticker. The boss could, however, require him to park somewhere else other than on business property, and if the bigot refuses, fire him for that. But he(the boss) would have to be sure that every other political opinion expressed on a bumper by his employees was treated the same way if he wanted to dodge a lawsuit.
Although personally, I’d be very up-front about not tolerating bigots. The public support and increased patronage just might counter-act any legal fees.
And you’re wrong. There’s nothing threatening about a bumper sticker which calls for Obama to not be re-elected. But when it focuses on the term “nigger” it becomes part of a threat to the African American community as a whole. Much like saying “don’t vote for Frank” sends a deliberately different message to “don’t vote for the fag.”