Liberal, can we talk about hate speech?

[Liberal]

@kaylasdad99

I’d be curious to know if Friend Liberal considers “handstabber” to be hate speech, under his relaxed set of boundaries for the description. My guess would be that he can see it as not hate speech because it is not widely used.

Sorry, but you guessed wrong. I haven’t used the term “hand stabber” (until this moment) since May of 2004, in this post…

@Liberal

I’m perfectly willing to accept the prohibition of “hand stabber” right along with “fundie”.

…which was in response to a question from Epimethus similar to yours…

@Epimethus

Why is fundie any worse than hand-stabber.

The three main arguments that I’ve heard for excepting “fundie” from the nebulous hate-speech list are all logical train wrecks.

The Fundie Is Just A Handy Abbreviation For Fundamentalist Argument:

Right. And “homo” is just a handy abbreviation for “homosexual”, but seldom if ever do people use the term “homo” merely as an abbreviation. They use it as a pejorative. Once, when I pointed this out, the retort I got was something like, “Well, I’m gay, and I say homo all the time.” All that did was move the argument from ridiculous to sublimely ridiculous. Blacks often say “nigger” too, but they view it quite differently (and understandably so) when non-Blacks say it.

The Tell Me How Many Christians Have Been Lynched Argument:

Possibly the most bizarre of them all, this argument begs that the opponent supply evidence of people being physically violated just because of their Christian faith. Although it is true that history is rife with Christian violence against non-Christians, it is equally rife the other way around. From the lion feeding frenzies in Nero’s Rome to the murderous crusades in Stalinist Russia, violence against Christians has been institutionalized. And today, violence against Christians is occurring from India to Laos to Indonesia. Lumping all fundamentalists together as a group that deserves contempt is as ethically blind as lumping any other group together the same way.

The Blacks Can’t Change Their Skin Color And Gays Can’t Change Their Orientation But Christians Can Change Their Beliefs Argument:

While it might be true for some people that faith is a synonym for lip-service, for many others, including some atheists, faith or non-faith is a product of a person’s experience. A person can no more change it than he can change the fact that he’s been to New York. For a person who has had a personal experience with God (whether you believe him to be delusional is irrelevant), denying his faith would be downright psychotic. I’ve heard from atheists on this board who have explained that they cannot “choose” to believe in God anymore than they can “choose” to believe that one plus one is three. And I completely understand that. But the converse is also true. Those who have an abiding and sincere faith in God are not capable of “choosing” not to believe. Their experience might later cause them to change their beliefs, and as well it might go the other way around — a conversion from faithless to faithful. But these aren’t conscious choices, they’re life lessons.

Many people who do not share the Christian faith rightly recognize the meaning that underlies the word, and rather than cling to some tenuous, disengenuous, or hypocritical argument about how their usage of a pejorative is somehow different or exceptional, choose to take the high road of civilized discourse. At the Positive Atheism letters forum, for example, usage of the term “fundie” is expressly discouraged:

Also, we strongly discourage the use of the pejorative “fundie” on this forum. It’s a dignity thing. We have, on several occasions, rejected a perfectly good letter simply because it contained such perjoratives.

Finally — and this is directed solely to Excalibre — my comment was not an irrelevant aside. The entire statement was:

@Liberal

As far as the OP, I think lying should be a bannable offense when it is a material part of breaking the rules. If you lie just to be a jerk, or just to use hate-speech words like “faggot” or “fundie” as though you’re entitled, or just to spam people with your commercial interests, or just to draw attention away from a sock you’re maintaining — that sort of thing.

It was a comment on whether lying should be a bannable offense, and offered the theory that it should be “when it is a material part of breaking the rules”. Breaking the rules includes so-called hate-speech. I listed two examples, which, if they had been “faggot” and “nigger” instead of “faggot” and “fundie”, it is my opinion that this thread would not now exist.

The irrelevant aside is this thread.

[butter_pie]

@Little Plastic Ninja

Very open, very loving of their gay and pagan friends, not even with that underlying ‘but you’re going to hell’ mentality. They lived their lives by example and talked about their religion when asked.

I wouldn’t refer to them as a fundie or a fundamentalist to begin with.

[butter_pie]

Liberal, how is “fundie” any more hate speech than calling someone a leftie, a hippie, a liberal, a bongo-playing communist, or anything else? I fail to see why the term fundie deserves some special protection as hate speech any more or less than those other commonly used terms for describing someone’s political and/or religious beliefs.

Or should we just ban all labels we can give people because they could possibly hurt someone’s feelings or be construed as hate speech?

I think it’s pretty clear that the term fundie refers to the particular brand of American fundamentalist here, a la Jerry Falwell and the guy that was after Spongebob Squarepants’ tightey-whities. Last time I checked, I’m not living in Nero’s Rome, India, Laos, or Indonesia. I live in the USA, which is probably has a bigger population of Christian fundamentalists than anywhere else in the world right now.

I’ve been accosted and physically threatened and reminded very HATEfully how I’m going to Hell for being an atheist, is calling me an atheist hate speech? Is calling me a godless heathen hate speech? I want to know… is calling me a progressive hate speech? A bleeding heart liberal? Is that hate speech? Why does fundie warrant special consideration? Does fundie deserve to be banned because it refers to religion, and Bog forbid we use a negative word to refer to God’s children? WHY is fundie any more hateful than these other words?

I rarely even use the word and I don’t even care all that much, this just strikes me as colossally stupid. And your quote from the “Positive Atheism” letter doesn’t say it’s hate speech. It says it discourages the use of it, probably because that’s beneficial towards the goal of educating people instead of inflaming them. You don’t insult people you’re trying to at least get to sympathize with your side. I’d agree with that. But you’ve still failed to show me how the term fundie is hate speech.

The three main arguments that I’ve heard for excepting “fundie” from the nebulous hate-speech list are all logical train wrecks.

The only logical trainwreck here is your over-reacting, hypersensitive self.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

@kaylasdad99

I’d be curious to know if Friend Liberal considers “handstabber” to be hate speech, under his relaxed set of boundaries for the description. My guess would be that he can see it as not hate speech because it is not widely used.

Sorry, but you guessed wrong. I haven’t used the term “hand stabber” (until this moment) since May of 2004, in this post…

@Liberal

I’m perfectly willing to accept the prohibition of “hand stabber” right along with “fundie”.

…which was in response to a question from Epimethus similar to yours…

Dick Cheney and Family Values, June 2004

@Liberal

It is good to see the calm and rational remarks of Poly and Grienspace nullify the inexplicable and irrational hysteria of Apos and a couple of others. It is good that Poly and Grienspace have not made any issue of Apos’ rather conspicuous absence from the thread bashing AP for its slimy reporter. We would not want to make the hasty and unfounded assumption that Apos supports slimy reporting. Perhaps the weakest part of his now thoroughly debunked argument was the assertion that there being a few loonies in the Repubican Party who hate gays personally brought anything whatsoever to bear on Mary’s action or inaction. Both parties have idiots. The Democrats have their PETA terrorists, feminazi handstabbers, and yes, homophobic morons. Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

@Liberal

It was a comment on whether lying should be a bannable offense, and offered the theory that it should be “when it is a material part of breaking the rules”. Breaking the rules includes so-called hate-speech. I listed two examples, which, if they had been “faggot” and “nigger” instead of “faggot” and “fundie”, it is my opinion that this thread would not now exist.

The irrelevant aside is this thread.

You’re a liar. Pure and simple.

[butter_pie]

I think the term feminazi is hate speech directed towards overly assertive females.

[Desmostylus]

Ban him.

[Desmostylus]

@Desmostylus

[Dick Cheney and Family Values, June 2004

That should be September 2004](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5239061#post5239061).

[Liberal]

@Jinwicked

I rarely even use the word and I don’t even care all that much, this just strikes me as colossally stupid. And your quote from the “Positive Atheism” letter doesn’t say it’s hate speech. It says it discourages the use of it, probably because that’s beneficial towards the goal of educating people instead of inflaming them. You don’t insult people you’re trying to at least get to sympathize with your side. I’d agree with that. But you’ve still failed to show me how the term fundie is hate speech.

I don’t even know what hate-speech means. I’ve said that many times. That’s why I usually preface it with such qualifiers as “nebulous” or “so-called”, unless I’m directly referencing Lynn’s rule. My point isn’t the simplistic assertion, “fundie is hate speech”; my point is the more complex conditional, “if homo is hate speech, then fundie should be too”. And I’ve explained why.

[Liberal]

@jinwicked

The only logical trainwreck here is your over-reacting, hypersensitive self.

I’m not a fundamentalist, so that doesn’t even make sense.

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

That should be September 2004.

I guess your prior assertion that it was June makes you a liar pure and simple, doesn’t it. Jackass.

[butter_pie]

@Liberal

I’m not a fundamentalist, so that doesn’t even make sense.

Your entire post I replied to makes no sense. I’m not sure if I shouldn’t refer to Jerry Falwell as a fundie because some Christians (who may or may not be fundamentalists) are being persecuted in Laos, or what. Seriously. WTF?

Now please explain to me why you can call someone a handstabber, a feminazi, or someone from PETA a terrorist because you don’t agree with their views, but the term fundie is “so-called” hate speech?

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

I guess your prior assertion that it was June makes you a liar pure and simple, doesn’t it. Jackass.

My correction of my earlier version, prior to anyone even pointing out the error, shows that I’m not. Shove your Tu Quoque up your ass. Whether it was June or September, you are a liar.

[Liberal]

@jinwicked

Your entire post I replied to makes no sense.

I don’t agree with you. I think your objections to it make no sense.

I’m not sure if I shouldn’t refer to Jerry Falwell as a fundie because some Christians (who may or may not be fundamentalists) are being persecuted in Laos, or what. Seriously. WTF?

I’m not either. If that’s not an argument that you make, then it doesn’t apply to you does it.

Now please explain to me why you can call someone a handstabber, a feminazi, or someone from PETA a terrorist because you don’t agree with their views, but the term fundie is “so-called” hate speech?

Oh, I see. It isn’t that you disagree with the argument; it’s that you don’t comprehend it. Maybe this will help — answer the converse of your own question: if you can call people fundies just because you don’t agree with their views, then why is terrorist, feminazi, or hand stabber so-called hate speech?

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

My correction of my earlier version, prior to anyone even pointing out the error, shows that I’m not. Shove your Tu Quoque up your ass. Whether it was June or September, you are a liar.

And you’re a disingenuous psychopathic stalker. I searched on “hand stabber” and thereby missed the September post. The point made was that I no longer use the term as a casual pejorative reference to atheists. Violent and aggressive feminists are fair game.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

Violent and aggressive feminists are fair game.

Bring on the shit storm.

[Liberal]

Maybe you should dial-back your own aggression a notch or two, doncha think?

[butter_pie]

@Liberal

Oh, I see. It isn’t that you disagree with the argument; it’s that you don’t comprehend it. Maybe this will help — answer the converse of your own question: if you can call people fundies just because you don’t agree with their views, then why is terrorist, feminazi, or hand stabber so-called hate speech?

Don’t try to turn this around on me to distract from what you said or to keep from answering my question. I’m not advocating the banning of anything. You are.

I’ve already stated I don’t think fundie is hate speech. Particularly on par with words like nigger or faggot. I don’t think the other words are hate speech either, though they are offensive, fundie may be offensive, they’re certainly not comparable to racist slurs. But I would think fundie about on par with feminazi as far as offensiveness goes. I personally don’t give a shit if you say them or not. People will judge you on their own terms by the words you use. I don’t use the other terms, and the only time I’ve used fundie was in specific reference to the American-televangelical type and their followers. I don’t even think I’ve ever really used it as anything other than a descriptive term in that sense. That’s why this whole things seems to utterly absurd. I’ve never gone up and punched someone in the face and yelled “FUNDIE!!”

You are the one making the claim that fundie is “so-called” hate speech.

Now, tell me why you are allowed to use those other hateful words in your comments, liberally, but other posters are not allowed to use fundie because it is so-called hate speech? What is the difference? Why should fundie be included in the “nebulous” list of hate speech, but not the other words which you yourself choose to use are are equally as hateful/offensive?

[butter_pie]

@Liberal

Violent and aggressive feminists are fair game.

But in-your-face, obnoxious, evangelical Christians are not? I get it.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

Maybe you should dial-back your own aggression a notch or two, doncha think?

What aggression? I caught you lying, that’s all. Why do you think it’s agressive if I point out that you’re lying?

[THespos]

@Desmostylus

What aggression? I caught you lying, that’s all. Why do you think it’s agressive if I point out that you’re lying?

Come on, Desmostylus, just because he makes an assertion that turns out to be factually inaccurate, does that make him a liar? Can we give Liberal the benefit of the doubt?