Thread to carry on debate over censorship, etc.
chandler
Blue Ridge Foothills
I'm starting a new topic in case any one wants to continue without bumping Shadowcat's choice of words to the top of the topic list. Picking up where FONDL left off:
"Chandler, your first two posts sound like demands to me. Using the word "please" doesn't change that. Your reasoning, that because it offends you it should be removed, is exactly the same reasoning of those who try to shut down strip clubs. I'm opposed to that line of reasoning. And I think people in our society are much too quick to take offense. Lighten up, he meant no harm."
"Chandler, your first two posts sound like demands to me. Using the word "please" doesn't change that. Your reasoning, that because it offends you it should be removed, is exactly the same reasoning of those who try to shut down strip clubs. I'm opposed to that line of reasoning. And I think people in our society are much too quick to take offense. Lighten up, he meant no harm."
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
74 comments
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.
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.
Chitown: Only eight days?? It seems like this has been going on for months.
A gentleman never unintentionally offends anyone.
I spent 4 days without internet. I got a lot of reading done.
I accidently jabbed the mailman one day when he ventured in too close....but that's a story for another day.
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.
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.
Let me know how it all turns out.
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.
Can we consider parody to be cheating on his boyfriend JC?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Also just because racist or biggoted language is commonplace does not make it acceptable or excusable.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
DAMN!!
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.
"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, 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.