More Words Of Witlessness From The Fundies

[RetiredTrotskyite]

Found this on "Fundies Say The Darnedest Things":

i do not consider fags human, i will no longer argue and communicate with them. i do not argue with dogs and cats, i consider dogs and cats superior than fags. the homosexuals are out of control and swiftly bringing the demiss of our once proud, one nation under GOD country. GOD BLESS ARKANSAS!! they have a new law in 2009 that does not allow fags and dykes the right of adopting, which needs to be enacted in 49 more states!!

This is what freedom of speech for haters in this country has led to.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. And it's what we have to protect

The most hateful speech requires the most protection.

Very important to remember that.

And, along the way, make sure the light shines bright on those imbeciles.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

5. Nice...

The free speech of fundies to incite hatred and to get us beaten and killed is fine...maybe I should advocate the killing of fundies.:sarcasm:

And as for makinhg sure the light shines bright on these imbiciles, well, good luck with that.

[Maven]

7. Speech that advocates imminent unlawful action can be punished.

The poster you're responding to oversimplified.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. No, I didn't.

I said exactly what I meant. I did not say that all speech was protected, nor did I advocate hateful speech.

I am a firm believer in free speech. I believe that those who espouse things I find distasteful are just as free to do that as I am to do otherwise, as I am not to listen to them.

It's a very simple matter.

[Maven]

6. That's not entirely true.

Speech intended to incite violence is not protected by the First Amendment, nor should it be.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. Who said anything about inciting violence?

I said "hateful speech." Of course not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, but the post that was put up here didn't advocate violence; it was simply disgusting.

That's what I was responding to. Nothing more.

The matter of speech that incites violence is a whole different matter.

[keepCAblue]

12. Canada has the right priorities

Canada does not put freedom of speech above their own equal protection clause, as does the U.S. Canada, unlike the U.S., "gets" that hate speech which incites violence against other citizens is damaging to the whole of society and equates to criminal behavior.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. Freedom of speech doesn't interfere

with the Equal Protection clause of our Constitution.

It's well-placed law here in the US that certain speech is not protected. The old canard, "You can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" was the standard that got the ball rolling in terms of exempting certain speech.

That phrase from the Canadian law is so vague - in my humble opinion - that it would be tied up in US courts for thirty years before an adequate rendering of it could be made.

[dsc]

2. did you cut and paste, or retype?

I am not one to be a grammar and spelling NAZI but wow.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

3. It was a Cut and Paste

Unlike a certain redneck I went to school and have a reasonable grasp of spelling.

[Maven]

4. We just need more dialogue with these people.

:eyes:

[saracat]

8. Yeah but it is "different" when they talk that way about race! Sheesh.

And of course, women are really low on the food chain as well. But all we need to do is "reach out to them. Think about how far that nice Rev. Warren has come. He will even feed poor folks if they convert!:sarcasm:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

11. You've got to let them have their say,

as distasteful as it may be.

If they can be silenced, so can we. That's an ugly and slippery slope that shouldn't be traveled by anyone.

It's hard, I know, but it's vital for our Constitutional rights to remain intact. God knows they've been assaulted badly enough these past eight years.

[saracat]

13. Who said anything about "silencing " them? Not me!

I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of civil rights only for some.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. I am not following you

Whose civil rights are being denied by someone who puts forth crap like that in the original post?

[RetiredTrotskyite]

18. The point is.....

that assholes like this are inciting others of their ilk to beat and kill GLBT people.

And thank Goddess for Canada! They know how to keep their goddamned fundies on a short leash.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. That's a real stretch

if you want to make that piece of trash into something that would be considered unprotected speech. I'd argue that it's nothing but the ranting of a bigoted idiot, but it hardly could be construed as "inciting violence."

Your last sentence would read badly, wouldn't it, if it went like this:

"They know how to keep their goddamned queers on a short leash,"

or like this:

"They know how to keep their goddamned Jews on a short leash,"

or like this:

"They know how to keep their goddamned women on a short leash."?

Your speech is hateful, but I would do everything I could to defend your right to say such things.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

22. Whatever...

I am sick and fucking tired of the fucking fundies being allowed to run rampant in this country. Maybe Canada did, too. The longer I live in this country, the more certain I am that I want to move to Canada.

And you're right--I hate fundies, purely and simply hate them.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

23. Do you think that the person who spewed

that crap in your original post would be considered a fundie?

I surely do understand your feelings about them - they are a horrid bunch, I agree. But what I saw in that post you put up was just ignorance, fear, and vitriol.

Or did I miss something?

[RetiredTrotskyite]

27. And What Do You Think Fundamentalism Does?

Produce erudite, educated individuals. This little shit is just more vocal about it than most.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

28. Again,

where did you find "fundamentalism" in that post?

I fail to see it.

Ignorance has many mothers and fathers - not just fundamentalist christianity, but lots and lots of places.

[bluedawg12]

37. Umm...I found the word "fundamentalist," in the OP.

It's right there: "Found this on "Fundies Say The Darnedest Things"

Actually wisdom has many mother's and father's, ignorance is an orphan. No one ever seems to want to lay claim to it.

[Two Americas]

17. that is not the issue

No one is talking about "silencing" anyone. The issue is whether or not all "beliefs" should be taken seriously and included and showcased in some misguided "post-partisanship" effort.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

20. Help me, please.

Yes, the word "silenced" came up, and I was responding to that.

But, your second sentence. I've read it several times now, and I do not understand what it says.

What are you trying to say?

[Two Americas]

25. you must be kidding

I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand.

The OP may have been better advised to say "give a platform" rather than "give free speech" to bigotry. Was that what mptivated you to post about this?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

26. The OP didn't say "give free speech....."

We have free speech - it's one of our rights. No one "gives" it to us.

So, the OP doesn't come into this at all.

I'm serious, yes. My question was an honest and sincere one. I do not know what your second sentence meant. I'm sorry that you're having trouble understanding that. What about my query do you not understand?

Let me try it this way, since you're having trouble:

Can you say your second sentence a different way so that someone else can understand it?

Thank you.

[Two Americas]

29. the OP

The OP said "this is what freedom of speech for haters in this country has led to."

Of course rights are not given. I didn't say they were.

You are familiar with the posters here with whom you are now arguing. You are aware of the debate about including leaders from the religious right in the discussion, you know about the debate over giving them a platform. You know that many here believe that the message of the religious right is a sanitized and dishonest and deceptive version of the ugly sentiments that the OP cited in that quote. You know that many here see a connection between elevating and legitimatizing leaders of the religious right and encouraging the hateful speech cited in the OP, and a connection between that hateful speech and violence perpetrated on GLBTQ people. You may disagree with those ideas, but you cannot claim to be unaware of them with any credibility.

Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that you do not understand what I wrote.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. I know none of those posters,

since I never look at screen names but only at the posts. So, sorry, but whatever the familiarity should have meant, it means nothing to me.

Now, for all the things you say I "know," I must tell you that you are wrong about all of it.

The debates about Rick Warren - I assume that's what you're talking about - got very little of my interest, since I thought it was a tempest in a teapot. A bad selection, yes, I thought so - but also a smart political move on Obama's part, and what we should expect from him, since he did preach unity as a candidate.

So, since you chose to do the inestimably confounding act of telling me what I "know," I am still in the dark about what you meant by the indecipherable second sentence.

How, I must wonder, do you know what I "know"? What a strange and worthless stance to take.

However, this has gone on too long, and your thinking is far too muddled for me to have any further interest.

Best of luck to you. Here's hoping your free speech rights are always protected. I'll do everything I can to make sure they are.

[Two Americas]

32. lol

You never look at who you are responding to, had no idea that this discussion could be related to the Warren controversy, and can't imagine how I would know that you are familiar with the posters here and their ideas.

Well, that would explain it.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

34. How come

you can understand what I write, but your words just sort of dribble around and go nowhere?

Yes, you just restated what I wrote. Does that enlighten you?

Is that even possible, do you think?

[saracat]

38. Odd this type of post used to appear with frquency in another Forum on DU.

Your observation is spot on!

[Starry Messenger]

33. Is it working yet?

I just found this today--it's dated Jan 6th. '09.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/lorence.warren/

Written by the prince of a fellow who sued to have all of the 2004 San Francisco same-sex marriages invalidated.

Yeah, sounds like he's really had a change of heart. Fucker.

[Zuiderelle]

16. I wonder if he was invited to the inauguration.

We're a diverse nation after all, and we need to represent ALL Americans. We're not going to agree on everything.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

19. Uh...

Maybe you should check out "That Satan Clause" again.

[Zuiderelle]

24. But we are now the party of inclusion of everyone... except gays of course

So this guy fits right in!

[Two Americas]

30. yes

We must respect their "beliefs" even though we disagree with them. Obama must be the president of ALL Americans - the bigots, the liars, the right wing extremists, the wealthy and powerful few, and the complicit and cowardly Democrats. The rest of us - the other 90% of the population - need to "get over it" if we want a seat in the back rows of the "big tent." If we don't quit our crying, they will give us something to really cry about.

[Toasterlad]

35. I Hear That Guy Is a Lock for Head of Child Services.

God bless this inclusive country!

[bluedawg12]

36. This is a hatefull, hatefilled speech.

It does not directly incite violence, as the words seem to be somewhat carefully chosen to sound like political speech, which is protected.

However, I got RetiredTrotskyite's point loud and clear, this type of sentiment, creates a climate of hate against gay people, dehumanizes us and that does lead to violence and hate crimes.

No one ever commites violence against gays or lesbians, shouting, "I disagree with your politics."

It is usually accompanied by slurs and hatefilled language, it just creates a climate for intolerance and violence.

If one were to substitute gay slurs with any other ethnic or religious minority today, such language would create a strong reaction from the target group. That's how we feel about it too.