Oh I dunno. There was that one we turned into a conversation about music.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Where's stuffy grammarian when you need him. Or stuffy...punctuarian?The line Bugleyman quoted only had a close quotes at the end, so I can understand why he thought that was you saying it, not JF.
Andrew R wrote:
First off, your accusatory demeanor does not serve you.
Second, the facts are quite different; the IRS did indeed target liberal political groups, just not to the same degree. I suspect this is a function of how many conservative political groups cropped up when the dam broke post-Citizens United and how transparently fraudulent they are/were.
Third, and most importantly, I've said time and again (in this very thread) that regardless of political affiliation, non charitable groups ought not be able to gain 501(c)4 tax-exempt status. I'd think you would be agreeing with me. I'm not even sure why this assertion is in contest; it's the law.
I didn't know you had to be convicted to be a criminal.They are posing as apolitical social welfare groups.
They are completely political groups, defrauding the American people of tax dollars, not to mention throwing a wrench in the campaign finance process.
What's not to get?
Hmm.See, I had heard he was having his way with a bald eagle at the ground zero mosque.
The law is pretty clear, and stringent, on what is allowed. The IRS, unfortunately, has been pretty derelict in enforcing those laws.
Which, in the end, is the real scandal.
I would think you'd have an appreciation for this.A lot of people who give to charities only want to see good work done, they don't want any recognition or credit to themselves. For it to be a truly selfless act it needs to be anonymous.
501(c)4s are supposed to be the specific exception for charitable groups to qualify for so that their donors can maintain anonymity.
Unfortunately, the ability to keep your donors hidden has become a goal for the ultra-rich who are trying to rig the system. And have thus, the last bastion for charity has been co-opted for political gamesmanship.
What I'm trying to convey and establish is that there is a genuine grey area. Language is fluid. From what I've understood so far, you and IT are both arguing that people should be silenced for making offensive remarks. What I'm trying to establish is whether it is intent, reception, both, or either, that defines whether it was offensive.
If I call a black man n$+@+* to his face, that's pretty cut and dried. What if I don't mean it as an insult, but am instead using it in context of things you shouldn't say or reporting on what a third party said? Are they correct to be offended then, even when the intent was not to denigrate? Does context play no role? You've said no when you said that the guy from Imus was wrong to use a direct quote and joke from the movie School Daze.
Is it the state of mind of the offendee that matters, solely? What if they overhear me say the word? What if they misheard? If I pass someone on the street and I happen to say the word vinegar as I pass him, in another conversation for instance, and he mishears, is he right to be offended? It's subjective, right?
What about n@!~!$-toes? People of a certain generation used that to refer to Brazil nuts. Is n+*~%@ toes offensive? What if it's a black person calling Brazil nuts n@~++& toes?
How black does someone have to be before they're "allowed" to use the word? 50%? What about someone who is 1/8 black?
But even then, the n-word is pretty extreme and cut and dry. What about other racial epithets? I believe I learned in this thread (though it could have been another one, they all blend together to me) that eggplant is a racial epithet against black people. Is a black person right to be offended if they eat at an Italian restaurant that has eggplant parmesan on the menu? What about eggplant parmesan with n$#$#* toes (as peculiar a dish as that would be)?
I choose not to use the n-word. But when I was in school it was in flux what was the right term to use to describe people of African descent. African-American was in vogue, but I've heard some strong black voices say that term is demeaning and they prefer black.
I remember my English teacher getting in trouble because one of our vocabulary words was niggardly, which isn't racial at all but only SOUNDS like a certain very charged word.
It may sound like I'm being flip, but these are all genuine questions to which there may well be no right answer and until everyone can collectively decide on all the minutiae, I think it's better to leave the decision on what people say to each person individually.
So. What about vinegar?
Andrew R wrote:
Thats bull and i'd hope you are smart enough to know it. they targeted one side and let the other slide doing the exact same stuff. If the they walked in to scrutinize every liberal office would you be pleased? Or is it just your stupid hatred of republicans talking here
Except that's not true. They absolutely scrutinized liberal groups. The NAACP was audited in 2004 merely because their leader said something negative about the Bush presidency.
Of the 300 or so groups seeking tax exempt status, only 25% (roughly 75) were conservative groups. They were "targeting" groups with political sounding names. As it happens, when they were doing this was a time when previously unimagined gobs of cash were flowing into conservative groups' hands and, thus, the majority of new groups applying for 501(c)4 status were indeed conservative.
If there are 500 Tea Party groups and 1 progressive group all applying, should that one progressive group get the same amount of time dedicated to its vetting as all 500 TP groups combined?
I'd be extremely happy if they scrutinized liberal groups, personally, though I can't speak for BNW I suspect he'd feel the same. It's a matter of fairness, like the gerrymandering issue I mentioned earlier.
It's all a matter of seeing a trend, and the trend at the time was conservative political groups masquerading as social welfare organizations.
Take note that precisely zero of the groups scrutinized were actually denied their requested status.
So you're working for the IRS and there's a stack of 501(c)4 applications on your desk and your job is to vet them to make sure they're on the up and up.
Group 1 is called Kitties for Kiddies, a group that purports to fund the adoption of cats to families with small children.
Group 2 is called Real America Patriots Against President Blackenstein.
And you give them both the same amount of attention?
Lord Fyre wrote:
Except that the GOP are so completely sealed in their bubble that they would never have any notion that it might backfire. They're gonzo. I'll be willing to bet someone will at least make a motion before the year is out. Probably a teabagger.
Why?The tea party groups are OBVIOUSLY political and not social welfare groups. The law states that to have tax exempt status they must operate exclusively to promote social welfare. Nevermind that the IRS changed their own procedures to circumvent the law and redefined "exclusively" to mean "primarily," these groups don't even work primarily for social welfare.
For the record, I'm totally fine with liberal groups having their tax exempt status revoked due to political activity. I'm sick of the tax dodges.
What the IRS is accused of doing is actually attempting to vet new organizations that sprung up in the wake of Obama's presidency and, later, Citizens United.
There is such a gobsmacking amount of money being thrown into these organizations that if you stacked it up in $100 denominations you could use it to beat whales to death.
If the IRS is used "ideologically" to actually enforce the law, and the sum total of their crusade is to make organizations that should be paying taxes...actually pay taxes, I'm fine with it.
It's a basic fair play issue. It's like gerrymandering. Everyone likes to point out that, hey, both parties do it. Yes, and it's always wrong. Let's fix this s$!
Well, I think the reaction to this thread has proved my point.
Instead we have a page of conservatives screaming about the singular non-scandal of Obama's presidency: Benghazi, and defending the clearly partisan witch-hunt surrounding it.
The white guy. But "being in the wrong" is different from "shouldn't be allowed to express himself."
In that case, I'd expect the black man to express himself right through the white guy's teeth.
No, calling them hos was completely inappropriate.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
The only reason you have information you have about Benghazi is because 1) The Obama administration is hundreds of times more open with the press than Bush was. 2) Because there have now been 3 hearings about it. The information you have was unearthed through those hearings. The hearings were only launched because of partisan politics.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that if similar investigations had taken place around any of the other attacks, similar malfeasance would have come to light. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I think you missed the point.Which is that if Imus has been saying "offensive" things for years, and didn't get in trouble until 2007, and the thing he said wasn't even as bad as other things he has said, it means we've grown overly sensitive.
Also, he gets a pass because it's free speech and we're all entitled to be jerks. And you're entitled to not listen to him be a jerk, or to call in and tell him he's a jerk. You're not entitled to never being offended.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Here's some (including some you mentioned) after a quick google search.
January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.
Guy Humual wrote:
But whatevz, this is really delving into minutiae.I'm not sure I follow you here, you say it can be used in a positive light, and then in the very next sentence admit that you used it to tease a cousin?
I got teased for being smart. It doesn't follow that being smart is thought of as bad.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
Then you'll stand with me in my call to reopen or launch investigations into each of the 54 attacks on US consulates during Bush's 8 years. Right? Since it's not political or anything.
So why wasn't there as thorough an investigation over the 54 attacks that happened under Bush's watch? Why wasn't there a similar if not grander-scale witch hunt for the decision makers in those situations?
And yes, people are saying it's Obama's fault, and publicly calling for impeachment.
Wow, this got off topic quickly. Let me pile on unnecessarily by saying the only one reading public reports and leaving it at that is you. But you're reading reports by the Heritage Foundation or Exxon.
You've said time and time again that being actually educated in the science would taint your mind so you couldn't question things. And not accepting the fact that your questions would be answered through actual education.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
If Benghazi is not a scandal, I want to know exactly why
Because the people being persecuted aren't at fault. You're asking why there isn't absolutely perfect and synchronous global response between our military and our ambassadors abroad. It's because, broadly, we have our forces, both military and diplomatic, stretched incredibly thin all around the world.
I should rephrase. It's a scandal, but Obama and his cabinet are no more at fault for a poor response to a sudden uprising than the Bush regime was for the 54 attacks under their watch. Perhaps unnecessary loss of life OUGHT to be more of a scandal than it is, but if that's the case where is all the coverage of the men and women who have died in Afghanistan every day since the Benghazi attack that only killed 4.
The only reason it is being trumped up is because our involvement in Libya was unilateral under Obama, whereas our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan was under a Republican president. They daren't mention casualties in our other wars.
Well the problem to me is this: we give government authority to do distasteful things in extraordinary circumstances. I don't like it, but it's the truth. But a big part of that is trusting the individual actors to behave accordingly and not exert authority when it's not warranted.
Peepin' and creepin' on reporters just cuz seems like a breech of that trust to me. It's not a matter of it being a crime, a lot of horrible things we've done haven't been illegal (Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Bush regime waterboarding, etc.) it's a matter of expecting those we empower to personally rein in their power.
That those in power can exercise restraint is important to the progressive argument, which this case undermines.
Nappy-headed is a degrogetory term for black people. I've only really heard it used that way by people from Texas or Louisiana, so it is likely regonal. Some older people I have heard use it to talk about people who were "passin". So, when used in conjunction with an insult, like ho, it is completely reasonable to say it is racist. It does have other uses as an adjective, but in this context it is used because of its racists overtones.
Not really. It's a term to described the arguably disheveled look of black people's hair. An adjective. It's only negative if you see that as being negative, if you like that kind of hair (like I do, and which apparently a majority of the black community do) then it's not. If anything it is ever so slightly negative, like when my mom used to call my style of dress ragamoffin.
Having grown up listening to hip-hop, I've heard it used in a positive light (Fugees for example). I used to tease my cousin for having nappy hair, or calling him a brillohead.
But whatevz, this is really delving into minutiae.
I'll go back to the example I made upthread: do you think every existing copy of Mein Kampf should be destroyed? Yes, I will happily defend a company's right to publish it, regardless of how seemingly indefensible it is.
The last election cycle saw a number of scandals, as you enumerate, that I didn't find offensive. I feel bad for Sandra Fluke, but that Rush Limbaugh is a huge douchenozzle should be no surprise to anyone who has ever heard him flap his gums on anything. The Republican comments on rape were fueled by ignorance, and I think it's much more important that everyone hear what they said and then discuss how much of a dumbass they are for believing those things than silencing them.
RE: Imus. The remark was about "jigaboos vs. wannabes" which is a reference to School Daze by Spike Lee. And Imus didn't even say that, it was his executive producer. Nappy-headed hos? I suppose calling a woman a ho is pretty sexist, but it's not like Imus is some uniquely atrocious offender on that front. Didn't Chris Rock call Madonna a ho on SNL back in like 1991? Nappy-headed though? It's just an adjective. It's not even necessarily pejorative. Stop being afraid of words, people!
Benghazi isn't what the Republicans need it to be.
The IRS "scandal" isn't a big deal either; the IRS audited hundreds of groups with obvious political agendas, on both ends of the political spectrum. What's scandalous to me is that all the tea party groups investigated were cleared and given their c4 status.
If the Republicans really want to make a meaningful stand, and regain some (any) respect from the American people, they should be on this DOJ AP story.
No, by rewards he means positive attention. If you cry wolf about something being offensive you're lauded as some hero of decency whereas the offender is decried as, at best, a boorish lout, at worst a fascist a-hole.
I think one of the problems is that we all have these private definitions of what is offensive, maybe because offense is subjective but whatever. The point is that, when you hear us talking about people needing to just shut up, you're thinking about someone saying something genuinely hurtful or harassing or an atrocious racial slur or something. About 1% of things people "take offense" at are that clear cut.
What I think about are the things that I've said that have made people freak the crap out about my language. Which are saying words like penis, or the f-word in public. People freak the s#~~ out over mundane stuff every damn day, and you seem to be saying it's not okay for us to be bothered by that. We should let ourselves be meekly bullied into not saying any even slightly off-color words or phrases.
I will admit, for posterity, that I don't know what being offended feels like. It's a sensation I've never felt. People have said things that have made me roll my eyes, become angry, or sigh in exasperation and believe the speaker to be an imbecile, but never offended.
The way people talk about being offended it's as if they were physically assaulted and had to hold back from punching a person. Again, I've had things said that made me angry, but I've never "taken offense" and tried to have them silenced. It's like describing the color orange to a blind person.
Hit Dice wrote:
Meat, I'm not saying you're wrong, but which side of the Don Imus firing do you fall on? It looked like a Justified Termination to me.
Not really. I didn't think what he said was "offensive", but then again I wasn't the target of the insult so that's not my call. Imus has a long and distinguished record of saying stupid things to get a reaction; that's his shtick. So if it was "justified termination" it would have been so the dozen or so other times he did similar things in the previous 25 years or so. The problem was that he tried to defend it instead of pretending it hadn't happened or didn't matter. Frankly I think it was just a case of ignorant old white man and he genuinely didn't know how much it bothered people. He soon did, and apologized, but not before his show was canceled.
You'll note that the boycott and uproar against Imus was so successful it kept him off the radio for just over two years.
On the Bowie blog, this article is just one blurb in a long line of posts to the newsroll. Do you genuinely think that the person who runs his blog and/or other social media feeds gets express permission from David Bowie himself before every re-post of an article in a magazine about a reissue or blah blah blah?
Or is it more likely that they're Bowie's social media guru/PR wizard and they're simply paid to do that all day every day. In fact, with all the media coverage he's gotten lately, with several high-profile covers of classic songs (this, Beck's "reimagining" of Sound+Vision, Flaming Lips covering Heroes, etc.), multiple magazine covers, making headlines with a risque music video, and releasing his first album in roughly a decade, one might almost say he's in the middle of a comeback ;)
Yes. If you don't like what a politician said, call him and tell him. Really! The direct approach will yield far better results, and create less bitterness, than going around their back and trying to get them ousted.
If a company makes racist ads, don't buy their product. Also don't organize a million people to ban their product, not over advertising at least. Feel free to write a letter, telling them why you'll no longer buy their product. When you try to boycott, and start some media frenzy, you get a Chick Fil-A situation where the people on the other side of the issue will just compensate (or overcompensate) for your boycott.
As for the loudmouth jock, or any other media personality who is directly exercising their own freedom of speech, trying to get them fired isn't saying to the world "I don't like what that guy said". That's your right. What you're saying is "I don't like what that guy said and I don't think he has the right to say, let alone think or feel it" which is moronic.
The problem is that people are sheep. They like jumping on bandwagons. Signing petitions is about the most political muscle you'll get your average Joe to exercise. It's too easy to say "sure" and click your name on something, and it's too easy for those organizing said petition to pressure others into joining, even if they weren't offended themselves.
If, say, Mountain Dew, has some advertisement you find to be racist or otherwise offensive...don't buy mountain dew. Tell them you're not going to buy their product and why, and feel free to be vocal about how stupid the ad is.
If enough people do the same, they will probably change because they want your business. If they don't, it's their loss. But what if you're just an overly sensitive whiner, and people join your boycott just to be nice or to seem like they're in with the good cause?
If everyone organizes a boycott for every little thing it inflates the sense of how genuinely offensive or wrong something was. I'd rather peoples voices were precisely as loud as they are, otherwise it's no better than lobbying where a few loud, squeaky wheels get all the damn oil.
Steve Geddes wrote:
People's words dont generally bother me (I'm happy to let people wander around thinking they're right when they're obviously wrong). However, they often do much worse than bother the targets of offensive remarks - some people have killed themselves due to angst over their sexuality/ethnicity or as a result of general bullying.
If there is a gang of people running some kid down for being different every day, and it's relentless and merciless and no one will stop it despite cries for help, and he commits suicide, that's a terrible tragedy and those who caused it should maybe share some burden.
But where do you draw the line? Some people are stupidly sensitive. People kill themselves over petty things that only matter to them every day. Does me telling some guy on the bus that his haircut makes him look like a lunatic mean I'm at fault if he harms himself?
And that's an extreme case. Why am I responsible for other peoples' feelings?
Steve Geddes wrote:
Then you, sir, are part of the problem.You're no knight in shining armor, protecting innocents from having their poor, precious eyes assaulted by a dirty word or an uncouth thought.
This is getting boring and pedantic, but here goes:You said "The lyrics were adjusted, and David Bowie was involved."
Suggesting that David Bowie was involved in adjusting the lyrics. The article linked says no such thing.
You said Bowie has been promoting it. I am saying that, yes, a third party posting on a blog for someone on their official website is not promoting, let alone promotion by Bowie himself, which is what you said. I mean really *suspicious eyebrow raise*.
Look, I'm an enormous Bowie fan. To a degree most people cannot fathom. I think it's great that his first real hit song has has this kind of longevity. But I think the video was boring, the astronaut has a singing voice not unlike a cat being skinned alive, the arrangement was all wrong, the "adjusted" lyrics are dumb, and no amount of "but...SPAAACE" can make me like it.
That article says no such thing.