The Glade 4.0

Here there everywhere.. the world is a Crrraaaaaazzzzyyyyy place... I'm more determined everyday we're going to disprove Darwin's theory simply by exsisting... (Btw thats tongue in cheek and cynical).

I've decided that I'm pro-marriage... for everyone.
I've been thinking about this since someone bringing up the ability to marry not for love but for monotery gain in same sex marriages. Enough people not marrying for love do it nowadays, so I don't see why I'm against guys doing it with guys or girls doing it with girls.

I was just curious if by "over there" you meant not wherever you are, or "There (tm)" (the U.S.), or somewhere else ?(the middle east? Canada?, Argentina?, the North Pole?...)

Nah I use there the same as I use they. I guess I should be more specific next time, you guys are more picky about stuff on this forum than I'm use to hehe.

I don't see what the big deal is with gay marrige anymore. Just pass the damned thing, clarify the religious insitution exemption and move on.

However if the law starts to be used as a bludegon against religions who do not believe in homosexuality, then those who are attempting to do so need to be smacked on the nose legally.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

This thread has delivered. It's illustrative of the false equivalence that people like to mock me for pointing out. I thought we had hit rock bottom with comparing Ft Hood to 9-11, but now we are comparing internet trolling with the Ft. Hood tragedy. A cursory examination of the posting at places like Red State will reveal some very serious problem with the Right were we to apply Bery's standards across the board.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The difference, Monte, is that most on the Right reject the hate language of a few idiots, without adding some sort of justification to our rejection. As this thread shows, the Left cannot, or will not, do the same with the Left idiots.

Yes, it will. You simply aren't looking for it. Every now and again some jackass will post some violent crap on Kos. They are immediately downrated and usually booted after a time. The left is perfectly happy to criticize their own.

This is another example of projection, Bery. During the Bush administration, conservatives including yourself supported massive increases in executive power without any criticism what so ever, and now that someone conservatives disagree with is in office, suddenly executive overreach is a horrifying step towards fascism and communist doom.

You want to paint the left with a broad brush. I get that. I do it with the right as well. It's really not fair either way.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Not that I mean to pick on you, Monte, but have you read this thread? Two pages of "Well, that's bad, but those on the Right blah blah blah.....", and an occasional post that couldn't even call the death threats bad, just pot-shots at the Right. And there is no justification, whichever part of the political spectrum it comes from. I reject the hate that comes from folks like the Phelps's and other such people, and I don't have to point at what those on the Left do to reject it.

And I know it's just a few idiots on the Left, just as it's a few idiots on the Right who say such things. But it does show that hate speech is not something that happens only on the Right.

I don't think anyone's questioning that. However, conflating idiot internet trolls with actual terrorists is not a good way to make a point.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Take this with a full measure of civility, Monte, because civility is intended, but haven't you tried to make the connection that such hate speech could incite someone on the Right to commit acts of violence against homosexuals? Have you not tried to make the point that if we on the Right do not FULLY reject hate speech, publicly, that it means we are sympathetic to that hate speech? Not to attack you personally, Monte, so don't take it that way; trying to illustrate that there is a double standard.

Put it another way: If the OP had been about Christians making such threats toward homosexuals and homosexual groups, the entire tone of this thread would have been vastly different, don't you think?

For whatever it's worth, I appreciate the new approach you post with, still holding your beliefs and making your points but lately without the incendiary language. Thank you, and I hope you read my replies back to you with an understanding that I do not intend to be incendiary, either.

1) If you're going to make the assertion, please quantify the statement that "most on the Right reject the hate language." So that...

2) You can clarify how "the Left's" consensus of opinion is comprised wholly of eight people on the Glade, 75% of which don't even consider themselves anything approaching "Left."

Bery - I haven't "tried" to make that connection. That connection is actually pretty clear. The best example is the man who walked into the Unitarian church and killed two people. He said, very clearly, that he was going out to kill liberals. He said he was targeting liberal congreation members because he could not get to the "generals", and he got *those* "generals" from a right wing hate book about liberals.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

FarSky, Left and Right are words that can be misconstrued, if context is not taken into account. There are a number of people on this board who consider themselves to the Right, but on some social issues are quite Left. That's the context here.

It is true that I'm speaking of a limited cross-section of folks, and that I speak from experience (which this thread has mirrored perfectly, I may add). Even you, FarSky, could not just say that the death threats and other threats were out of order; you had to try to make it into a diversion over what the author meant when he spoke of being "pro-marriage". That wasn't the topic of the OP, it was a minor consideration. The topic was hate speech coming from homosexuals, directed at Christians.

So then, will you say the same about the speech mentioned in the OP, that it could lead someone to blow up a church, or attack Christians?

So what you're saying is that the people who aren't Right enough to you didn't come out and vocalize their disapproval strongly enough for you, and you're using that to paint with broad brushstrokes the entirety of the discussion.

And for the record (readily accessible), my words were:

Any threat of violence is wrong, no matter its origin. And all of the phone calls are wrong, out of line, morally reprehensible, and should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I should note, however, that at the time of my posting, the discussion at the time had shifted from the threats themselves to their likelihood of enactment, which is what I primarily addressed, though I did take the time to condemn them.

Also of note, here are the internet quotes in contention from the article.







"Tex's" comments were out of line, but I don't think they can rightly be considered "threats." "ColdCountry's" might, but the author quoted no context.

The author touts "Fritz's" comments as being threats. I seem to remember you making similarly dire "warnings," and then (rightfully) taking umbrage at the idea that they're "threats."

No, I doubt it will lead to that. Of course, anything can happen. I suppose a very angry gay person could decide to resort to terrorism, but I doubt it. People on the left are generally pretty non violent.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

FarSky, you forgot this one by someone posting as "Josh Sebring":



which was also quoted in the article.

You're right; for some reason I was thinking that was one of the phone calls. Regardless, it proves the side-topic that was mentioned as soon as the thread began...that kind of rhetoric sounds awfully familiar to Gladers. Almost verbatim, though our resident violenceers are more eloquent. As a longtime Glader, it's a bit hard to be moved by something that we see as an everyday occurrence. It's still wrong, no doubt, but hardly the kind of thing by which the population here would be fazed.

It's horrible. It's also internet trolling. Hell, it could very well be someone on the right just trying to make an anonymous stink. It's not unheard of.

The difference between this sort of internet trolling, and books like the one that inspired the Unitarian shooter, is legitimacy. The internet is a cess pit of stupidity. Published authors have more credibility than your average internet troll.

No doubt, Bery, speech can have consequences. I certainly won't argue with you on that. However, you also have to consider the source. A vice presidential candidate ginning up a crowd is not in the same boat as an internet poster calling for a pink jihad.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Sounds like we're in agreement, for the most part. I guess the issue for me is that I am tired of being told that only the Right uses hate speech, when clearly that is not the case; also that (in my perception) hate speech from the Left isn't identified as such with nearly the same vehemence as hate speech from the Right. Again I say, if the OP had been about Christians threatening homosexuals, the tone of this thread would have been quite different, or so it seems to me.

Bery, it would have been.

If a "gay leftie" goes out and bombs a church today, it's because they are a lone troubled individual- a "lone wolf". No connection to this.

If a "christian rightie" goes out and bombs a mosque it's because of hate speech and conservative talk radio, the hate preached by Churches and their fringe views on government. Oh and Rush Limbaugh incited it, but edited his transcripts so we can't cite it.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yup.

[youtube]HZmHC75FDqQ[/youtube]

/giggle

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

How about "gay bigot-on-straight-or-bisexual" then, which might actually be a little bit accurate?

Since people don't wear convenient "I hate fags"labels most of the time, that's what it would be if some gay nutjob went out and capped a few "breeders". Lets say he targets some people that appear to be heterosexual couples, and kills one or more bisexuals in the process. Or how about the guy that thinks killing a few cops will in some way help get same-sex marriage approved (since we all know it's the polcie preventing that). I know at least one gay cop. Suppose he were killed?

That's the real problem I see Bery pointing out here. The left, contrary to the wailing, only acknowledges bigotry they don't like. It's rampant in this very thread; unwillingness to acknowledge it, and constant attempts to shift the discussion to the right.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Your smear on the left is simply inaccurate (and frankly, kind of insulting).

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show