Thread to carry on debate over censorship, etc.

JUMPIN' JESUS ON A POGO STICK!!! NOT THE PAPER BOY WOMAN!!

And you complain that the only news I get is Rush Limbaugh... Radio is the only safe way to approach the house after the cable guy incident.

For crissake at least use the small one and tell him it's a prostate exam, you still have the smock, rubber gloves and stethascope from the valentines party...he might buy it.

FONDL: I have uttered the words, "If I offended anyone, I apologize. I didn't mean to." Therefore, I am no gentleman.

Chitown, I think the corrolary to your qoute is that a gentleman can never be offended - you can't offend anyone without their active participation and a gentleman refuses to participate. And since Chandler says he's not offended by any of the recent remarks, that labels him a member of that rare breed. Probably you too.

Awww, c'mon AN......what's this world coming to when I can't terrorize the various repairmen by chasing them around the house with a giant dildo? I never get to have any fun anymore! Meh!

If you need me, I'll be out on the lanai, waiting for the paperboy........any screaming you hear probably won't be from me.

I believe the point of the quote is that if a gentleman offends it's because he intends to.

Nope being "Gentlemen" is something us younger types are trying to draw the elders back into as it seems by their behavior they have lost their way.

"Gentlemen" Chitown? Now there's a word I haven't heard in a long time. I thought that was one of the old-fashioned comcepts us old guys were supposed to give up to adjust to modern times.

AN: Just to be clear, I wasn't the least bit offended or anything by your views about gays or Shadowcat's, and hope I didn't come off that way. I only tried to make a point about his disapproval of what gays do with their dicks. Sometimes it seems like you're more interested in debating opinions you assume I hold because they're related to something I've expressed. I don't mean to be a spoilsport, it's just not a very appealing opening for making a case for my true opinion, if I even have one.

Chitown: Only eight days?? It seems like this has been going on for months.

I have missed out on the evolution of this debate, since I spent my vacation sans the Internet (and eight blissful days they were). However, I am reminded of a quote from a source that I cannot now identify:

A gentleman never unintentionally offends anyone.

Chitown, good point, the irony is not lost on me.

I spent 4 days without internet. I got a lot of reading done.

chandler- I usually just close my eyes and start pokin'. Where it ends up is anyones guess!

I accidently jabbed the mailman one day when he ventured in too close....but that's a story for another day.

Chandler, I may have been a bit too strident last night. Got back from vacation, the basement flooded, the AC is broken, Lopaw is doin' the mailman again (the tramp), now "The Advocate" is never going to arrive on time.

My point is that it seems whenever someone voices an opinion that for instance "I don't like gay guys" someone always seems to equate that with shipping them to the camps. Then there is the whole gay marriage thing. So not allowing two men to marry is discriminating? Straight guys can't mary either, so what makes gay guys special? For 10,000 years marriage has meant one specific thing, now our betters and social engineers want to re-define it, and somehow we're the ones with the problem?

This could lead to a very long conversation about evolution and social institutions, but I have to meet the AC guy tomorrow morning, and I have the feeling I'll need all my strength.

Lopaw, you pull that thing out anywhere near the AC guy we're through.

You've got it backwards, my friend. I'm the one who does not believe in race baiting, etc.

Chandler, you completely lost me on that one. I have no idea what you're trying to say with your last post. Are you accusing me of race baiting? Please explain.

You wrote that I disagree with treating people as individuals and not as members of their race, etc. That's backwards and it's why I condemn slurring one group as swindlers, another as subhuman, etc.

FONDL: Sorry, on closer reading, your latest characterization isn't so unfair. Yes, I agree with virtually all civilized people that some people deserve special consideration. To deny them that would be callous. To reject the entire notion under the banner of consistency or color-blindness may appear noble, but it's being willfully blind to the messy reality of life and is no cure for divisiveness.

Chandler, I totally agree that some people deserve special consideration and I've never said otherwise. I just don't think that special consideration should be based on race, religion or ethnicity. I think people should be treated as individuals, not as members of some arbitrary grouping. I guess that's the heart of our disagreement.

FONDL, I've made it very clear what I believe in and you know it. Stop trying to denigrate my view and I'll be glad to agree to disagree.

Parodyman says, "FONDL: Just because a large segment of people participate in something I think is wrong doesn't justify the behavior." I tend to agree, I wasn't trying to argue the opposite, I was trying to counter AN's statement that people no longer do such things. But more to the point, I also don't pretend to know what is right or wrong in this area, nor do I do I think I have the right to impose my views of right and wrong on others. To me that would constitute censorship, which I think is what we're trying to discuss here.

Chandler says, "Bullshit! That's not being consistent. That's a coy smokescreen for insisting I see things your way." To which I reply bullshit to you too, I could care less whether you see things my way or not, I'm simply stating my views, I'm not trying to impose them on you or anyone else.

Chandler, it's very clear that you and I will never agree on this issue. You believe it's proper to treat members of different races, religions, and ethnic groups differently because you think that some groups are more vulnerable than others and therefore need greater consideration. I disagree, I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of their racial, religious, or ethnic affiliation because I think prejudicial treatment is devisive. I'm never going to agree with your point of view and I doubt if you're ever going to agree with mine. So why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

AN: I'm well aware that there has been a long, sorry history of authorities dictating where nature does and doesn't intend a man's penis to be inserted. I believe there may still be states that outlaw oral sex for married couples in their own bedroom. (Or there were such laws until recently.) I thought that was one aspect of these issues on which this board would find common ground.

*sigh*. You guys can keep on discussing the gay thing. I'm gonna go eat some pussy, then watch some TV.

Let me know how it all turns out.

Lopaw: Be careful you don't stick that strap on in any place it wasn't designed to go.

Shadowcat, I caught that earlier. I was going to respond that you shouldn't have to understand others in order to tolerate them, but I chose to focus on the "not natural" aspect instead. And, even though I can't comprehend WHY a man wants another man any better than you do, I don't doubt their sincerity that they DO want that.

I believe that way too much is made of this difference. If all you know about a man is that he's gay, that tends to define everything about him to you. He may seem like some alien, threatening creature, when in actual fact he's a pretty ordinary guy in every other way. The more you know about him, the more you realize it's just not such a big deal.

Chandler, If you don't want to argue with me, that's fine. I very specifically re-stated an argument that I thought Shadowcat mis-stated, but I was very clear in what I was arguing. Don't criticize me for other peoples opinions. Also, the simple fact that an act is private is not and has never been a defense for either legal sanction or social sanction. That is another inconvenient fact we need to deal with. In fact some of the most strident "progressives" are very adament about sanctioning private behavior and taking what have been for centuries the rights and priveleges of the family and making them subject to public policy.

I would just like to point out to everyone reading this thread, that parody now get FUCKED IN THE ASS DAILY by CHANDLER and that is why he is a bit crabby?

Can we consider parody to be cheating on his boyfriend JC?

This has everything to do with what kind of man you are, where you draw the line for what is or isn't acceptable, and how you treat others.

FONDL: Just because a large segment of people participate in something I think is wrong doesn't justify the behavior. The problem with these old bigots (and to be fair young ones too) is their ignorance. Just because Shadowcat longs for the good old days when a group he dislikes would be turned into lamp shades, dosen't justify that mindset to me. Instead of defending him maybe you should explain to him that the camps are closed and claiming that you were just going along with everyone else will not fly.

"All I'm trying to say is let's be consistent. If we're going to object to some comments because they might be interpreted as being insulting by some group of people, then let's avoid all similar comments that could be interpreted that way regardless of who is being insulted. We've never done that here in the past."

Bullshit! That's not being consistent. That's a coy smokescreen for insisting I see things your way. Sorry, I don't. I'll continue to make distinctions for myself, and I might condemn somebody's callousness again someday if I think it deserves it.

Chandler, quite the contrary, context is everything, but I totally agree with your comment that "Context can be hard to interpret on an internet board." Which is why I haven't said anything about context here, because the context which the reader chooses to see may be entirely different that what the writer meant. For example I've tried to be sarcastic here many times only to have someone take me literally. I think we all need to lighten up a bit and realize that happens here a lot.

There's only one person here who knows whether Shadowcat's original post that started this discussion was meant to be insulting or playful, none of us can tell that from the context. I choose playful, knowing Shadowcat from his many other posts.

All I'm trying to say is let's be consistent. If we're going to object to some comments because they might be interpreted as being insulting by some group of people, then let's avoid all similar comments that could be interpreted that way regardless of who is being insulted. We've never done that here in the past.

Parodyman says "Also just because racist or biggoted language is commonplace does not make it acceptable or excusable." To which I reply, acceptable or excusable to whom, who decides? I was merely pointing out that such language is quite acceptable to a large segment of our society. And that there have been a lot of bigoted comments here in the past to which no one objected. Why has this instance raised such ire?

Does this mean that in addition to being Politically Correct, we now need to eliminate all descriptive adjectives from our vocabulary also. I don't understand the push to remove all elements of difference from our society.

Parodyman your last post stated:

ShotDisc: This is great! "What is so hard about telling the truth. As we all know, the truth often hurts. Thats life."

I am going to ask you to be TRUTHFUL. Do you mean to tell me that you cannot see the difference between calling a black man black and calling them nigger?

Sit and think about this. It has nothing to do with being PC. It is about bigotry and one's personal character.

The difference between those two things is black is truthful, the other isn't. Back to my point. what is wrong with being truthful?

There is nothing wrong with being truthful but why would it matter that someone happens to be black or gay or jewish or whatever? See what I am getting at?

FONDL, you write about these issues as though context isn't even a factor. And yet you evidently observe its importance in your own speech and writing. I think you are grossly oversimplifying to insist you stand for absolutely free speech and never treating different groups differently.

FONDL, I didn't mean you specifically in my comment about older people seeming to think that they are entitled to behave badly just because they have reached an advanced age. It does seem to me however that certain older bigots on this board follow that line of thinking.

Also just because racist or biggoted language is commonplace does not make it acceptable or excusable.

Wow, I go away for a couple of days and return to find that we're now talking about gays. Talk about threads wandering. Personally I feel the same way about gays as I do about people who use language that others might find offensive - it's not my thing but I don't try to tell others how they should live their lives, so I choose not to let it bother me. There are a lot of behaviors out there that I could find offensive if I wanted to, but that doesn't give me the right to impose my values on anyone else. So I just ignore it.

There were a number of earlier posts addressed to me - I'll comment on some of them. Chandler said, "One should understand what political correctness does and does not mean before using the term. It refers to the kind of absurd language sensitivity that ShotDisc described." I agree but I think the term is broader than that. To me it also means treating different groups of people differently, as in it's OK to insult some groups but not others. That's PC thinking at it's worst and I don't buy it.

Parodyman said "I find it interesting that some older people seem to have this mind set that they can do or say whatever they like and fuck everyone else because they have earned it. Yet you want a younger man like myself to bow to you and be respectful." I don't know where you got that impression, I don't feel that way at all. I try to be civil when dealing with others and I hope others will be civil with me. And when they aren't I ignore them. I don't care whether anyone respects me or not, least of all here. But if you're going to show disrespect for older people or any other group for that matter, don't complain when they show similar lack of respect for some other group of people of which you may be a part.

And one final comment about what people generally do or don't do in our society. I'll bet AN could spend an evening in almost any bar in his home town of Pittsburgh and hear his list of slurs used regularly all evening long. I'm sure I could do the same in Philly's ethnic neighborhoods. I just spent a weekend with some of my inlaws, who are members of one of the ethnic groups that AN mentioned, and heard almost every one of his words used frequently. In that particular extended family if you're not being insulted frequently that means no one likes you. We can disagree with such behavior all we like but let's not pretend that it isn't common behaviour in our society because it is.

AN: Sorry, I'm simply not interested in entering into a wide-ranging discussion of gay people. Their public behavior or the issue of gay marriage don't spark strong opinions in me, even in an election year. I do feel very strongly in keeping a distinction between public and private lives, and my attitude about people's private lives is to say live and let live.

Shadowcat made the direct conclusion that gays should not be treated as normal because they engage in private acts that are "not natural". I'm dead serious when I say that that's a phony argument, and your claims of a factual scientific basis are irrelevant. If you acknowledged that, sorry, it wasn't clear to me.

Chandler, I characterized homosexuality as a more public phemonenon because it is true. With homosexuals lobbying for marriage and minority status and with the continuing trend toward living openly as a homosexual, including PDA between men, it is not a purely private matter, plain and simple. I also think that while Shadowcat does say he objects to private homosexual acts he doesn't dwell on it and is more upset or objects to, as most people do, public homosexuality. He is free to correct me, but my arguments about the public and social aspects of homosexuality are not directly linked to what he says, that was just my starting point.

As for the natural = right, I didn't make that link. I specifically said I enjoy some of the types of un-natural sex we indulge in. I simply ponted out that one man sticking his dick up another man's ass is not what nature intended for those appendages and orifices, and calling someone silly for pointing that out is disingenuous. I also pointed out that it is rather unhygenic at the least and very dangerous quite often.

Book Guy, that first paragraph has to be one of the silliest things I've ever read. It would however be right at home on many university campuses. Some things are so obvious only an "intellectual" could find them confusing or ambiguous.

Don't drag Mr. T into this!

Simple point -- homosexuality evolved to exist. Therefore, is it "natural"? The idea that, because somehow there are two genders, those two must be "designed" to procreate together, is already evolutionarily suspect. Nothing in evolution is "designed." It just comes about as an effective exploitation of a given niche. Sexual difference is an effective solution to the problem of reduplicative fading. (And, by the way, there aren't just two genders, either.)

I've heard of studies that point out that in certain high-pressure periods, many different mammal species, when faced with limited access to necessary resources, "turn" or change, over the course of SEVERAL GENERATIONS, into a "more homosexual" species. Meaning, more given individuals start to try to hump members of their own gender. A study of deer on a Cypriot island comes to mind. Most interesting thing was, when the deer were taken away from the resource pressure, those which had been "born gay" remained that way. It wasn't a conscious choice for them.

In another study, so I heard tell, human males who highly and publicly identify themselves as homosexual were demonstrated to have different brain-wave patterns and different structures in their hypothalmus. This was "natural," their own internal biological facts. Like me being right handed, for example. Therefore it must be a correct them to practice homosexuality. At least, by YOUR argument ... :) ...

I think the gay men who are "publicly open" about it wouldn't agree with the notion that they should keep their sexuality hidden from the rest of us. It isn't the right to fuck men, that they're after. It's the right to fuck men AND NOT BE CRITICIZED FOR IT, that they're after. Sure, they know that many people in public (whom they would identify as NEEDING TO CHANGE) would disagree with their publicizing their sexual preference. I think they KNOW that fact. That's not their point.

If I were somehow "different" from the crowd around me, I wouldn't want to be ghetto-ized for it. And I certainly wouldn't want to be silenced. I live in a Bible-belt town, but I don't go to church. They're pretty hard on me here. I often feel that I ought to keep my religious preference (or, erm, "dispreference") a secret. It would improve my business prospects, to go to a Baptist place and be all gung-fucking-ho about Puritanical sexual restrictions. I'm not. I was "born" as anti-Church as it gets. Is it a GOOD thing that the many Baptists here suggest, just as you did, "well, I don't care who or what he worships, as long as he does it in private and I don't have to deal with it, and as long as he stays away from my children"? Nooooo ...

In fact, I'd suggest, the CHILDREN are exactly the people that us "different" people ought to MOST invade the lives of. The parents, with their Baptist upbringings, are exposing their kids to oppressive ideas BEFORE THE KIDS ARE OLD ENOUGH TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. What kind of fucked-up cult seeks out converts among the young and impressionable? Besides cigarette advertising? Hmm?

Well, same with gays. If kids aren't exposed to the fact that biologically normal gay people are leading biologically normal lives within biological limits that harm no other humans, then kids will get brainwashed into Puritanical norms instead of an acceptance of (a) reality and (b) the "social contract" of the Enlightenment.

By which this country (at least; I'm in the USA) SHOULD be run. Categorically. Which it is not, currently.

BG

AN: Shadowcat very vividly raised the issue of people's private lives. You tried to change it to flamboyance. Different issue.

The "natural = right" argument is a textbook fallacy. Who cares?

I'm not calling anybody names. Just pointing out the implications of some very strident, and I feel, poorly thought out opinions.

Chandler, I think it is remarkably obvious what it has to do with anything. Most behavior is governed via social pressures. When you want to be outside the confines of what is considered acceptable you shouldn't complain when people disapprove. If you want to be openly gay, fine, but realize that that choice is not cost free and there is a stigma attached to it in a lot of places and with a lot of people. In their bedrooms I could not care less what other people do, but homosexuality is not just about what goes on in the bedroom anymore. Your that people who disapprove are trying to intrude into someones private life applies only if their homosexuality is entirely a private matter. You can call as many people as you like bigoted or small minded, that doesn't make you right, and they have no obligation to conform to anyone elses idea of what the proper level of tolerance is.

As for what is natural I think that is even more obvious. Wether by evolution or creation or whatever your favorite description of how man came about, there are two sexes, they are designed or evolved if you prefer so that the male penis fits into the female vagina to allow procreation. That's natural. The rest is recreational. I was just pointing out that Shadowcat's statement that homosexuality is unnatural is true at that level.

AN: Wow, I agree that transgendered cross dressers shouldn't expect to blend in with the citizens of Mayberry. Neither should Mr. T in full regalia. The question is what that has to do with anything.

And the claim to stand for what is natural or "designed" strikes me as equally irrelevant. It's little more than an arbitrary rationale for your preconceived view in this case, isn't it?

I'd venture that what Shadowcat means is not that he has a problem with gay people, after all how would he know, but people who are openly or flamboyantly gay in public. Gotta say I'm not crazy about that either, but the way I figure it if I'm in San Francisco or Key West, or Provincetown then I'm the outsider. If you want to be a boy who dresses like a girl, or any of the multitude of variations there are nowdays, there are places you can do so without offending community standards. If you want to be a transgendered cross dresser in the Bible belt don't be shocked if some people don't embrace and celebrate your choice of lifestyle.

As far as what is natural it's just a plain old fact that the penis was not designed to go up the ass and a lot of diseases are spread that way, meaning that the main act that defines male homosexuality is both un-natural and unhygenic. Sorry, but that is a fact. Men are not designed to and it is not natural for them to have sex with each other.

That aside I have to admit I personally like some of the other un-natural types of sex.

Shadowcat: Where I have a problem is anybody who makes what goes on in other people's bedrooms their business. I prefer to decide for myself who to love and in what form. I grant the same respect to others. I don't understand the thinking of people who can't grasp that.

Context can be hard to interpret on an internet board. I follow some where posts are often sarcastic or satirical, and offensive stuff barely raises an eyebrow. On this board, almost everything is meant to be, and is, taken at face value. You learn not to take what you read too seriously, but to expect that what you write will be.

Wow, Shadowcat is so old he thinks that he is God now. That way he can hand down to us mortals what is natural and unnatural, and what is right and wrong. So he says, so shall it be!

And don't let shadowcat's KKK membership fool you either. He is clearly not a rascist.

Shadowcat: It's not the word itself or the color of the person who says it. It's what the word represents and context in which it's used that matter. Just like displaying a swastika in front of a synagogue is offensive for reasons nobody would doubt, even though it's just a geometric shape, athough in a museum or in a play it might not be.

The above post from a "man" who EATS COCK for a living.

parody: Um, ok, you are evolving. Let's see, you brain over the last year has been hung up primarily on the topics of masturbation, excerment, homosexuality. Now you are fixated on gross stuff like grinding people up into hamburgers. This is your idea of evolution? Dude, like I say you are SUBHUMAN genetically, and even for a SUBHUMAN your mental development appears to be arrested at age 2.

ShotDisc: This is great! "What is so hard about telling the truth. As we all know, the truth often hurts. Thats life."

I am going to ask you to be TRUTHFUL. Do you mean to tell me that you cannot see the difference between calling a black man black and calling them nigger?

Sit and think about this. It has nothing to do with being PC. It is about bigotry and one's personal character.

FONDL: You wrote, "I find it interesting that parodyman objects to what he consideres insulting to him but has no qualms about insulting us older people." I find it interesting that some older people seem to have this mind set that they can do or say whatever they like and fuck everyone else because they have earned it. Yet you want a younger man like myself to bow to you and be respectful. You can only stay alpha male as long as you can fend off all challengers. It might do some of the older generation good to think about that.

Your next sentence was: "Personally I think his comments were the most insulting thing that's appeared here in a long time." -- "Thank You!" is my reply to that.

FUCKIN A' Chandler!

FONDL: You are right. I am not bothered so much by the words just the connotations behind a phrase like "Jew them down." I completely support someones right to use that kind of hate speech but I don't have to like it. What really bothers me about that particular kind of statement is that it is designed to seperate people. By just smiling politely when someone says something like that is a silent condoning of that ideaology. I don't wish to be included in that group.

As to your post in general, TUSCL used to be a lot more civilized and friendly. It seems everyone is on a short fuse lately.

One should understand what political correctness does and does not mean before using the term. It refers to the kind of absurd language sensitivity that ShotDisc described. It is not a blanket term that also takes in the rejection of racial slurs that virtually every civilized person agrees with. Bigots who feel nostalgic for the good old days when you could insult minorities without censure before they became uppity have tried to hijack the term PC to justify their cruelty. They are a poor example to follow.

Parodyman, I agree with your last sentence, unfortunately much of the evidence is to the contrary.

I'm actually of two minds on this issue. I can accept new rules where we all agree to stop using certain words that some may find insulting. Or I can accept that we have no such limitations and that the readers lighten up and be more tolerant. Either way is fine with me. What I can't agree to is the argument that some have advanced here that insulting some groups is OK but insulting others is not. That's the kind of PC double standard that both I and Shotdisc find unaccpetable. So if we're going to stop using slur words like those on AN's list let's expand that list to cover all slurs and include such words as "redneck" and "bubba" and maybe even "ho" and "stripper" and and and ...

I think you see the problem here. Where does it end? And who decides which words are OK and which aren't - would any two of us ever agree? Seems to me there's a very long list of words that someone somewhere can find insulting if they choose to do so, which is after all a choice. So maybe the best approach is for us writers to show a little restraint and try to avoid direct insults when poking fun, and for us readers to lighten up and not be so quick to take offense when probably none is intended. Seems to me that's what we used to do here.

Do what you will. Ultimately we ARE responsible for our own behavior. I would like to think that in 2006 the levels of tolerance and understanding are higher than they were in 1950.

Shadowcat: I want BLOOD!

Just kidding, The second half of that post was supposed to be funny. Sorry if people took it litterally.


Clifrod / davids: I am capable of evolving unlike some pole smoking troll who only sits at his computer trying to bait people into arguements to prove that he is the... MASTER BAITER!

I find it interesting that parodyman objects to what he consideres insulting to him but has no qualms about insulting us older people. Personally I think his comments were the most insulting thing that's appeared here in a long time.

As for accepting change, "Change is inevitable, improvement isn't." I forget where I read that (us old people do that sometimes) but it's certainly true. Which is why a lot of us oldsters reject many changes. And why you will too as you grow older.

Parodyman,

That had to be one of the most inane posts I have ever read. I am hoping it is a reflection of your screen name rather than your true thoughts.

Political correctness- a form of censorship being forced upon us all by our government, the media and our educators. Why is it wrong to call a fat person fat? Why is it wrong to call a handicapped person handicapped? Why is it wrong to call a Black person Black?

In politically correct speak I would be considered a weight-challenged, follically challenged, optically-challenged, Italian/Hungarian American who is closing in on becoming a seasoned citizen.

In reality I am an overweight, balding guy who was born in NY , wears glasses, and has grandparents who were Italian and Hungarian among other things. I am cruising thru middle age and will become eligible for AARP sooner than I want to admit.

What is so hard about telling the truth. As we all know, the truth often hurts. Thats life.

The fact that shadowcat is an old man does not in any way excuse his moronic like behavior. Just because you grew up in a different time does not mean that you do not live in the here and now just like the rest of us. Shadowcat please try to evolve a little bit, OK?

I propose that old people who hide behind the excuse of "I grew up that way..." and refuse to change be ground up into hamburger and shipped off to feed the poor of whatever particular group of people they think that it is harmless to hate. That would solve a lot of problems.

As I said, I considered the whole thing a minor issue, in slightly poor taste but once he'd apologized I considered it over. I personally took no great offense, I just thought it wasn't an appropriate way to put things, yes even though I've heard far worse growing up. We say a lot of things on this board that are in poor taste, but its usually about broads, so that's OK. I have no problem with Shadowcat and hope he posts a good offensive review full of nasty graphic details soon. Shadowcat, always go with your strengths bro.

FONDL & Shadowcat: I hadn't even read the end of FONDL's post beyond "political correctness", so I missed his call for me to apologize. I haven't meant anything I've written as a personal attack or insult. I've tried to avoid putting it in those terms, and focus on the three words at issue. I can understand if my vehemence is taken as a personal condemnation, and if so I'm sorry. I like Shadowcat. I enjoy his posts, including stuff that offends everybody.

FONDL, unchecked freedom of speech without any attendant responsibilites has never existed in this country or anywhere. You wouldn't support it if it were possible and you know it. Don't make me cite examples. I won't even hint at them now out of respect for what Yoda just posted in Shadowcat's thread.

I'm not going to debate the meaning of Christian or conservative with you. If you disagree with my explanation that slurs against the Christian right are less condemned because Christians and conservatism are not perceived as powerless, nothing I can say will persuade you.

I might have over-stated the offensiveness of Shadowcat's topic title a little. I don't regret complaining about it. I agree with Yoda that it's too late now to undo it. The discussion that followed in that thread wouldn't make sense, unless it was changed to something like, "Bargaining them down: (was: Jewing them down:, MOD.)". I called for Shadow to change it about a half-hour after he posted it. I think Shadow and you over-reacted to my call to change an unfortunate thread title. It's just a label for the opinions it's linked to. Topics get relabeled on other boards all the time, and it has no chilling effect on the exchange of ideas. In this case, the title contained no ideas other than a blunt insult thinly related to the contents. It's not like I was insisting somebody's post be expunged.

When I first saw that title, I thought, oh great, some troll is trying escalate the insults to stir up shit. I knew I had logged in with 'ignore' in effect, so I looked over to see what new pest had infested the board. My reaction was immediate and certain, that Shadowcat must be urged to change it right away. (BTW, Yoda, the Founder has changed reviews for me, so I bet he would have changed a title for Shadowcat.) I might not have taken the most effectively persuasive tone, but I don't regret the message.

In all the time I've followed this board this is the only time I've found it necessary to speak up like this (troll issues excepted). That speaks well of this group's handling of the responsibility that comes with our relatively unchecked freedom. Like I said once before here, we operate on an honor system. The labels we attach to threads are like signs we mount on our clubhouse wall. Should we tiptoe around for fear one word might offend one reader? Hell no! I've read offensive stuff here many times before without even commenting on it, as I'm sure we all have. But I don't want this to be a place where insults such as this become par for the course. I hope the discussion we've had will discourage that from happening.

Chandler says, "Are you claiming in the name of free speech, FONDL, that there is nothing whatsoever that anyone could post that would warrant an appeal to remove it?" Chandler, that's exactly what I'm saying. Anything else is censorship and I'm strongly opposed to censorship, as should anyone who cares for a free society. I think one of the things that makes the Internet great is that people can say anything they want to, in fact it's probably the only place where that's true anymore, which I find to be extremely sad. Just one more example of a freedom that we've lost.

Chandler also says, "Conservative Christians (at least in the broad sense of wealthy defenders of the status quo who profess to be Christian) have more power than anyone in this country." That is total bullshit. If it were true, we'd still have the family values in our society that we had in my youth. In reality, liberals have been successfully tearing down the fabric of our society for decades. And that's why conservatives, who have historically not been politically active because they believe in a small unintrusive government, have recently become so active on the political scene. It's precisely because they so little power. Even in today's political climate, with Republicans in control of both Houses and the White House, they have been unsuccessful in restoring any of their lost values and haven't been able to achieve any of their agenda. Which is why they're pissed at the president. And incidently why I think the Democrats are going to regain control of both Houses this fall and Hillary will be our next president.

You're also wrong to equate conservative Christians with wealth, most of us are near or below the median income. The wealthy Republicans are all moderates, they believe and profit from big government. They're generally opposed to the Christian right's agenda.

Chandler, I bear you no animosity, I enjoy and agree with most of your posts. I just think you've over-reacted to Shadowcat's post. Shotdisc is right, he's a product of his times, as am I, and we resent when younger people try to impose their version of political-correctness on us. If the original post would have been from one of our flamethowers, I wouldn't have objected at all to your reaction. But c'mon, we're talking about Shadowcat, who is clearly one of the nicest guys here. I suggest that you apologize to him as he has graciously done to you, and that we end this topic there. Thanks.

I had a pretty conservative guy at work today refer to a customer he found annoying as a spastic chinko. The guy in question was Asian and didn't really do anything thousands of other people haven't done. But he's all about (I believe) individual and has never taken into account how another person (namely me) might take such a caustic comment. Don't make excuses that shadowcat is from a different era. People and times are constantly evolving and if shadowcat wants to hide behind his ignorance than he should be able to. It doesn't mean anyone else has to be an enabler. We live in a country full of nothing BUT enablers. As a secular Jewish person I wasn't particularly offended by the slur since I had to consider the source, whom I know very lil about. Why get riled up by a complete stranger? If he wants to remain obstinate that's his choice, but I have a feeling he'll learn from this and he wasn't even sanctioned that severely. Juss some stern rebukes from the gallery.

when i first say Shadow's topic title, I was a little taken aback. not because I was offended, but because I had not heard that phrase in such a long time. I grew up in a blue collar family, in a northern NJ blue collar town. Shadow's words were some of the tamest I remember from my youth. and because of my heritage, I heard such things in a number of different languages. No offense to Shadow, he is older than many of us. he grew up in a different time, as did my dad. what was normal to them, is no longer accepted as such. our attitudes and behaviors are a direct result of our past. I would never think to use some of the language I heard from my elders. It doesn't make them bad people, it just makes them products of their times.

Chandler, HAH! Just try me...

DAMN!!

AN: Famous not-so-last words.

(Thanks, FONDL. I was already writing a reply when you beat me to it by pasting that.)

FONDL: First of all, I don't recall seeing a comparable slur before in a topic heading. I do often see conservative Christians, or just Christians, painted with a broad brush within a discussion, especially about strip clubs, and I agree that it can be offensive. However, I consider that an ignorant, prejudiced opinion, not a blunt slur, per se. It's better to refute it. A slur cannot be refuted.

Second, not that it's right, but slurs are usually most obected to when they are directed at the powerless. Conservative Christians (at least in the broad sense of wealthy defenders of the status quo who profess to be Christian) have more power than anyone in this country, as they have for over 200 years. Perhaps this is also why Jew baiting sometimes isn't taken as seriously as bigotry towards less prosperous and influential minorities.

Finally, many highly visible groups that identify themselves as conservative Christians set themselves up for it. Frankly, if you don't want to be criticized, don't call yourself the Moral Majority and condemn to hellfire anyone who holds a different religious or political belief. However, I understand that such bigots don't represent the mass of largely tolerant Christians that they claim to. You asked, and I'm just trying to explain it.

I find this absolutely astounding. It's hard to believe, but I have no desire whatsoever to comment any further on this topic.

Okay, sorry about the PC crack. I just don't have much patience with seeing it tossed around so loosely.

OK, Chandler, I'll play. Here's the last paragraph that I posted on the other thread, and it isn't a rhetorical question, I really would appreciate an answer because I think this represents a double standard that I find offensive.

"Just one question for you or anyone else and I'll shut up on this topic if you like. I've read many disparaging comments about Christian conservatives here, many of which I could easily have found offensive had I chosen to do so, since I am a conservative Christian. But I've never asked for an apology or a retraction, nor do I recall anyone else ever doing so or objecting to the language used. I think we're all entitled to our opinion and to express it however we see fit, anything else meets my definition of censorship. My question - why is it OK to make disparaging and possibly insulting slurs about conservative Christians (aka the Religious Right) here but it's not OK to make similar references to Jews? Does this discussion board have different rules of discourse when referring to different religions, it's OK to insult some but not others? If so, please tell me what the rules are so I can behave in the future."

FONDL: I'm in no position to demand anybody do anything here. I intentionally put it in the form of a request because Shadowcat is the only one who can stop it from continuing to offend people. That it offends me isn't the point. For anybody who clicks on the Discussion Board link, it's one of the first things they would see. No irony. No joke. Only a non-explanation. Used the same as if this were a 1940s old boys' network of "gentleman's agreement" fuckers. It doesn't matter what your race or religion is. It's generally understood as a slur, a level worse than an ethnic joke. And that's the one form of vulgarity that civilized people agree is worth refraining from in public. Anybody who hasn't lived under a rock for the last 40 years knows that. If Shadowcat is truly sorry to offend people, he'll do something about it.

FONDL, your comparison to people trying to shut down strip clubs doesn't hold water. For starters, the last time I checked those people were going beyond attempts at rhetorical persuasion with the club owners or strippers. And I draw a sharp distinction between private expression among consenting parties and public expression that can hurt unwitting readers because of the group they were born into. Are you claiming in the name of free speech, FONDL, that there is nothing whatsoever that anyone could post that would warrant an appeal to remove it?

Believe me, I don't relish getting on my high horse about shit like this. No more than when the troll issue came up here. I'd rather be talking about pussy, buy I can't let it pass without strong comment. Call that PC if you want, just like any other principle you find inconvenient. I couldn't care less.