|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free speech will not disappear because of religious intolerance, political oppression or any other large scale event. It will disappear because people have thin skin, and feel compelled to shout down or marginalize people who express views or use words that "offend" them.
Thin skin is a crisis as profound as any other communicable disease, and is spreading like wildfire. People are "outraged" at the drop of a hat, looking for reasons to be indignant and feel morally superior to others less blessed with their brand of hypocrisy.
You can help. For only pennies a day, you can help some poor, epidermis challenged hypocrite get a coat of liquid latex to help them get through the day. By thickening a poor soul's skin, you'll help save the environment by cutting back on electricity usage by poor, thin skinned souls looking for things to get indignant over on the internet. Trees will be spared the pulper as fewer and fewer people bother to write the editor with their indignation of the week.
Again, for just a few pennies a day, you can help keep the day we are handed daily scripts with acceptable topics of conversations and words at bay, and keep the written and spoken word free, messy and wonderful.
Sounds like you've been offended by someone being offended. That makes you.......?
...But, if you act now, we'll throw in a set of huge B*lls for Free!!**
That's right!! Your very own set of Cahones that any man would be envious of!! These Balls allow you to stand up for yourself!! Anytime! Anywhere!!
**(Regular shipping charges apply)
|
|
...But, if you act now, we'll throw in a set of huge B*lls for Free!!**
That's right!! Your very own set of Cahones that any man would be envious of!! These Balls allow you to stand up for yourself!! Anytime! Anywhere!!
**(Regular shipping charges apply)
Can you do the infomercial? I'm presentable enough, but my voice is a low tenor droning kinda thing...
I am so offended! I am not so offended! Am! Not! Am! Not! ~Starts to fight with myself~
Can you do the infomercial? I'm presentable enough, but my voice is a low tenor droning kinda thing...
Well, I did do some voice-over work for Time-Life Music a few years back [waits for laughter to die down...].
I'd be happy to help write one out, anyway!
As for thin-skinned stand-ins, I'm picturing the guy who played the "J**z-Mopper" in the movie Clerks...
It's almost like saying, if no one can say anything potentially offensive, then people's right to be offended is taken away with others' right to offend. Brilliant!
I'm offended that you're offended by someone being offended... I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an academic, I'm not too sure about its manners...
It's annoying when people get offended over every little thing. But I also get really annoyed when someone says something clearly to be inflammatory and then uses the "you're too sensitive" or "you're too p.c." bullshit as a defense. Or even as just a defense against criticism or to ward off discussion.
I'm offended by people that are offended, but I'm also offended by people claiming that taking offense is weak on the grounds that they should therefore be allowed to be juvenile and offensive.
Basically I just hate when people talk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For only pennies a day, you can help some poor, epidermis challenged hypocrite get a coat of liquid latex to help them get through the day.
This is insensitive to those with latex allergies! I am offended!
It's just more phallocentric oppression!
A term I made up in the one postie-toastie seminar I had to take, that I sang (before every meeting) was:
It's...
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious!
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious!
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
:ROFL:
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
ROFLMAO
|
|
It's just more phallocentric oppression!
A term I made up in the one postie-toastie seminar I had to take, that I sang (before every meeting) was:
It's...
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious!
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious!
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
It was worth whatever happens later in this thread just for this moment.
This is so full of awesome :)
|
It's just more phallocentric oppression!
A term I made up in the one postie-toastie seminar I had to take, that I sang (before every meeting) was:
It's...
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious!
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious!
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
And a spoonfull of "sugar" makes the world go away for at leaset 6 hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad you guys enjoyed it. I kind of think it pissed the prof off for some reason... (little German guy...clearly had a castration thing going on.)
He also had a very guilty German conscious (as if he was even alive during WWII) so I made sure to use the Nazis as examples in my arguments in class any opportunity I got. Poor guy. Well, he made me miserable, so he deserved whatever he got.
|
|
It's just more phallocentric oppression!
A term I made up in the one postie-toastie seminar I had to take, that I sang (before every meeting) was:
It's...
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious!
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious!
Supereurophallocentric-hegemonologos!It was worth whatever happens later in this thread just for this moment.
This is so full of awesome :)
Yeah, I think you won this thread Mairkurion. By the by, thanks, I've been needing a new monitor, and now my old one has been ruined by the Dr. Pepper I sprayed all over it after reading your song.
Its difficult.
On the one hand, politicial correctness has quiet rightly made it unacceptable to be racist or sexist in public, and i am sorry if it offends your derek, but i fail to see that as a bad thing. So views are unacceptable in a civilised society. People are free to hold them and express them, but frankly the rest of us have a responciblity to make it unfashionable to do so.
On the other had, we have moves to criminalise defimation of religion. Which frankly is a bad thing.
Offence is a double edged sword clearly, but i don't think you should be so quick to say that politicial correctness is a bad thing.
I've got to disagree, zombie,
speech, especially offensive speech, is what needs to be protected.
Besides, I'd rather have someone's hatred out there to see, rather than smouldeering.
The only reason to have some ones hatred out in public is to make it a target for comidians, i am sorry.
People should be able t go through their daily lives without being attacked, both physicially and verbally.
Free speech is important certainly, but statements who's purpose is to offend and offend alone do not deserve protection. People should be able to say umpopular things, if it adds to discourse, but there is no reason not to make some one who uses the n-word for instance feeling like he is the scum of the earth.
In fact, asking people not to exert social preasure is itself asking people to engage in self censorship.
For instance:
A man walks a room in which ten others are stood and says 'All black people are more stupid than white people.'
Now, in my experience, those ten people will all feel that this statement is both wrong, very rude and racist. If each is given his freedom of speech they are entitled to say 'you view is wrong and here is why, i consider your statement rude and that your are racist. These factors combine to make me think less of you'(obviously, they'll be a little less formal than that.)
Those expressing their opinion are not impeeding his right to free speech and to ask them not to say such a thing, you would be impeeding their right to free speech.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its difficult.
On the one hand, politicial correctness has quiet rightly made it unacceptable to be racist or sexist in public, and i am sorry if it offends your derek, but i fail to see that as a bad thing. So views are unacceptable in a civilised society. People are free to hold them and express them, but frankly the rest of us have a responciblity to make it unfashionable to do so.
On the other had, we have moves to criminalise defimation of religion. Which frankly is a bad thing.
Offence is a double edged sword clearly, but i don't think you should be so quick to say that politicial correctness is a bad thing.
No, politically correct speech has allowed a messload of REAL problems be swept under the "feel good" rug. I hate to break it to you, but just because person x doesn't SAY something "racist or sexist", doesn't mean he or she isn't thinking it yet. The PC police are about superficiality, not substance. Furthermore, when someone does raise a legitimate concern, they are shouted down by the PC police.
Wonderful example: Bill Cosby has, over the years, voiced his observations about life, and pointed out some things he felt were having a negative impact on black youth. Instead of that being an opening to have a dialogue about what can be done to help kids have a decent life, the PC crowd used it as an opening to attack him as an "Uncle Tom", and as being out of touch with REAL black people.
Recent example of PC gone stupid: Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security Secretary) now refuses to use the word "terrorist", and instead will now use "man-caused disaster" instead. Reasoning? Somehow, labeling people who violently target civilians intentionally "terrorists" makes us less prepared to combat them.
I could literally list THOUSANDS of examples of "political correctness" that do nothing to actually remedy any real problem.
Oh, and by the way, everyone's hero, Obama, pretty much insulted Special Olympians on Leno last night. He said, in response to Leno chiding him about his bowling score, and I quote:
"...(it's) like the special olympics or something"...
Amazingly enough, most of the media has said nothing about this. Had Obama's predecessor made the same statement, it would be the top story, every hour on the hour, on all of the cable news channels.
So, Zombieneighbors, no. PC is a weapon, not a "civilizing" influence. It is intellectual masturbation at its worst, but I expect nothing better from "Progressives" anyway, so no net loss...
Free speech will not disappear because of religious intolerance, political oppression or any other large scale event. It will disappear because people have thin skin, and feel compelled to shout down or marginalize people who express views or use words that "offend" them.
However those words and expressions have traditionally also been used to shout down and marginalize other people, and to my observation free speech has been rarely the main goal of people clamoring against political correctness, usually quite the opposite...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People should be able t go through their daily lives without being attacked, both physicially and verbally.
Sorry, PC has made convicting criminals harder, not easier.
Free speech is important certainly, but statements who's purpose is to offend and offend alone do not deserve protection. People should be able to say umpopular things, if it adds to discourse, but there is no reason not to make some one who uses the n-word for instance feeling like he is the scum of the earth.
In fact, asking people not to exert social preasure is itself asking people to engage in self censorship.
For instance:
A man walks a room in which ten others are stood and says 'All black people are more stupid than white people.'
Now, in my experience, those ten people will all feel that this statement is both wrong, very rude and racist. If each is given his freedom of speech they are entitled to say 'you view is wrong and here is why, i consider your statement rude and that your are racist. These factors combine to make me think less of you'(obviously, they'll be a little less formal than that.)
Those expressing their opinion are not impeeding his right to free speech and to ask them not to say such a thing, you would be impeeding their right to free speech.
Again, sorry, but no. "Hate speech" has been codified in Canada, and I'm sure Great Britain. Of course, in Canada, it means that anyone who writes an article critical of radical Islam will have to go to court to defend themselves, but 1000's of people can assemble in Calgary and shout "Death to Israel, Death to the Jews" with no reprisals.
This is my biggest beef with the whole PC crowd. Political Correctness is what the Progressives say it is, period. Anyone with a different opinion is a "cretin", "obviously a fascist" or any of a number of wonderful insults I've seen from the "Open Minded Progressive" set on these boards. And, yes, I'll spend the next couple of hours cutting and pasting links if you need to see the wonderful open-mindedness displayed, especially concerning religion, and people who hold religious beliefs.
|
|
Its difficult.
On the one hand, politicial correctness has quiet rightly made it unacceptable to be racist or sexist in public, and i am sorry if it offends your derek, but i fail to see that as a bad thing. So views are unacceptable in a civilised society. People are free to hold them and express them, but frankly the rest of us have a responciblity to make it unfashionable to do so.
On the other had, we have moves to criminalise defimation of religion. Which frankly is a bad thing.
Offence is a double edged sword clearly, but i don't think you should be so quick to say that politicial correctness is a bad thing.No, politically correct speech has allowed a messload of REAL problems be swept under the "feel good" rug. I hate to break it to you, but just because person x doesn't SAY something "racist or sexist", doesn't mean he or she isn't thinking it yet. The PC police are about superficiality, not substance. Furthermore, when someone does raise a legitimate concern, they are shouted down by the PC police.
Wonderful example: Bill Cosby has, over the years, voiced his observations about life, and pointed out some things he felt were having a negative impact on black youth. Instead of that being an opening to have a dialogue about what can be done to help kids have a decent life, the PC crowd used it as an opening to attack him as an "Uncle Tom", and as being out of touch with REAL black people.
Recent example of PC gone stupid: Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security Secretary) now refuses to use the word "terrorist", and instead will now use "man-caused disaster" instead. Reasoning? Somehow, labeling people who violently target civilians intentionally "terrorists" makes us less prepared to combat them.
I could literally list THOUSANDS of examples of "political correctness" that do nothing to actually remedy any real problem.
Oh, and by the way, everyone's hero, Obama, pretty much insulted Special Olympians on Leno last night. He said, in response to...
Just curious, but why was that b~~+$%&s about "I don't expect any better" necessary? All you've done is prove that you're incapable of having a discussion without insulting your opponent. Once you do that, you lose the argument because your point does not stand on its own merit. So well done. Just what I expect from a conservative. ;-)
EDIT: And in response to the latest diatribe, and conservatives are as bad for calling everything they disagree with unAmerican or communist or PC nonsense. Sorry, Derek, but you're just as bad as the people you rail against, you just have a different target.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
Yep, I said that. And, frankly, I don't expect anything better. I'm watching the news (CNN) and all they have said about Leno last night is that Obama was the first sitting president on late night. MSNBC was going on about how great he looked. I've been waiting for the PC crowd to cry foul!, but alas, it isn't to be.
PC only applies to opponents of the Progressive Left, apparently.
And, Paul. Be 100% honest. Had Bush said that, you'd be railing on about what an insensitive ass he was. I really couldn't care less about what he said, I'm more offended that the guy has time to do late night and NCAA brackets on ESPN when the country is going to hell.
But that's beside the point. The point is, you're indignant because you KNOW I'm right. Attack the parting shot, not the substance, when the substance isn't assailable :)
Edit: Your edit is, again, beside the point. Nothing about what Obama said, just a "well, they do it too!" response. Nice :)
BTW, I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination a leftie, true, but trust and believe that I have little to no love for the Republican party, either. In '94, they signed a contract that they promptly threw out the window as soon as they could get Gingrich (who, at least on fiscal matters, really is a conservative, unlike, oh, 99% of the rest of his party) out the door.
STFU n00bz!!!1!!shift+one
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: And in response to the latest diatribe, and conservatives are as bad for calling everything they disagree with unAmerican or communist or PC nonsense. Sorry, Derek, but you're just as bad as the people you rail against, you just have a different target.
That's just the point.
It's "holier-than-thou Bible thumping" all over again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.|
|
EDIT: And in response to the latest diatribe, and conservatives are as bad for calling everything they disagree with unAmerican or communist or PC nonsense. Sorry, Derek, but you're just as bad as the people you rail against, you just have a different target.
That's just the point.
It's "holier-than-thou Bible thumping" all over again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Exactly. I honestly don't think liberals understand that, to an impartial observer, they are no more "tolerant" than the conservatives they rail against. It's ironic, I think, that the Left pursues their agenda as fervently and proselytize just as passionately, with as much intolerance, and are just as annoying, as any Sunday morning televangelist.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Exactly. I honestly don't think liberals understand that, to an impartial observer, they are no more "tolerant" than the conservatives they rail against. It's ironic, I think, that the Left pursues their agenda as fervently and proselytize just as passionately, with as much intolerance, and are just as annoying, as any Sunday morning televangelist.EDIT: And in response to the latest diatribe, and conservatives are as bad for calling everything they disagree with unAmerican or communist or PC nonsense. Sorry, Derek, but you're just as bad as the people you rail against, you just have a different target.
That's just the point.
It's "holier-than-thou Bible thumping" all over again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I'm a liberal and I agree with you on this 100%. Don't paint all liberals with the same political brush. There are reasonable people on the left and on the right; that's something I've learnt from my conservative friends on Paizo.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: And in response to the latest diatribe, and conservatives are as bad for calling everything they disagree with unAmerican or communist or PC nonsense. Sorry, Derek, but you're just as bad as the people you rail against, you just have a different target.
Way to personalize it Paul. In fact, I think Derek may emphasize one side of things but he's a pretty reasonable guy.
Don't paint all liberals with the same political brush.
It then becomes impossible to dehumanize them. How do you expect anyone to ever win an argument on the internet without marginalizing your opponent?
|
|
stuffYep, I said that. And, frankly, I don't expect anything better. I'm watching the news (CNN) and all they have said about Leno last night is that Obama was the first sitting president on late night. MSNBC was going on about how great he looked. I've been waiting for the PC crowd to cry foul!, but alas, it isn't to be.
PC only applies to opponents of the Progressive Left, apparently.
And, Paul. Be 100% honest. Had Bush said that, you'd be railing on about what an insensitive ass he was. I really couldn't care less about what he said, I'm more offended that the guy has time to do late night and NCAA brackets on ESPN when the country is going to hell.
But that's beside the point. The point is, you're indignant because you KNOW I'm right. Attack the parting shot, not the substance, when the substance isn't assailable :)
Edit: Your edit is, again, beside the point. Nothing about what Obama said, just a "well, they do it too!" response. Nice :)
BTW, I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination a leftie, true, but trust and believe that I have little to no love for the Republican party, either. In '94, they signed a contract that they promptly threw out the window as soon as they could get Gingrich (who, at least on fiscal matters, really is a conservative, unlike, oh, 99% of the rest of his party) out the door.
Derek,
Don't be so thin-skinned. ;-)If you want people to be allowed to say what they like, then you have to accept that much of it will be offensive to you. I do, but I still believe they have a right to say it, I just have a right to say they're racist/sexist/stupid/bigots etc. If you have the right to offend me, I heave the right to offend you right back. And that bit no one likes. Everybody, more or less, wants to be allowed to offend people they don't like, but not to have those people offend them back.
Political Correctness is an idiotic idea and always has been. But when you're 100% honest, which is quite hard to be for anybody, you'll have to admit that conservatives are equally resistant to free speech. They just use a different mechanism to stop it: Godless, liberal, unamerican, press bias, etc, etc.
If you want to rail against something, rail against it when the people you agree with do it as well. Or, to put it another way, "Do not spend so long looking at the sty in your neighbour's eye, that you miss the plank in your own." There are whole lumber yards on both sides that no one can seem to see.
EDIT: Tarren, Ok.I'll take that one. Derek is claiming that clamping down o9n free speech is some sort of liberal trait. It isn't, it's a human trait. Derek's desire that no one say he can't say something is in itself a restriction on free speech. Thus, he's as bad as the people he rails against. I don't think that makes him a bad person, just a hypocrite. Which in turn makes him like the rest of humanity, most definitely including me. What I was trying to say is not that Derek personally is any sort of lunatic, but, you know, neither are the people he's criticising. If you want free speech, that includes other people having the right to tell you to shut up. You don't necessarily have to listen, but they have the same right to say what they dislike about your abhorrent views as you do about theirs.
However, I did use Derek specifically as an example, thus undermining my own case. I never said I wasn't as bad as he was, either.
EDIT THE SECOND: Or, short form, I'm starting my own lumber yard, have you got any styes I can borrow?
When you stare into the abyss, sometimes it stares back.
I didn't make that up. Nietzche did.
Was that before or after the horse incident?
I didn't make that up.
I think a more appropriate quote would be, “If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you.”
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If you want people to be allowed to say what they like, then you have to accept that much of it will be offensive to you. I do, but I still believe they have a right to say it, I just have a right to say they're racist/sexist/stupid/bigots etc. If you have the right to offend me, I heave the right to offend you right back. And that bit no one likes. Everybody, more or less, wants to be allowed to offend people they don't like, but not to have those people offend them back.
Political Correctness is an idiotic idea and always has been. But when you're 100% honest, which is quite hard to be for anybody, you'll have to admit that conservatives are equally resistant to free speech. They just use a different mechanism to stop it: Godless, liberal, unamerican, press bias, etc, etc.
If you want to rail against something, rail against it when the people you agree with do it as well. Or, to put it another way, "Do not spend so long looking at the sty in your neighbour's eye, that you miss the plank in your own." There are whole lumber yards on both sides that no one can seem to see.
I agree with this 100% too. I'm so confused. Whose SIDE am I on??? How can I participate in a discussion without choosing sides and attacking my opponents??
...
I think I'll go do my tax return now.
How can I participate in a discussion without choosing sides and attacking my opponents??
When in doubt, attack the n00bz.
|
|
I'm a liberal and I agree with you on this 100%. Don't paint all liberals with the same political brush. There are reasonable people on the left and on the right; that's something I've learnt from my conservative friends on Paizo.Exactly. I honestly don't think liberals understand that, to an impartial observer, they are no more "tolerant" than the conservatives they rail against. It's ironic, I think, that the Left pursues their agenda as fervently and proselytize just as passionately, with as much intolerance, and are just as annoying, as any Sunday morning televangelist.EDIT: And in response to the latest diatribe, and conservatives are as bad for calling everything they disagree with unAmerican or communist or PC nonsense. Sorry, Derek, but you're just as bad as the people you rail against, you just have a different target.
That's just the point.
It's "holier-than-thou Bible thumping" all over again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I don't. In fact, I only have one conservative friend. Everyone else I hang out with is either apolitical or pretty much to the left of Stalin, but they're all good friends. They do goof on me for being the only non-white collar convict they know who holds fiscally conservative views (socially, I'm quite liberal. Gay marriage? Why not? Legalize drugs? Wonderful idea. Make immigration easier for people to the south? More the merrier, I always say!), but friends do that.
I just don't care for hypocrisy, from the left or the right (you really should be around when I go off on a certain type of "christian", you know, the kind that are insufferably "holier-than-thou", but couldn't tell you ONE of the many wonderful things Jesus said about loving your neighbor, slivers and planks, people without sin et al.).
I think it comes down to freedom and responsibility. You should be free to say whatever damnfool thing you want to, but we all as people have a responsibility to stand up and counter said stupid things.
The whole problem with the 'PC' movement is that people have begun to use it as a weapon to silence whomever is on the other side of the discourse. It is easy enough to label someone as a 'racist' or a 'hatemonger' and ignore whatever they are trying to say. It is a slippery slope, and PC speech legislation just add more useless laws to the books. Like ZN mentioned it IS a sword that cuts both ways, and by giving your personal responsibility to fight ignorance and hate to the government, you are taking your own views out of the equation. Censorship is never good, because it spreads like a cancer.
Government can't regulate manners. We need to assume that responsibility ourselves. I will always stand up against opinions that I don't think are right, but I will NEVER try and legislate your right to hold them away.
And Like Derek, I am neither a conservative or a liberal. I hold conservative political views, just because I feel government does a lousy job of things like 'hate speech'. I am very socially liberal, and I am in full agreement with such views as gay marraige, drug legalization and such. I am also a Panentheist, and I am more radical in my religious view than most people, since I don't ascribe to any Abrahamic faith. However, that doesn't mean I will attempt to stop people from putting up creche scenes at Christmas. That's just asinine.
|
|
stuffYep, I said that. And, frankly, I don't expect anything better. I'm watching the news (CNN) and all they have said about Leno last night is that Obama was the first sitting president on late night. MSNBC was going on about how great he looked. I've been waiting for the PC crowd to cry foul!, but alas, it isn't to be.
PC only applies to opponents of the Progressive Left, apparently.
And, Paul. Be 100% honest. Had Bush said that, you'd be railing on about what an insensitive ass he was. I really couldn't care less about what he said, I'm more offended that the guy has time to do late night and NCAA brackets on ESPN when the country is going to hell.
But that's beside the point. The point is, you're indignant because you KNOW I'm right. Attack the parting shot, not the substance, when the substance isn't assailable :)
Edit: Your edit is, again, beside the point. Nothing about what Obama said, just a "well, they do it too!" response. Nice :)
BTW, I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination a leftie, true, but trust and believe that I have little to no love for the Republican party, either. In '94, they signed a contract that they promptly threw out the window as soon as they could get Gingrich (who, at least on fiscal matters, really is a conservative, unlike, oh, 99% of the rest of his party) out the door.
Derek,
Don't be so thin-skinned. ;-)If you want people to be allowed to say what they like, then you have to accept that much of it will be offensive to you. I do, but I still believe they have a right to say it, I just have a right to say they're racist/sexist/stupid/bigots etc. If you have the right to offend me, I heave the right to offend you right back. And that bit no one likes. Everybody, more or less, wants to be allowed to offend people they don't like, but not to have those people offend them back.
Political Correctness is an idiotic idea and always has been. But when you're 100% honest, which is quite hard...
Paul, the only reason I don't, on these boards, anyway (you should see me on IRC some time when there are more targets of opportunity) go off on the right is there are literally 10 people here to do so for every one going after the left (or so it seems on occasion). Also, the Republicans are easy targets, I prefer a challenge.
Plus, the left gets a pass in the media. Read an AP release some time. They'll name the party of a Republican in the first paragraph, if they mention the party affiliation of a democrat at all, it's buried deep into the article. So, again, it's more fun for me to go after the hard target.
Plus, to be honest, it's harder to get a righty to melt down...
;)
|
|
And Like Derek, I am neither a conservatice or a liberal. I hold conservative political views, just because I feel government does a lousy job of things like 'hate speech'. I am very socially liberal, and I am in full agreement with such views as gay marraige, drug legalization and such. I am also a Panentheist, and I am more radical in my religious view than most people, since I don't ascribe to any Abrahamic faith. However, that doesn't mean I will attempt to stop people from putting up creche scenes at Christmas. That's just asinine.
Amen.
I'm not a Christian (I really don't know what I am, agnostic, I guess), but I would never try to stop someone from decorating for a holiday.
Which kind of brings me to another point. Why is it that the PC crowd is so worried about offending Hindus, Muslims, pagans, atheists, Buddhists et cetera, but they gleefully tear Christianity apart every chance they get?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm....