Have Lefties Abandoned Tolerance and Respect?

[AZhitman]

Wasn't the left supposed to be the party of tolerance? Of embracing and defending the defenseless, the handicapped, the "different"? The party that expresses outrage at racial slurs, off-color jokes, inequality?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINIO...pt=C2

Yeah. Whatever.

I don't mind it, mind you - They're just words, and it's just speech.

It's the pathetic hypoocrisy I have an issue with.

[bigbadberry3]

Wait was it done satire?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html

[AZhitman]

Wait was it done satire?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html

Shouldn't matter.

We can't use the N-word, according to them. So where's their outrage over McFarlane using the R-word?

Again, color me unconcerned, and playing devil's advocate. I think the people who scream the loudest about certain words being used are actually to blame for giving those words POWER.

[seang]

the people who scream the loudest about certain words being used are actually to blame for giving those words POWER.

Yes, in many cases the negative connotations are attached to the terms by the activists themselves. And why? Does it not seem like an important decision to them? Maybe not and it is a thought pattern that is almost criminal.
Modified by seang at 4:24 PM 2/22/2010

[bigbadberry3]

Yeah, I'd agree with your point that the people "who scream the loudest about certain words being used are actually to blame for giving those words POWER." However, family guy, south park, and comedic shows alike make fun of just about everyone and everything at some time or another.

I really just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Palin being offended as she justified the r-words usage.

[AZhitman]

However, family guy, south park, and comedic shows alike make fun of just about everyone and everything at some time or another.

I really just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Palin being offended as she justified the r-words usage.

I dunno about that - I don't recall seeing any of the left's "sacred cows" jeered on those shows - at least not with that level of "meanness".

Agreed on the Palin thing - Not cool. She goofed. It's either OK for both Limbaugh and McFarlane, or it's not OK for either.

[bigbadberry3]

The meanness I'll agree with you on, might have pushed too far, but that always gets ratings. I would still say that there is no sacred cow to family guy, southpark, and the likes in any aspect. Religion, politics, gender, anything at all are all fair game.

[WDRacing]

Greg you're looking at the last time the Liberals will see any power in America for the next...probably 16 years. It's gonna start this Nov and I have a feeling there will be a huge change.

[srellim234]

I don't think so. A shift to balance the parties might happen but I really think Bush/Cheney isn't forgotten in the minds of the voters yet.

As for an actual change, nothng is going to happen. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are interested in making the hard decisions necessary to cut spending and the deficit. They will both continue to spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow.

Anything to buy votes.

[smockers83]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa..............whoa! Time out.

Lefties had tolerance and respect to begin with?

Cubs win, Cubs win!

/post with completely random stuff

[JustinStrife]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa..............whoa! Time out.

Lefties had tolerance and respect to begin with?

Cubs win, Cubs win!

/post with completely random stuff

They've never been tolerant and full of respect. Ever. Just a bunch of children who never got spanked when they did anything wrong growing up.

[BusyBadger]

They've never been tolerant and full of respect. Ever.

When I first moved to Tennessee I was in a barber shop (an honest to God barber shop, striped pole out front with a guy named Harold that looked old enough to have been cutting hair for V-J Day parties) and I heard a conversation that explained something that I hadn't really considered until then.

A couple of guys were talking about racism and one said that while the majority of southern conservatives pre-judge or even look down on many minorities as a group, there is always respect for the individual. With "folks from up north" (direct quote, at least he didn't say yankee) it's almost always the other way around.

So far (five years or so) it's proved far more true than false. I don't know how many times I've heard someone complain about immigrants (illegal or otherwise, but in most cases a Mexican) taking jobs from an "American" when someone chimes in with what a good guy Pedro is that works over at the restuarant/tire shop/lumber yard is. An obvious case of pre-judging the group, but respecting the individual.

I've also seen the opposite, someone from the limousine liberal (sometimes called champagne liberal) set rolling with an equality/Obama/anti-hate or other sticker paying lip service to the casuse of the week shift their purse , lock a car door or just turn around and leave the area at the approach of someone of colour.

Check it out for yourselves and see what you discover.

Dissent: There's still a lot of flat out, no gray area racism down here. Less than an hour from my house there's a service station (yeah, people still use that term AND filling station) that has a sign out back by the restrooms that says, "If you're brown be out of town by sundown." `

[JimmyMethod]

I don't mind it, mind you - They're just words, and it's just speech.

1.) You don't actually believe that. Speech has meaning behind it. Why is f*** censored here if it didn't?

2.) There are plenty of liberals who think that MacFarlane is offensive, however, when something bothers us, but it is directly protected by one of the most fundamental laws of this country, we don't try to skirt around it to get our way.

3.) The joke was pretty innocuous compared to just about everything Family Guy says. The only reason Palin is throwing a hissy fit is because it was targeted at her. They have made much harsher 'retard' jokes in years past, yet she didn't care then...Being in the public eye is going to draw off color jokes. Where is crosses the line is when it becomes hateful. Then, it becomes appropriate ask for an apology, but honestly? This is so tame it makes 'We Are The World' look like RaHoWa.

4.) Holy s*** does Sarah Palin prove mental retardation is hereditary.

[JimmyMethod]

Ooops double post.

[JimmyMethod]

We can't use the N-word, according to them.

Uh... I'm pretty sure there's no divide between 'us' and 'them' here. '******' is held to be beyond the pale by just about everyone regardless of political affiliation.You're really trying hard to turn everything into an 'us' vs, 'them' battle. It's childish and Glenn Beck-ian.

[AZhitman]

'******' is held to be beyond the pale by just about everyone regardless of political affiliation.

Why?

What's the difference?

Both terms are offensive, both terms are based off an inherent characteristic that the bearer has no control over...

Why the outrage over one but not the other?

You're really trying hard to turn everything into an 'us' vs, 'them' battle.

Kinda hard to do when I'm a member of neither.

It's childish.

Then you should have no trouble refuting it.

[AZhitman]

1.) You don't actually believe that. Speech has meaning behind it. Why is f*** censored here if it didn't?

OK, let's assume I take that tack.

Then I should be allowed to respond in a physical manner to an insult, right?

Wait, no? Why not? Some pacifist libbie will crawl out of their hole and say, "That's protected speech!"

If I sling the N-word at someone on the street, that person is either justified or unjustified in smacking the piss out of me.

If they're justified, then that speech is not TRULY "protected", as you said above.

If they're not justified, then your response to me above is invalid, and my cnotention that "it's just words" is supported.

See, you can't have it both ways.

when something bothers us, but it is directly protected by one of the most fundamental laws of this country, we don't try to skirt around it to get our way.

Sure you do. Someone lied to you, Jimmy.

Here ya go:

Two men scuffle with another man outside a bar. Words are exchanged, there's a fight, the two beat the hell out of the one, two are arrested, and justice ensues.

Same situation happens outside a bar across town, but this time, the third man is gay, and the first two are taunting him with anti-gay epithets prior. There's a fight, the two beat the hell out of the one, two are arrested, and justice ensues - Only THIS time, they're prosecuted under the "hate crime" statutes, which carry a stiffer sentence.

Now - Explain to me how their speech isn't protected? The prosecution is guilty of the following:

when something bothers us, but it is directly protected by one of the most fundamental laws of this country, we don't try to skirt around it to get our way.

[JimmyMethod]

Both terms are offensive, both terms are based off an inherent characteristic that the bearer has no control over...Why the outrage over one but not the other?

Um... there is? Maybe you don't hang out with enough liberals, but I do, and believe me, using 'retard' will ruffle more than a few feathers.

Also... you just compared being mentally handicapped to being black. So... Wow. Just... wow. I don't think I'm going to say more on that fact, but that's one of the more offensive things I've read/heard in quite some time...

Quote »Kinda hard to do when I'm a member of neither.[/quote] Member of 'neither' eh? YOUR language implied a distinction between those who think that '******' is inappropriate to say, and you. 'You' implies 'us' and those who think that '******' is inappropriate to say implies them. You're the one creating the groups, not me.

Quote »Then you should have no trouble refuting it.[/quote]I need to refuse your insinuation that it's ok to say '******'? Uh... ok. What percentage of people do I need to show that it's not ok? 95%? Done. You're welcome to do your own study but something makes me think you'll get the same answer I do.

[JimmyMethod]

OK, let's assume I take that tack.

Then I should be allowed to respond in a physical manner to an insult, right?

Wait, no? Why not? Some pacifist libbie will crawl out of their hole and say, "That's protected speech!"

If I sling the N-word at someone on the street, that person is either justified or unjustified in smacking the piss out of me.

If they're justified, then that speech is not TRULY "protected", as you said above.

If they're not justified, then your response to me above is invalid, and my cnotention that "it's just words" is supported.

See, you can't have it both ways.

You're jumping to conclusions here. Violence is not an acceptable response to words. Ever. End of story.That's not to say you shouldn't expect it, because you'd probably deserve it, but no. You're wrong. I would never say it's ok for someone to attack someone because of what they said.

The whole concept that violence can be measured against words is so trash it hurts.

Quote »

Here ya go:

Two men scuffle with another man outside a bar. Words are exchanged, there's a fight, the two beat the hell out of the one, two are arrested, and justice ensues.

Same situation happens outside a bar across town, but this time, the third man is gay, and the first two are taunting him with anti-gay epithets prior. There's a fight, the two beat the hell out of the one, two are arrested, and justice ensues - Only THIS time, they're prosecuted under the "hate crime" statutes, which carry a stiffer sentence.

Now - Explain to me how their speech isn't protected?[/quote]Um... they're not being charged with calling the gay guy slurs, they're being charged with beating the piss out of guy because he's gay. There's a huge f***ing difference.

[BusyBadger]

Um... they're not being charged with calling the gay guy slurs, they're being charged with beating the piss out of guy because he's gay. There's a huge f***ing difference.

Do you really believe that? If a more severe sentence is issued based on the fact that the victim is a minority two things have happened...

1) The court has punished an individual because of a belief.

Punishment for battery is in order, excess punishment based on feelings towards the demographic of the victim is not.

*I suggest reading: 1984 by Orwell paying extra attention to the general idea of thoughtcrime/crimethinkand speciafically how the punishment of it is a violation of an individual's free will .

For a real world example study US Supreme Court Case R.A.V. vs The City of St. Paul regarding 1st Amendment Rights.

2) The court has granted a favoured status to the victim and set precendent for others of the same demographic. This is an obvious (except perhaps to you) case of different defendants being treated unequally under the law.

*I suggest reading Animal Farm by Orwell, paying special regard to the Seven Commandments of Animalism speciafically the evolution of "Some animals more equal than others" and how unequal treatment creates and solidifies rifts between a (formerly) united group.

For a real world example read the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution regarding the equal protection clause.

Also... you just compared being mentally handicapped to being black. So... Wow. Just... wow. I don't think I'm going to say more on that fact, but that's one of the more offensive things I've read/heard in quite some time...

No, he didn't. Reading comprehension really owns you, doesn't it? He said that both were conditions that individuals had no control over, a true statement. Well, I suppose C. Thomas Howell and John Howard Griffin both chose to black, but those are certainly exceptions, not the rule.

I don't think I'm going to say more on that fact, but that's one of the more offensive things I've read/heard in quite some time...

So a factual statement is offensive? You really should develop a skin thicker than aluminum foil.

And just so I can break it out of retirement....



I hope it's not too offensive.

Did your hair grow back ok?

One of the great ironies of hate crimes legislation is that punishing someone that commits a crime "with hate" to a higher degree than someone that just committed the crime is itself a form of discrimination.

[JimmyMethod]

Do you really believe that? If a more severe sentence is issued based on the fact that the victim is a minority two things have happened...

1) The court has punished an individual because of a belief.

No, the court is punishing them for ACTING on a belief. There's a big fat line there and crossing it is the issue.

Do you really not get the difference?

Quote »*I suggest reading: 1984 by Orwell paying extra attention to the general idea of thoughtcrime/crimethinkand speciafically how the punishment of it is a violation of an individual's free will .

For a real world example study US Supreme Court Case R.A.V. vs The City of St. Paul regarding 1st Amendment Rights.

2) The court has granted a favoured status to the victim and set precendent for others of the same demographic. This is an obvious (except perhaps to you) case of different defendants being treated unequally under the law.

*I suggest reading Animal Farm by Orwell, paying special regard to the Seven Commandments of Animalism speciafically the evolution of "Some animals more equal than others" and how unequal treatment creates and solidifies rifts between a (formerly) united group.

For a real world example read the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution regarding the equal protection clause. [/quote]Read all of it. Multiple times.

Again: There's a difference between an opinion and committing a crime because of it.

The motivations behind an action are ALWAYS taken into account. That's why manslaughter isn't a capital offense and 1st degree murder is.

Do you even have education in law? Why the hell are you talking? You just DON'T know enough to have this conversation. Jesus.

Quote »No, he didn't. Reading comprehension really owns you, doesn't it?[/quote]Alright. I'll take the statement to a CAAS Prof and see how he would interpret it.

Quote »So a factual statement is offensive? You really should develop a skin thicker than aluminum foil.

And just so I can break it out of retirement....



I hope it's not too offensive.

Did your hair grow back ok?[/quote]My favorite thing ever is getting Mods to resort to flaming. It's an admittance of defeat, and I chuckle every time.

Quote »One of the great ironies of hate crimes legislation is that punishing someone that commits a crime "with hate" to a higher degree than someone that just committed the crime is itself a form of discrimination. [/quote]The punishment for many crimes is a reciprocation of the offense.Murder - Death Penalty'White Collar crimes' - Monetary subjugation (along with a token prison sentence).

[AZhitman]

Again: There's a difference between an opinion and committing a crime because of it.

What young Jimmy failed to consider is that in both scenarios, the guy who lost the fight (and got pummelled) provoked it with the first punch.

So no, the crime wasn't comitted because of his characteristic. However it WAS treated in a dissimilar fashion, and one pair of defendants was not treated equitably JUST because someone didn't like the words they used.

Do you even have education in law? Why the hell are you talking? You just DON'T know enough to have this conversation. Jesus.

...says the college kid to the educated veteran....

I'm no attorney. I interpret and draft code, statute and policy all day at work, spent 6 years working for the state's highest court of law, and actually succeeded in passing all my prerequisites for law school at the U of A (a fairly prestigious law program)... Just as I'd never make such a staement, I hardly think you're the one to be slinging that kind of talk in your position.

My favorite thing ever is getting Mods to resort to flaming. It's an admittance of defeat, and I chuckle every time.

Like this?

Do you even have education in law? Why the hell are you talking? You just DON'T know enough to have this conversation. Jesus.

Let's get you back on track, you're getting distracted.

They're just words, and it's just speech.

You refuted this.

Bu then you said:

I would never say it's ok for someone to attack someone because of what they said.

Right. And, as you pointed out: It's not ok to attack them physically.

Which means it's not OK to "attack" (or consequence) them, financially or in any other manner, such as jeopardizing their liberty - Because they're just words, and they're protected.

You're struggling here because you, as a left-leaning (albeit intelligent) member of society, WANT to believe that all speech is protected. But the left's position is that some speech is more protected than other (especially if it offends THEIR sensibilities).

N**** and retard (along with other slurs deriving from a person's inherent characteristics) are equally protected, whether you like it or not. Same applies to pizza-face, fatass, chink, wop, waterhead, stumpy, cripple, wetback, honkey.... They're just words. *

Go back to my original point and quit panicking... it's not your fault that you've been misled.

(*Here's the other part you need to know... While I hold the position that "they're just words", I also believe there are natural consequences to using those words... and that I believe certain words CAN "do harm", which is why I choose, for the most part, not to use them... unfortunately, those natural consequences are sometimes not as defended or protected as they should be, often by the same people who either support or criticize the use of the words themselves. Hope that makes sense.)

[BusyBadger]

So the punishment for assault based on the victim's skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, etc. should carry a heavier sentence than assault for any other (equally invalid) reason?

There's a difference between an opinion and committing a crime because of it.

Which is why you punish the crime, but not the opinion/thought/belief.

The motivations behind an action are ALWAYS taken into account. That's why manslaughter isn't a capital offense and 1st degree murder is.

You're confusing motivation with intent.

[AZhitman]

Do you even have education in law? Why the hell are you talking? You just DON'T know enough to have this conversation. Jesus.

Here, Jimmy.... Your homework assignment: http://www.answers.com/topic/mens-rea

In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent = the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime.

[JimmyMethod]

So the punishment for assault based on the victim's skin colour, sexual orientation, religion, etc. should carry a heavier sentence than assault for any other (equally invalid) reason?

No. Just because a white guy and a black guy get in a fight doesn't make it a hate crime. I don't know where you are getting this. A hate crime is when the trigger for the act is the perceived difference.

Quote »Which is why you punish the crime, but not the opinion/thought/belief.[/quote]Yes. And since a hate crime is more heinous, you punish it more severely.

Quote »You're confusing motivation with intent.[/quote]You're confusing my use of 'motivation' with 'motive' in a legal since.

Compréhension, vous ne l'avez pas.

In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent = the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime.

Both of you.

Would you rather me say 'the compelling force'? The 'necessary condition'?

[srellim234]

You guys are arguing over something that should not be in our judicial system in the first place. Punishment for a crime should be the same no matter what the reason unless you were under duress and forced to do it. Then you are innocent.

Murder is murder. The victim is dead. Bank robbery is bank robbery. The money is stolen. Assault is assault and battery is battery. The victim is still beaten.

I don't care if your mother looked at you coss-eyed when you were two years old or you don't like the person because of his skin color. The crime is the same and the punishment should be consistent.

[AZhitman]

since a hate crime is more heinous, you punish it more severely.

Bull****.

You're outgunned on this one, brotha. This is my area of expertise, and you're just plain wrong.

A murder based on race is no more heinous than a murder with no apparent instigating factor.

That's an emotion-based response that's being indoctrinated little by little into people, and it's absolutely absurd.

[BusyBadger]

No. Just because a white guy and a black guy get in a fight doesn't make it a hate crime. I don't know where you are getting this. A hate crime is when the trigger for the act is the perceived difference.

From this earlier post of yours...

Um... they're not being charged with calling the gay guy slurs, they're being charged with beating the piss out of guy because he's gay. There's a huge f***ing difference.

My hypotheticals were never intended to be two random guys on a street. Each was, in my mind, what you would call a hate crime (I deplore the new, softer wording of the phrase "bias-motivated" crime"). In any case, I thought the scenario and circumstances were clearly established to everyone after the post that you made and that I subsequently quoted. Either way, it should be clear to all now.

Onward...

Yes. And since a hate crime is more heinous, you punish it more severely.

There is little doubt that some crimes can be more heinous than others. If I were to say, keep someone alive in my basement with the intent of killing him by slowly cutting off body parts with a Roto-Zip that would certainly be more heinous than just shooting him in the head with a 9mm. These are quantifiable actions from crimes of inequal stature (disregarding the other litany of crimes in the case of the poor sap in the basement).

The idea that two crimes of equal severity receive differing punishments bases solely on the targetting of a protected class is direct violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments and potentially the 5th as well, in regards to Due Process.*

I found this quote...

"Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus, if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants are treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution"

...when the Matthew Sheppard act was prominently in the press and it made me want to read the book where it was printed. I got sidetracked and never did, but I might have to search for it all over again.

*The Supreme Court ruled in favour of R.A.V. in R.A.V. vs City of St Paul, and I think they've got enough legal education to suit even your standards. Speaking of which...

You're confusing my use of 'motivation' with 'motive' in a legal since.

It's sense, not since. Normally I'd have let that slide, but with your stance on "not knowing enough to have this conversation" I'd expect someone of your educational level to not make a third grade English mistake in their native language.

Compréhension, vous ne l'avez pas.

à l'effet contraire, je comprende perfectement, mais votre test de langue peu m'amuse. Pourquoi me ennuyeux avec le français?

Je préfère parler l'allemand comme j'avais l'habitude d'y vivre, mais si vous souhaitez utiliser la langue de la conquête de son amende par moi.

Mon espagnol est bon aussi, mais mon italien est mauvais. De toute façon, comme je disais en classe "à tout à l’heure alligator" (it sounds much better if you rhyme it).

Y entonces, soy terminado aqui.

[dusred]

Since this conversation goes right over my head I'll contribute what I can which is the translation of what BB just said (I love you Google):

to the contrary, I understand perfectly, but your language test little fun. Why am I bored with the French?

I prefer to speak German as I used to live there, but if you want to use the language of the conquest of its fine by me.

My Spanish is good too, but my Italian is bad. Anyway, as I said in class "in just alligator" (it sounds much better if you rhyme it).

And then I'm finished here.

In my defense I'd like to offer that I could at least identify what the first language was.

This is a very interesting conversation. Carry on.

In the article it states: "Wanna take Palin down a peg? Fine. But don't use her child to do it -- especially this child." which pretty much sums up my opinion of the matter. Leave the children out of it for heck sakes.

[BusyBadger]

Hmmmph. Either my French isn't as good as it used to be (quite likely) or Google needs to put some translators on the payroll.

Your Google translation reminds me of the English wording on certain Japanese websites.