The Glade 4.0

http://townhall.com/columnists/MattBarb ... /gay_jihad

I thought all the hate speech was from conservatives.

You have GOT to be kidding.



So some jackasses made internet forum and/or blog posts threatening nonspecific violence. This is news? We have people on this board that do that.

The conservatives are also really shooting themselves in the foot with the line of reasoning they put forth in this article. By likening homosexual threats to Malik Hasan's rampage, they undermine their own "fundamentalist Islam is bad" argument. Since there's no gay bible that sanctions such things, if gay violence and Islamic violence are similar then it really is just random nutjobs doing both, and Islam has nothing to do with it.

Nonspecific violence? YOU have got to be kidding. Did you read the article? Quote from a call mentioned in the article:



You call that nonspecific violence? What exactly would he have to have said for you to call it specific?

Durka durka?

Very, I do agree that it was pretty damend specific; but we do have the same kind of threats thrown around here by people regarding shooting officials....

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I do not dispute that. But there are plenty of people who claim that the Left is all about tolerance, and hate speech only comes from the Right. This clearly shows that to be false, but it's not PC to point that out, and even when it is acknowledged, it has to be accompanied by more finger-pointing at the Right, as though that were some sort of justification.

not arguing that point with you at all. I just wanted to add soemthing other than a picture of Gary.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Christians have been ruthlessly oppressed throughout our country's history, ever since Jefferson refused to make the Baptist Church the official religion of the United States.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Thank you.

Yeah, the postings quoted seem almost verbatim to what we see on this forum almost every day. Internet posturing. Will it be acted upon? Possibly, but I'd wager it's got the same odds of that happening as the posts here. Doesn't make it right; it's still a threat, and it should still be investigated, lest it be an actionable concern. But that's my take on it.

Besides, I thought that whenever someone who self-identifies with a certain group misbehaves, people here are supposed to jump to the "well, but he's not a real <insert group affiliation here>, because look how he acts..." defense.

Oh, and this made me laugh:



What the frak is a "pro-marriage advocate?" I'm assuming the damn fool author of that article equates "pro-marriage" to "anti-gay-marriage." Being a proponent of marriage for more people is in fact being "anti-marriage." Verrry interesting...but shtupid!

I am as worried about militant Nanci's as I am violent Tea baggers

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Apparently, the oppression of Christianity is synonymous with failure to adopt its version of Sharia Law.

_________________

Several (general, not universal) points:

1) The claims of the Left being tolerant are utter hogwash. They are tolerant so long as you agree with them and do what they want.

2) The claims that hate speech is entirely the province of the Right is utter hogwash.

3) People don't call out the Left for their hate speech like they do the Right, it's a clear double standard.

Thank you.

Oh, and point 4) Had this been about Right wing idiots making such threats against homosexuals, the reaction on this board would have been considerably different.

meh why can't it just be a case of "There's a nut in every bag". There are lots of crazy people over there, the only difference between them are who they are affiliated with.

To be fair, there's much more reason to give credence to the threats, were that the case; there's been much more "bigot-on-gay" violence than "gay-on-bigot" violence.

Also, both types of violence sound like something you'd see on a DVD in the back of a skeevy adult entertainment store.

Even your choice of words demonstrates the bias.

Over 'where' exactly?

I figured your response would be something along those lines. The question of whether or not someone is racist/bigoted/etc. is mercurial, notoriously hard to pin down due to the nature of being a question of motive, which is innately internal. But yes, if someone enacts violence against another for the sole reason of disliking/being offended by/being afraid of a characteristic about them (which is, quite obviously, what I'm talking about above), then yes, that is in fact hard evidence of bigotry.

Does that make the person of discussion in the OP a bigot? Yes. But not illustrative of the point I was making. "Straight-on-gay violence" unfairly paints all straights as violent, and "bigot-on-bigot violence" is, at best, unclear.

But then, why did you not say, "bigot-on-conservative" violence? No, it's "gay-on-bigot", because you show the bias. Had you been unbiased, you'd have said "there's been much more "bigot-on-gay" violence than "bigot-on-conservative" violence".

Not to worry, I expected no different result that I got. I had no expectation that people would examine themselves and their attitudes, and I got exactly what I expected I would get: Bias and double standard from those who demand tolerance from the Right.

I'm biased against bigots in general, but the bigots in my current discussion were, specifically, anti-homosexual bigots. Changing the nomenclature mid-stream is confusing.

I note no mention on your part of the excerpt from the article I quoted earlier, about "pro-marriage activists." If you're wanting absolute transparency of language, why didn't you address that at all?


So then, you were just trolling? I'm sorry; with this sub-forum's vocal population trending largely right-of-center (be it libertarian or traditional conservative), I'm having trouble finding exactly where your problem with people on the Left not getting bashed enough here (either deservedly or undeservedly so) is coming from. I don't believe this is about enlightening discourse. I don't want to get too individually focused, though, so have at it. I'll not change your mind, and you'll not change mine.

You mean you didn't figure out it was just another anti-faggotry thread from the get-go?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Why is it so hard for the Left to criticize the Left's idiots, without tossing out semi-veiled attacks on the Right as though there's some measure of justification?

...

Well, of course it was. I mean, there is only one possible reason to criticize homosexuals for specific death threats to individuals, and for advocating burning churches, suicide bomb attacks on churches, and such. The only possible reason is anti-faggotry.