Again, what difference does it make in terms of what is or isn’t hate speech? You said earlier that you weren’t trying to redefine the term, but isn’t that what you are attempting to do with all this focus on “violence” as the apparent determining factor?
Hate speech can and does exist both with and without concomitant violence.
Plus, I gave documented proof of rampant violence against Christians in three different countries. Googling “violence against Christians” delivers thousands of hits.
Lib was not warned, as he didn’t break any rules. Note the wording. But there’s little doubt his nitpicking, oblique, reactive argumentation is a major annoyance to a lot of people, and has been for a long time. Desmo must stop following Lib around but Lib invites much of the general reaction he gets.
Speaking for no one but myself, of course, but I’m getting more than a little tired of the same old irritants being dragged up again and again. Therefore, the admonition for Desmo to stop rising to the bait and the reminder/reality check to Lib.
Veb
I’m gay, and I have no such reaction to the word. I haven’t been out for very long, so maybe I just haven’t “learned” it yet. Or maybe I’m just not as sensitive to it as you are. Why is your subjective reaction to the word being used as the baseline, and not mine? What if, for the sake of argument, Liberal does have the same reaction to fundie that you have to faggot? (Yeah, I know, Lib’s not a fundamentalist. Just run with it for now.) It may not be as justified, but if you’re using your reaction to the word as the determining factor in wether a word qualifies as hate-speech or not, then shouldn’t that same consideration be granted to him?
Mind you, I’m inclined to favor your conclusions. I don’t think “fundie” is hate-speech, and I think there is a distinction between “fundie” and “faggot,” although I can’t articulate why I think there is a difference to my own satisfaction. I just don’t find your premises convincing.
TVeblen: Thanks for your clarification. I guess I was reading too much into your post.
Thanks for clarifying that publicly. I don’t know whether you’ll believe me, but it is never my intention to nitpick or be oblique. One man’s excellent point is another man’s nitpick. One man’s clever metaphor is another man’s oblique reference. I admit to posting reactively, though. Every post that is not a first post is reactive to some other.
As for the reaction I get, I hope you will acknowledge that I get a lot of positive and supportive reaction as well — including in this thread. A thread I have in Great Debates on whether the universe is real is being well received generally, and both SentientMeat and Larry Borgia made a point of telling how much they enjoyed it. Borgia even thanked me and said it has made him think.
I’ve made the attempt lately to be less hostile with my rhetoric, and I’ve been told that I’ve done well and that it is appreciated. But I cannot change my points of view just because they annoy someone. If you believe that my continuing to post is a source of contention for you personally and causes you any sort of grief or extra work, just let me know. It isn’t worth it to me to make your life miserable just so I can type a bunch of words. 
And I don’t think the warning itself is fair. They can post or not. Heck, Liberal can put that "lunatic’ on his ignore list (just as long as he doesn’t post his ignore list, or its contents, of course). Same goes for Desmostylus.
Why they both seem to get off on each other is another topic. They both contribute, in this thread and others. Just ignore it, if it bothers you.
It seems to me, however, that you’ve already chosen sides. As I have. No big deal. It’s the stuff of daytime and reality TV.
As they both know that posters and mods think their attraction is, say, a tad ridiculous, I hardly see how this latest warning should matter.
Unless TVeblen wants to put the word “final” in the post, then why bother? They haven’t listened before. Granted, I find it amusing. But, I think that it is telling that you had to qualify your post with, “in this thread.” Perhaps that should be the standard, but as you know, hijacks happen, personalities conflict, the board keeps running and the earth turns.
C’est la vie. They both don’t seem to care, still antagonize each other. Unless you want to recommend a more permanent remedy, I really don’t see the point of your post (except to claim sides) or of TVeblen’s warning.
Just as an aside, I was wondering if Christians in other parts of the world (you know, the persecuted kind that Liberal noted in his first post, use the English word “fundamental” to describe themselves? Or if their detractors use the word “fundie” (as dervied from the English ‘fundamental’) to attack their opponents?
The reason that I ask is that it seems pointless to argue to include a word like “fundie” is hate speech if the only example you can use to justify it occurs in a non-English speaking part of the world. Or if the concept of “hate speech” is only an American phenonmenon. This relates to “The Tell Me How Many Christians Have Been Lynched Argument” that Liberal posted.
In the interest of being educated, I would be curious of such acts against Christians that happened in the US or in other English-speaking countries.
I know that some posters will say that I misunderstood his argument. But, if you want to argue that “(l)umping all fundamentalists together as a group that deserves contempt is as ethically blind as lumping any other group together the same way,” I would think that the groups would be at least similar–at least when it comes down to epithets. I know that they just eliminated the analogies section of the SATs, but I still can’t grasp how “nigger is to black” is like “fundie is to Christian.” Especially in the United States. Perhaps if someone could provide cites of how this could be true, I might be enlightened.
On preview, “speaking for myself” means that it wasn’t a warning TVeblen? Got confused when you signed off as “Pit Mod.”
Anyway, I’m posting this anyway. I read it as a warning. Apologies if it wasn’t.
Violence against Christians has been documented in literally dozens of countries. Here is a three part PDF report with hundreds of pages detailing it from 2003 alone.
http://www.aidtochurch.org/pdf/CiN2003_1.pdf
http://www.aidtochurch.org/pdf/CiN2003_2.pdf
http://www.aidtochurch.org/pdf/CiN2003_3.pdf
You will doubtless impugn the source, but it has provided the supportive citations that you need if you want to check its facts.
What about “kike?” That’s pretty much the only thing I can think of that’s as hateful. (BTW, where did “kike” come from?)
Fundie is different because it was never meant to refer to Christians in general, or even all fundamentalists, necessarily, but to a specific type of believer who refuses to respect the beliefs of others, and uses their religion as a means of bashing other people. Period.
And yet again: NOT ALL FUNDIES ARE CHRISTIAN!!!
“literally dozens of countries”
Since “fundie” is an English word (unless someone wants to dispute this), could you link to English-speaking (country) examples? Not just the Sudan and China (big surprise there!) that are listed at the aidtochurch.org site you posted. Preferably in non-pdf form as (while I’m typing this post) I’m still waiting for your links to load. I went to the website, and the “Violence against Christians” story was from 2003.
To refer back to my previous post, would you say that “nigger is to black” as “fundie is to Christian?” Just trying to follow your thought process.
I don’t have to (what did you post?) “impugn” the source. I simply have to recognize its obvious bias.
I certainly agree with that, which is why I was amazed, during the recent fraudulent Ask the Muslim thread in GD, that the OPer, despite declaring that homosexuality was an abomination (or something to that effect), enjoyed a remarkable sycophancy that continued for page after page. It was so bizarre that someone even opened a Pit thread, asking what the fuck — why was this homophobe being given license to spew her venom and treated with kid-glove respect? […shrug…] You are right in theory, but in practice, people do not tend to apply the term to non-Christians. At least not here.
If you’re talking about Sarah_W, she was NOT “treated with kid-glove respect.”
It is a slang word, included in some dictionaries (like American Heritage), but not others (like Merriam-Webster).
English is spoken in a lot countries, so I don’t know what might qualify in your mind as English speaking. Since I don’t know the proportions of who speaks what where, I’ll just give you the list:
Afghanistan
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Bulgaria
Cambodia
Central African Republic
China
Colombia
Congo (Democratic Republic)
Congo (Central African Republic)
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Georgia
India
Iraq
Iran
Israel
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kosovo
Laos
Lebanon
Liberia
Malaysia
Moldova (Moldavia)
Moluccas/Indonesia
Mongolia
Myanmar (Burma)
Nepal
Nigeria
North Korea
Palestine
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Solomon Islands
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sudan
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Tajikistan
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zimbabwe
At any rate, I have no idea what you’re getting at with the It’s An English Word argument. If it were a Swedish word, would it make any difference?
That’s why I warned you that it was “hundreds of pages” and was “from 2003 alone”.
No, I wouldn’t. My thought process isn’t complicated; I don’t know why you can’t follow it. Jinwicked followed it (eventually), and he doesn’t agree with me about purt near anything.
Bias? It is hardly remarkable that violence against Christians would be of interest to, well, Christians, who might then compile incidences of it. That’s like saying that an article on finch mating habits is biased because it appears in a nature journal. The document has more than 500 footnotes, and its bibliography is extensive. You’re certainly welcome to check any of it out. But if you’re refusing even to look at it, you really shouldn’t comment on it one way or the other.
Emphasis mine.
So, you contend that you’re objection stems from the use of the word “fundie” in a Christian context?
If so, then would you mind if I asked if you agree with this analogy:
“nigger is to black” as “fundie is to Christian.”
If you do, could you describe how they are similar? Since you’ve acknowledged that “fundie” can be used in different contexts, for example to describe followers of Islam, then how does it apply to Christianity? (More specficaly I’d like to be educated on how the word “nigger” can be used to mean something other than black? It seems to me that you’ve agree that it could be, given your posts to this thread.)
The very fact that even you admit that “fundie” can be used to describe fundamentalists of any religion is the reason that it should not be considered hate speech. ESPECIALLY since you are linking it to it’s usage to describe Christians.
The terms we (on this board and in this society) consider hate speech all point to one specific epithet used to describe one specific group.
Would like to read your response.
Many thanks.
Well, the thread has been deleted. But my memory of it is a Thank You So Much For This Thread puke-fest. I can’t even find the corresponding Pit thread, so I guess it was blasted as well. We’ll just have to disagree on this one.
It’s origin is not certain. This page gives an overview of the various theories.
No. It’s just used that way here mostly. Positive Atheists does not allow it to be used about anyone at all.
I already answered that. No, I don’t.
You speak for the board and for society? I have yet even to see a definition of so-called “hate speech” beyond what you’ve just given: words we don’t like.
Liberal is correct about the respectful tone toward the poster who turned out to be a troll, which is why the thread no longer exists. I challenged her, but I and one other were the only two to call her on her repugnant views.
snip
I’ll be back to post more, but this just astounds me.
You just posted to TVeblen about how:
and you post a list of countries where English is spoken (but is not the prevalent or dominant language). Then you take a swipe at me (and at Jinwicked (obliquely, though I believe she is female)) about how we can’t follow it.
English is important because you’re bitching on an English-speaking message board about an English word that you say is an epithet against Christians. You liken it to the word “nigger” and “faggot” without describing how those two words could be used to describe anything other than blacks and homosexuals (in the US and other English speaking countries). All the while posting that “fundie” can be used to describe other people than Christians.
That’s my interest. If you’re interested in explaining yourself a little more clearly, I’d like to read your response.
As an aside, which words in your opinion, qualify as hate speech? No weasling about whether hate speech is necessary or desirable. But, what words, besides “fundie” qualify?"
I think the point they’re trying to make is that “fundie” is an insult only in Western, English speaking countries, where violence against Christians is exceedingly rare. I believe Richard Pryor had a bit about how “there are no niggers in Africa.” The word just doesn’t have the same currency there that it does here, where it was originally coined and where it was a part of an entire culture of anti-black bigotry. South Africa has the term “kaffir,” which has similar connotations, but how many people in America would be offended by it if they heard it? Even if they know what it means, it doesn’t have the same cultural connotations for us that “nigger” does.
By extension, “fundie” is a word that, I would wager, is almost unknown outside North America, and anti-Christian bigotry is almost unknown within North America. The fact that Christians are oppressed in Angola is unlikely to give the word “fundie” any more emotional weight to a Christian who has been born and raised in an over-whelmingly pro-Christian nation like the US.
That’s demonstrably false. I even thanked her (sorry about the wrong gender guess) for acknolwedging that she understood it. But she didn’t at first.
The word is only incidentally English. You might as well assign it significance for the number of letters it has, or its Latin etymology. And I’m not bitching against the word, but against inconsistent application of a nebulous rule. That’s what Jinwicked came to understand.
Just because I list words in sequence doesn’t mean I’m necessarily “likening” them. I might reference art, and list Picasso and Timberlake, but that doesn’t mean I equate Picasso and Timberlake.
Weird. That’s like asking me which seafood is the best. No weasling about your severe seafood allergies, just which ones are the best tasting.
As I’ve already said, if there must be rules against so-called hate speech, and if they are defined as words that are pejorative, then they should include all pejorative words.