[QUOTE=Binarydrone]
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.
[QUOTE]
No, you have not. Put up, or shut up, please.
and I cannot believe you would so utterly miss the point. My friend was basically saying a black person could not be racist without power. Just as you are saying there cannot be hate speech without power. You used racist examples to illustrate your point prompting my comment. I submit just as my friends logic about racism and blacks hating whites is flawed so it is flawed with hate speech as well.
Darkhold, OK, a couple of points of clarification. I think that your friend is wrong. It is possible to be racist and not be a part of a group that is in power. All that I am saying is that racism and hate speech are different things. It is true that I used racial examples earlier. I won’t deny that. This is simply because the two can overlap, and the example was convenient. Nothing more. I get that you disagree with my definition of hate speech, but given that your example was about racism (which, again, I see as different) I am unclear how. I am, however, willing to listen to anything that you have to say.
milroyj, I will try one last time.
Cult: A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
From my point of view, Fundamentalist Christianity falls under this definition. You seem to disagree, so I am listening.
*Hate:To feel hostility or animosity *
*Mongering: A dealer in a specific commodity. Often used in combination: an ironmonger. *
or
*A person promoting something undesirable or discreditable. Often used in combination: a scandalmonger; a warmonger. *
Again, From my point of view, Fundamentalist Christianity falls under this definition. You seem to disagree, so I am listening.
I await on pins and needles how you plan to explain to me how that is factually wrong. Honestly, I have no real stake in being right or wrong here but would love it if you would debate in good faith.
…
…
…
.
.
what the fuck is a “hand-stabber”?
.
.
…
…
…
Well to me hate speech is any speech that speaks out against a group (or in support of your group to the obvious detriment of another group) that is made up of characteristics that don’t support the conclusions you draw (for instance all blacks are lazy would be hate speech where KKK members are hatemongers wouldn’t be)
The most common form of hate speech is obviously an expression of racism. Since racism is the paradigm you were using to illustrate why a black person calling a white person cracker isn’t hate speech I disagreed with the notion he wasn’t being racist (therefore speaking from a ‘hate speech’ prospective) when he called you names. Sorry I guess I’m just tired of hearing that a person of color can’t be racist therefore cannot be using a form of hate speech. If that isn’t your position then I withdraw the comment.
It is a pejorative term for an atheist. Basically there is some apocryphal story about how some prominent atheist (I forget who) stabbed someone in the hand with a pen after he she sneezed and he said God bless you.
Basically, the point being that it is ok to use all of the derogatory language that you want as long as it isn’t aimed at the poor oppressed Christians.
If there is one thing I absolutely do not understand about the mainstream pit poster is our high degree of moral outrage and finger pointing regarding bigotry/racism and hate speech while at the same time spewing vile invectives at each other and particular groups that the majority regard as fair game.
Honestly, I hear(read) more hate in 20 minutes in the pit than I’ve heard in my own local real world in years. I can’t believe you guys are like that in real life.
I’ d be excited by this suggestion, but really, I just don’t think you have it in you.
Shit, sorry Professor. Next time, I’ll put TWO question marks at the end of my question. How’s this?? Clear enough for you now??
“Hand stabber” is also a term Lib has repeatedly used.
Apparently, he thinks it’s OK to use this term because so many people (Christians included, BTW) slag Christian Fundamentalists here.
Hate speech, to my mind, is when one refers to all members of an identifiable group by a pejorative that is not an accurate objective description of them.
That it might be disparaging without being blatantly insulting does not make it “hate speech.” To refer to our conservative Republican friends here as “right wing” is not an insult, even if I have made it clear that I dislike the right wing positions on issues. To class them all as “right wing nutjobs” is quite definitely hate speech – one can clearly see that some of them are thoughful and analytical people who happen to hold to a different political stance out of convictions founded in a different assessment of the relative importance of the underlying principles – or perhaps even an identical assessment of those principles applied to the current political scene in a different way.
Accordingly – I dislike significant portions of the public programme advocated by the majority of fundamentalist Christians, and even more so the perversion of the Christian message into a quasi-Pharisaical stance that is blatantly contrary to His own teachings but justified through selective quotation. Therefore I am inclined to use the term “Fundy” as a disparagement for that general position. But I need to, and do, recognize that not all people who hold to fundamentalist doctrine are necessarily supporters of the political and elitist-religious stance that arouses my disgust.
With regard to the two particular uses by other members which have been targeted in here:
> Gobear’s “hate mongering cult”. I have very strong doubts that he is using this to accuse DDG or TVeb’s brother-in-law (or whatever) of mongering hate or cultist behavior. He is, with a great deal of provocation, targeting a strong tendency in a large portion of evangelical conservative Christianity, whether or not its members adhere to the Five (now Seven) Fundamentals, to take stances at variance with any reasonable conclusion from available data which insult and attempt to oppress him and his fellows (and for that matter myself and Siege and other liberal Christians). And evidence of this is not too terribly difficult to come by; a search of this forum or GD that will not even put a single hamster off his feed will produce some pretty blatant statements to that effect.
> Lib’s “hand stabbers,” to the extent I’ve seen him use it, is not a pejorative applied to all atheists, but to a particular school among them who are convinced that “There is no God, and they have been called to be that doctrine’s prophets.” And to use less than honorable means of conducting such a propaganda campaign. (He may wish to amend that; it’s merely conclusion from when I’ve seen him use it.)
Bottom line: Like many another term, “Fundy” can be used as hate speech but is not always so used.
Yes, that sounds reasonable, I suppose. In our SDMB culture, the term “fundie” appears to have a variety of meanings, including idiot, secessionist lunatic, just plain loon, thief, ignorant relative, right winger, asshole, superstitious bigot, nutjob, humorless crybaby, incorrigible fact distorter,pornographer, hate group member, and whack job, to name a few. If you can find any positive use of the term here, I’d like to see it.
That may be a valid point, although exception number (2) seems to apply. The term “hand stabber” does not refer to atheists in general, but only to those who self-avow that their intentions are hostile and hateful — the Ku Klux Klan of atheism.
That’s possibly the case, although why inoffensive people who happen to be in some arbitrary majority should automatically qualify as deserving of derisive and hateful speech escapes me.
Well, positive atheists recognize that Fundamentalists might find it offensive, and I doubt that they recognize this without “some evidence”:
They write: “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.”
I don’t know. As I said in the OP, I don’t know what it is.
Actually, the OP was calm and reasonable, but your response was rather shrill.
Oh, sure. You can say “African American” too. But I’m not talking about the term “fundamentalist”.
Thank you so much for thinking about it. 
But isn’t that the same basis upon which White Supremacists claim to justify their hatred of Jews? Power is not always in numbers. And if majorities qualify for exemption, then can’t those lines be drawn arbitrarily? Can’t you just as well say that men, or politicians, or wealthy people are running the show? And once you’ve justified hating people, can’t you then extend the justification to general blame for hateful acts? Just as this writer from Massachusets did:
“In truth the Christian Fundamentalist [sic] in the USA are terrorist extemist [sic] who brought on 9-11.”
But I gave you a counterexample in the OP, so you are simply wrong.
Let us set aside that you have allowed for no exceptions to your broad brush, which has already been proved false. Isn’t it true that opposition to gay rights come from other groups as well? Only 36% of African Americans support gay marriage. Are African Americans a hatemongering cult? And isn’t it true that even some gays themselves oppose gay marriage, like Tom Beddingfield, Richard Carnevale, and David Young?
I think maybe you’ve overlooked one or two, like The Raindog, for instance, a Charter Member who finds it at least to be a “derisive taunt”.
Can you think of any point to the slurs I noted at the top of this post for Flight, or any instance in which “fundie” was not a pointless contextual slur other than clinical discussions such as this?
Are there not African American Fundamentalists? One could certainly belong to both groups.
Sounds like a guy I knew in college who said “I don’t hate all blacks, just the niggers!”
In other words, is it OK to use a perjorative term, if the one using it specifies it only applies to some of the group? I’d bet a lot of folks would say no.
Speaking personally as an atheist, I don’t care if someone calls me a hand-stabber, does nothing for me.
But it’s stupid to say it’s OK to use an offensive term and justify it somehow by saying it applies to just a subset. .
Espcially when “fundie” only applies to a certain subset of outspoken and activist christians.
> SDMB’s “Fundies,” to the extent I’ve seen it used, is not a pejorative applied to all Christians, but to a particular school among them who are convinced that “The bible is the literal word of God, and they have been called to be that doctrine’s prophets.” And to use less than honorable means of conducting such a propaganda campaign.
So, tell me. Why is using hand-stabber any worse than Fundie?
No, it hasn’t. You have utterly failed to do that.
And do you know why? Because of the 36% being Christians whose churches condemn gay people.
Sure, but, they are offering their own opinions, not speaking as mebers of an organized group. That’s not even remotely analogous to fundamentalism. What you fail to grasp is that fundie churches are organized groups that preach the persecution and hate of gay people. The gay people you point out are not speaking for a lrage, organized group that is out to strip gay people, not merely of marriage, but of all civil rights.
And you can leave out DDG because she and I long ago came to the conclusion that her faith is not the same as that of the people who call themselves “fundamentalists.”
Was this addressed to me? As I said before, hand-stabber doesn’t bother me at all, so I do not think it’s any worse.
No, it is adressed to Liberal.
I can see the confusion, I meant it backwards : Why is fundie any worse than hand-stabber.
As an athiest myself, this statement doesn’t really offend me, other than the knowledge that Liberal is attacking somebody when he says it. The hand-stabber is neutral, the meaning behind what he is saying isn’t quite neutral.
Epimetheus:
I’m perfectly willing to accept the prohibition of “hand stabber” right along with “fundie”.
Gobear:
I don’t understand your math. The 36% of African Americans who support gay marriage likely do not constitute the 100% of African American Christians whom you say condemn gay people. Also, once again, here is a counter-example to your assertion that Christian Fundamentalists oppose gay marriage without exception. (It was in the OP.) —>Click this link<—
So you yourself are unable to provide any evidence that is is considered deeply offensive by a significant number of Fundamentalists.
In any case, the issue is not whether it might be found offensive to some degree, but whether the term by itself constitutes “hate speech.” As many others here have said, there is a difference between terms that might be regarded as slightly pejorative, and true “hate speech.”
Is there some reason you find it difficult to grant people using the shortcut “fundie” the same latitude you grant yourself? When I see it used, it is referring to a subset of fundamentalist Christians - “those who self-avow that their intentions are hostile and hateful.” I can understand the issues you have with “fundie”, I am an atheist, and when you use the phrase “hand stabber” to refer to a group (subset or no) of which I am a member, it grates on my nerves. I don’t believe it’s hate speech, but it’s certainly not love speech either. I wouldn’t use either myself.
On preview, I note your reply to Epimetheus. I disagree. Neither should be prohibited. If a poster feels the word is appropriate, uses it carefully, and it is clear from context that the subset is meant, then why not use it?