Soory, I fell asleep before I could get to the end of this. But was the gist of it that hateful speech isn’t hateful when it can’t be backed up with power or effective threat?
I would like to throw a comment in about the old race + power=racism bullshit.
I had a long argument with my friend who claimed blacks can’t be racist because they have no power. I’ve always thought that was a very stupid bit of logic. Hate is hate no matter what group is doing the hating or their social standing as long as it’s based on something they didn’t choose to be a part of (i.e. white black gay what have you)
I think what we’re on here is if it’s right to hate a group of willing participants because we (for whatever reason) disagree with their goals. Since the goals are something that forms the group it is fine to analyze those goals and see if the group itself represents something ‘wrong’ or harmful to society. In this case considering one of their goals limits the rights of other groups it’s reasonable to resent them and even mock them to a certain extent. Is it hate speech? I don’t think so. I’m sure some members of the group disagree, but until their goals change I won’t lose sleep over it.
The “fundies” I have seen on this board do not seem to object to the term. DuckDuckGoose calls herself a “fightin’ fundie”. Vanilla doesn’t seem to mind either. It seems to me to be a harmless abbrevation, like “pubbie” for republican or “dem” for democrat or “libs” for liberals.
milroyj, I have, in pretty good faith as far as I can tell, defined how it is that I view hate speech, why this is so and given you examples from my personal life as to how I have arrived at this conclusion. Your posts seem to basically consist of you saying “is not” and then accusing me of being a PC Liberal. Not sure how you think that you are making any kind of point here, other than the point that you disagree with me for some jack-secret reason.
And speaking of making a point, Apos, did you actually have one? My posts bore you? So sorry, next time I will include hookers and blackjack. You disagree? Goodie, how about an articulate reason as to why?
Is it just me, or does milroyj’s debating style remind anyone else of Jon Lovitz on News Radio using the “windmill” boxing technique?
As you say, no one has objected to “fundies”. What about calling “fundies” a “hate-mongering cult”, though?
[QUOTE=Darkhold]
I would like to throw a comment in about the old race + power=racism bullshit…
[QUOTE]
I guess I’m confused now. Where in this thread are we talking about racism?
On the other hand, a black man saying to another black man “wassup my nigga” isn’t considered hate speech, but a white man saying that to a black might be considered offensive. Context is everything. If I call my fellow white friend to “go get a tan, you friggin cracker” he knows I’m joking.
A bunch of minorities in a kitchen joking with each other is not hate speech.
You have yet to explain how this is factually wrong. Keep in mind that should you do so in a convincing and honest way, I will be sure to never use that term (not that I recall ever doing so, but you get the idea).
As opposed to some of the nice things you say about liberals, such as “the biggest ejaculation of creepy PC liberal nonsense”?
:rolleyes:
Hey, you have a point! I am a Liberal and I do try to be Politically Correct. Christ on a biscuit, I have just been the victim of hate speech!
If we allow similar to be said about other groups, we allow it to be said about “fundies”, too. I am pretty darn certain similar has been said about Fundamentalist muslims. So I think I would allow it in GD, unless that seemed to be that poster’s whole oeuvre, and I might want to check precendent and see if my recollection re fundamentalist muslims is correct. Also, the Pit and GD are a bit more liberal in this regard than other forums, and mods use their own personal judgment.
What I tend to object to as “hate speech” is clear-cut pointless slurs (“niggers”, “rag-heads”) and threats of violence against groups. I have banned people for what would be considered hate speech against “fundies”; Kirkland1244, for instance, although I saw that more as a “jerk” banning than a hate speech banning.
No dear, if you are honestly making the claim that fundies are a hate-mongering cult, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence.
Just to be clear, may I refer to fundamentalist muslims as part of a “hate-mongering cult?”
I think there was enough about racism and power dynamics to warrant my comment.
Well, you’ve already said they “wantonly [kill] people” and that Islam’s claim of being peaceful is “bullshit”. Tell ya what, why don’t you research the precedent regarding “hate mongering cult”, see where that or similar has been allowed by an unbanned poster in GD and get back to me. 
Bingo. But try pinning down subtle nuances of actual intent. (Sigh.)
Gaudere already noted some of the most frequently used: Dems, Pubbies, etc. They’re all diminutives that can be simple outsider shorthand, defiant insider co-opting of slurs, deliberate insults or just innocent cluelessness: breeder, Hispanic, Oriental, black, girl, boy, GWG–Generic White Guy–, blondes, tree huggers, peaceniks, war mongers, loathesome-other-of-choice.
One of the great perils of written communication, not much less than face-to-face though, is the huge latitude for misunderstanding. FWIW, it’s even muddier–and nastier–in voice media, mostly because they’re much more freighted toward implied contempt, while much less responsive to actual responses.
It’s almost impossible to know actual intent, in person or in writing. Some can gained by context, but the more complex the discussion, the more nuanced the meanings. Sure context matters, but distilling down “forbidden words” ultimately stifles everyone.
Do I like “fundie”? Depends. IMO the word shouldn’t be automatically out-of-bounds, partially because so many fine people–some of them family–proudly define themselves that way. They–justifiably, IMO–insist on defining their values, be-damned to the pretenders. That’s a huge stance.
Veb
Well, the thing is that I have already done so. I have pointed out that this sub-group of Christianity is a splinter form the main stream and have pointed out that their goals are hateful. You can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee all that you want, but it is glaringly obvious that you are doing nothing more than disagreeing without any substance whatsoever, dear. :rolleyes:
All of that said, I might be argued into recanting the cult aspect (if I ignore the snake-handlers and faith-healers) but you will have to do some pretty fancy talking to convince me that they are not hatemonger. Not that I expect you to do so, as it seems that you are basically trying to be contrary for its own sake.
Darkhold], The point that I am making is that hate speech is a different thing. While it is true that racism can lead to hate speech they are simply not synonymous. I truly can not believe that this concept is that elusive.
Lib, why isn’t “hand stabber” hate speech?