The Rise of Anti-Government Bigots: Spitting, the N-Word, Anti-Gay/Lesbian Slurs

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I, for one, dont have a problem with people speaking their minds, even if it does means listening to slurs. I would much rather know where people stand then to assume attitudes and beliefs have changed because it became politically incorrect to be honest about your feelings and beliefs.

And, I do attribute a lot of the slurs per se to scared people, lashing out much like a bully would. But, to respond to slurs just adds fuel to the fire.

In my 34 years of being out, I have never been a victim of a hate crime. I have had slurs said in my presence and I smile knowing from whence the ignorance comes from. I have no need to defend who I am, because I am not threatened by childish ignorance.

Not everyone is going to like us, nor do I like everyone. Prejudice is not something you can eradicate by legislation. God knows, watch a session of congressional debates - these have got to be the most bigoted, prejudicial, childish humans in the country.

As for a revolution, I doubt it will come from the middle-lower class. The folks most threatened are those on the cusp of the elite who are being squeezed out. The rest of us were never a threat.

I would appreciate if you all didnt jump all over me just because I dont tow the line in my beliefs.

I have no problem with voicing a contrary opinion. But I have issue when it feels like things are starting to get unsafe. And some of what's going on feels potentially dangerous. I fail to see how throwing a brick into a rep's office is a form of free expression (which is really about the gov't censoring individuals not individuals censoring individuals).

[dreadgeek]

It's all very well and good to say "it's just words, they don't matter". However, I would argue that sometimes words matter quite a bit and we make a mistake to be so sanguine about these incidents. There are a couple of reasons for this all of them having to do with language. The first is the escalation of rhetoric. The second is the the problem of nominally respectable and respected members of Congress giving aid and comfort to these sentiments. I'll take them in order.

Back when I was an undergrad the first time, I had a poli-sci professor who told us a story about his nephew who was home on leave from Vietnam. He related to us how his nephew was sitting around the dinner table and using the slur, popular at the time, for Vietnamese. My professor, who had been an instructor at the Air Force's school for intelligence analysts asked him "so, I'm a little fuzzy on the difference between the g--ks you're there to kill and the g--ks you're there to help". His nephew responded "what difference".

First you dehumanize them, then you can do damn near anything you want to them. Today Barney Frank is a fa--ot, tomorrow some *other* gay man, who spends a bit more time on the streets than I imagine Mr. Frank does is *also* the fa--ot. What's more, to the delight of the homophobe this one is right at hand with no capitol police to stop the violence. So on Monday he can shout what he was shouting on Sunday but *this* time he can do something about it. Today, John Lewis is a ni--er, tomorrow it's someone else who happens to share a skin color with Lewis but she doesn't have the benefit of capitol police protection either. Almost everyone agrees that it's wrong to hurl either epithets or bricks at *people*. However, fa--ots and ni--ers and g--ks and sp-c etc. etc. aren't really *people* now, are they? They're whatever slur is being hurled at them. If you can hurl the words at someone who isn't a person, you can hurl a brick at them.

While it is certainly true that not every incidence of bigoted words being thrown about ends in violence, every incidence of bigotry-inspired violence has, at some point, the *language* of bigotry involved. I don't recall much of having a cross burnt on our lawn, I certainly don't recall any words that were hurled at my parents but I'm willing to bet that ni--er was one of them.

On a related note, I don't consider bricks to be carriers of an opinion.

The other problem is the muted response of responsible GOP leaders. They *should* have come down hard and firm against the Tea Partiers. Instead they made half-assed attempts at dismissing or justifying the bigotry while winking in the direction of the bigots. For a year now, we have watched the spectacle of GOP members of Congress who, not 24 months before were ready to see Americans imprisoned merely for saying that George Bush was incompetent, walking right up to the line of encouraging armed revolution.. They talk about how this is totalitarianism, fascism, the end of America as we know it, and on and on. If we *were* to ever see actual totalitarian or fascist takeover looming we, as Americans, would have something of a duty to rise up and defend our democratic republic. This isn't it but they want the Tea Partiers to *believe* that it is. We have governors openly talking secession. Congresspeople and candidates for Congress talking about the American people (at least those they agree with) 'locking and loading'. It's fire they are playing with in order to pick up a few seats in the House and Senate which, historically, they are bound to do anyway.

In this country, we seem to mistake--for reasons that escape me--the right to free speech for the right to say any damn fool thing you want and the rest of us are just obliged to sit by and take it and talk about the right to free speech. The right to free speech does, in fact, give you the right to say pretty much any damn fool thing you wish to say. It does *not* oblige any of the rest of us from saying that it's a damn fool thing or a bigoted thing. When we are silent in the face of bigotry or we shine it on with a "sticks and stones may break my bones" statement we give our silent concession to the bigots. What we are saying is this: "I recognize that, for you, your intolerance is something you are willing to go to the mat for. Well, I think you're intolerant but I'm not ready to go to the mat in defense of tolerance." When we do that, we grant them a victory they do not deserve.

Kobi, I'm not trying to jump on you or tell you you don't have a right to your opinion. You have every right to it. You have every right to express it. And I have every right to express my opinions in response to yours.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Kobi

I, for one, dont have a problem with people speaking their minds, even if it does means listening to slurs. I would much rather know where people stand then to assume attitudes and beliefs have changed because it became politically incorrect to be honest about your feelings and beliefs.

And, I do attribute a lot of the slurs per se to scared people, lashing out much like a bully would. But, to respond to slurs just adds fuel to the fire.

In my 34 years of being out, I have never been a victim of a hate crime. I have had slurs said in my presence and I smile knowing from whence the ignorance comes from. I have no need to defend who I am, because I am not threatened by childish ignorance.

Not everyone is going to like us, nor do I like everyone. Prejudice is not something you can eradicate by legislation. God knows, watch a session of congressional debates - these have got to be the most bigoted, prejudicial, childish humans in the country.

As for a revolution, I doubt it will come from the middle-lower class. The folks most threatened are those on the cusp of the elite who are being squeezed out. The rest of us were never a threat.

I would appreciate if you all didnt jump all over me just because I dont tow the line in my beliefs.

[theoddz]

I totally see where Kobi is coming from about the slurs bit. I remember when sexism was out in the open with the off-color, bad taste comments that some men would hurl at women. I served in the military and endured that kind of thing from men when "political correctness" wasn't in vogue. Then, when it became a litigious issue and the anti discrimination laws were passed, these same men shut their friggin' mouths. I was relieved that those laws did that....at first. Then I began to see the other side of that coin. When we used to know who the sexist pigs were, because they opened their mouths and told us so, they now kept their comments to themselves and we were forced to find out the hard way.....after we lost our jobs, promotions and were sometimes assaulted sexually by the men who used to verbally vent their feelings. Sometimes the most sexist, biggoted asshats hide behind disingenuous smiles, sweet words and token gestures. Their feelings are, instead, only revealed after the damage is done.

Throwing bricks through windows and other illegal tactics or "acting out" is quite another matter. Somehow, I don't think Kobi meant to say that that was or should be considered to be a "freedom of expression". Linus has it entirely right when he called that one out.

~Theo~

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Corkey

This shit reminds me of meaner days of the Nazi regime, Crystal Nacht.

Yeah, I'm waiting to see what happens this summer. Temperatures will rise. Tensions will rise. The campaign season will kick into high gear. And I suspect we'll have more "one bad apple" incidents of violence by guys who look a lot like the folks we see at Tea Party rallies who will, in their 'this is why I went crazy' letter/blog/video spout much the same rhetoric.

We still haven't had our Reichstag fire yet. But I'll bet anyone here a steak dinner that if/when it *does* happen, the perpetrator will either be a Muslim or a queer person.

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Yeah, I'm waiting to see what happens this summer. Temperatures will rise. Tensions will rise. The campaign season will kick into high gear. And I suspect we'll have more "one bad apple" incidents of violence by guys who look a lot like the folks we see at Tea Party rallies who will, in their 'this is why I went crazy' letter/blog/video spout much the same rhetoric.

We still haven't had our Reichstag fire yet. But I'll bet anyone here a steak dinner that if/when it *does* happen, the perpetrator will either be a Muslim or a queer person.

Cheers
Aj

Why? I would have thought the perpetrator would be a member of the Tea/Republican party (aka White).

[dreadgeek]

I have said before and I'll say again that I much prefer my bigots out front and loud where I can keep an eye on them. However, I'm not going to do those bigots the favor of pretending that they aren't bigots just because they're 'only' calling me the n-word. As I said in my prior post, today it's calling me the n-word. Tomorrow it's doing something to me that "ni--ers got coming to them".

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of the intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument, they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
(Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies)

I quote this whenever this subject comes up because IF we ever lose our democratic republic it will likely be because we decided that tolerance wasn't worth defending until it was too late.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by theoddz

I totally see where Kobi is coming from about the slurs bit. I remember when sexism was out in the open with the off-color, bad taste comments that some men would hurl at women. I served in the military and endured that kind of thing from men when "political correctness" wasn't in vogue. Then, when it became a litigious issue and the anti discrimination laws were passed, these same men shut their friggin' mouths. I was relieved that those laws did that....at first. Then I began to see the other side of that coin. When we used to know who the sexist pigs were, because they opened their mouths and told us so, they now kept their comments to themselves and we were forced to find out the hard way.....after we lost our jobs, promotions and were sometimes assaulted sexually by the men who used to verbally vent their feelings. Sometimes the most sexist, biggoted asshats hide behind disingenuous smiles, sweet words and token gestures. Their feelings are, instead, only revealed after the damage is done.

Throwing bricks through windows and other illegal tactics or "acting out" is quite another matter. Somehow, I don't think Kobi meant to say that that was or should be considered to be a "freedom of expression". Linus has it entirely right when he called that one out.

~Theo~

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

Why? I would have thought the perpetrator would be a member of the Tea/Republican party (aka White).

Okay, I probably should have clarified my comment. What I meant by "will probably be Muslim or queer" is that if *I* were, say, Dick Armey and I wanted to *really* get the American people to vote in my slate of John Birch Conservatives who would then vow to 'keep America safe no matter what' I would set up a Reichstag fire-type incident.

The people who *actually* set the fires will be Tea Partiers. The people who take the fall will be Muslim or queer.

Recall that the Reichstag fire was allegedly set by a Communist. As it turned out, of course, it was a group of brown shirts that actually planned and committed the crime. But a convenient scapegoat was found in the personage of a recently immigrated Dutch Communist.

I should have been more clear. I don't think that the *actual* perp of this kind of false flag will be a Muslim or queer but one of those groups will take the fall for it. They need a bogeyman and blacks just aren't going to cut it. It has to be someone still considered sufficiently other that it's okay to hate them in polite company. That means queer or Muslim.

Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Okay, I probably should have clarified my comment. What I meant by "will probably be Muslim or queer" is that if *I* were, say, Dick Armey and I wanted to *really* get the American people to vote in my slate of John Birch Conservatives who would then vow to 'keep America safe no matter what' I would set up a Reichstag fire-type incident.

The people who *actually* set the fires will be Tea Partiers. The people who take the fall will be Muslim or queer.

Recall that the Reichstag fire was allegedly set by a Communist. As it turned out, of course, it was a group of brown shirts that actually planned and committed the crime. But a convenient scapegoat was found in the personage of a recently immigrated Dutch Communist.

I should have been more clear. I don't think that the *actual* perp of this kind of false flag will be a Muslim or queer but one of those groups will take the fall for it. They need a bogeyman and blacks just aren't going to cut it. It has to be someone still considered sufficiently other that it's okay to hate them in polite company. That means queer or Muslim.

Cheers
Aj

Ah.. they may have a bogeyman to blame but with the Interwebz being all over the place ('cuz Gore set it up that way, don't'cha know?), it'll be hard to maintain and will likely backfire.

Unlike the 1920s, it's a lot harder to hide who the true source of an attack or behaviour. (e.g., "Baby Killer" comment was recorded and the person apologized; given time someone would have recognized his voice easily).

[Corkey]

Deception of facts isn't just for the tea-baggers. Congress has been a great dissipator of false information. If any one thinks they can trust their congress person to do the right thing, one needed not look further than Congress woman Dahlkemper. She was willing to vote no, for the simple fact that she is pro life, so even though she may be a Dem, she sure can't claim she holds any woman's reproductive right issue to her heart.
For me I look to history for where the next onslaught will come from. Those who have lost their privileges.

[Kobi]

Thank you for your eloquence Theo. I do not condone violence but I do understand it is a way to get a message across when you feel threatened and unheard. Does it accomplish much? No. But it makes the thrower feel some degree of power. I understand how frustrating it is to feel powerless.

Much as we as a nation have undergone major changes at various times - freedom from slavery, the great depression, the cold war, the rights movements etc - I suspect we are facing another change. Change is indeed scary and it certainly evokes much emotion
both good and bad.

I, personally, dont care for change but if I have to deal with it, I prefer it be presented in an open and honest way - that is respectful and decent. What I object to is the lies and deceit we Americans have been forced to deal with. Tell me the truth. Dont sugar coat screwing me. When people overreact, I find it is because they feel they have not been dealt with fairly or honestly.

I find it difficult to ascribe to an us-them mentality. I think it leads to conflict rather than resolution. Even when people do not agree with me or see things the way I do, I find it helpful to try and see things from their perspective. This doesnt mean I have to agree with them, it simply means their views are important too. Compromise comes from seeing all sides and focusing on what can be agreed upon. Can learn a lot by listening

[dreadgeek]

Linus:

I agree with what you're saying in part, but I'm a little more pessimistic because of my experiences watching my countrymen believe, against all available evidence, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was instrumentally involved in the 9/11 plot OR that Al Qaeda was in bed with that tyrant. The second, more risible claim, could be disproved with less than two hours of web research. All one would have to find out is that Al Qaeda is a Wahhabist sect of Sunni Islam and that Saddam Hussein was a secular pan-Arabist who cynically used religion but was not devout by any measure and that would put the lie to that. It would be like claiming that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were the two biggest contributors to the ACLU or the American Humanist Society. Osama bin Laden would no more get in bed with Hussein as Falwell would with Richard Dawkins.

The first claim, about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 is partially debunked from knowing about the differences between Hussein and bin Laden and partially just by looking at the details that were known within a week of the attack.

The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not sure, given our current state, that it would *matter* if the information that a false-flag operation had taken place in the U.S. The kinds of people who are showing up at the Tea Party rallies aren't particularly likely and unless it came from some approved (read right-wing) information source they would continue to believe that it was done by the convenient perps even IF there were a YouTube video of Armey, Cheney, et. al. planning it. Low-information voters, gotta love 'em.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Linus

Ah.. they may have a bogeyman to blame but with the Interwebz being all over the place ('cuz Gore set it up that way, don't'cha know?), it'll be hard to maintain and will likely backfire.

Unlike the 1920s, it's a lot harder to hide who the true source of an attack or behaviour. (e.g., "Baby Killer" comment was recorded and the person apologized; given time someone would have recognized his voice easily).

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Linus:

I agree with what you're saying in part, but I'm a little more pessimistic because of my experiences watching my countrymen believe, against all available evidence, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was instrumentally involved in the 9/11 plot OR that Al Qaeda was in bed with that tyrant. The second, more risible claim, could be disproved with less than two hours of web research. All one would have to find out is that Al Qaeda is a Wahhabist sect of Sunni Islam and that Saddam Hussein was a secular pan-Arabist who cynically used religion but was not devout by any measure and that would put the lie to that. It would be like claiming that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were the two biggest contributors to the ACLU or the American Humanist Society. Osama bin Laden would no more get in bed with Hussein as Falwell would with Richard Dawkins.

The first claim, about Iraq's involvement in 9/11 is partially debunked from knowing about the differences between Hussein and bin Laden and partially just by looking at the details that were known within a week of the attack.

The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not sure, given our current state, that it would *matter* if the information that a false-flag operation had taken place in the U.S. The kinds of people who are showing up at the Tea Party rallies aren't particularly likely and unless it came from some approved (read right-wing) information source they would continue to believe that it was done by the convenient perps even IF there were a YouTube video of Armey, Cheney, et. al. planning it. Low-information voters, gotta love 'em.

Cheers
Aj

I think one of the biggest differences between what happened with Iraq and WMD is who is handling the main megaphone on Capital Hill (aka the President). I suppose as a non-American and based on what I've seen as a non-American I'm a little more optimistic about it today than things were in 2001. Things are far more transparent than before (2001-era) and FOXNews et al would be hard pressed to really contradict proof.

Heck, they could have used that for the plane that crashed in the IRS and didn't. I was expecting it but it really never appeared...

[Semantics]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I, for one, dont have a problem with people speaking their minds, even if it does means listening to slurs. I would much rather know where people stand then to assume attitudes and beliefs have changed because it became politically incorrect to be honest about your feelings and beliefs.

And, I do attribute a lot of the slurs per se to scared people, lashing out much like a bully would. But, to respond to slurs just adds fuel to the fire.

In my 34 years of being out, I have never been a victim of a hate crime. I have had slurs said in my presence and I smile knowing from whence the ignorance comes from. I have no need to defend who I am, because I am not threatened by childish ignorance.

Not everyone is going to like us, nor do I like everyone. Prejudice is not something you can eradicate by legislation. God knows, watch a session of congressional debates - these have got to be the most bigoted, prejudicial, childish humans in the country.

As for a revolution, I doubt it will come from the middle-lower class. The folks most threatened are those on the cusp of the elite who are being squeezed out. The rest of us were never a threat.

I would appreciate if you all didnt jump all over me just because I dont tow the line in my beliefs.

So, is disagreeing with you jumping all over you? I hope not.

You do toe the line with your beliefs, actually, at least the beliefs of a lot of people in this country. There are a large number of people that bemoan political correctness, because hell, why should anyone have to communicate in a respectful way?

I do have a problem with slurs, because hate speech can incite violence and people get hurt. Sure, they have the freedom to say whatever they want, and we have the right to respond.

I'm confused by your post, because it seemed like you said slurs are ok because people are just speaking their minds, but responding to them is just adding fuel to the fire. People need to be responding and letting the racists and bigots know that they disagree. Sometimes silence is mistaken for agreement or support, and my opinion is that we've been silent for too long.

I agree that prejudice is not something you can eradicate by legislation, but the discrimination that comes from prejudice can be, which is why legislation is so important.

[apretty]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I
In my 34 years of being out, I have never been a victim of a hate crime. I have had slurs said in my presence and I smile knowing from whence the ignorance comes from.

slurs are hateful--i don't think you need to be beaten to have been victim of hate and discrimination.

to be clear, you can feel comfortable but for me, being spat on and called names is WAYYYYYYYYYY beyond my comfort level.

[Kobi]

Semantics......I am saying people have the right to free speech. If they have the need and immaturity to use slurs, so be it. If someone has the need to respond to slurs, they have the right to do so as well.

I am speaking for myself. And I believe in picking my battles carefully. I have discovered I can change more minds or mitigate more bigotry by not reacting to it or not reacting negatively to it. Bigotry and slurs are designed to evoke a negative response. I prefer to take a positive approach because to me, responding with negativity invites a confrontation. I prefer communication to confrontation.

And I am not going to respond to every slight to gay folks that I encounter in living. To me, life is more about being a good person than being a card carrying cause laden gay person. Some things require a response, some dont, it is a matter of perspective.

Prejudice is not eradicated by legislation, neither is discrimination but that is just my opinion. I have seen to many people being screwed by the very laws designed to help them simply because the perpetrators use a roundabout route to justify their deeds while circumenting the law.

[Linus]

FYI: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_508406.html

University of Ottawa Academic Vice President and Provost Francois Houle e-mailed the controversial pundit on Friday. He wrote:

"Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here."
He continued, "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges."

Canada has laws in place that disallow the promotion of hatred that will incite violence against a group. I kinda wish it was here but the nature of US society and history will prevent this kind of law from ever existing here.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Linus

FYI: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_508406.html




Canada has laws in place that disallow the promotion of hatred that will incite violence against a group. I kinda wish it was here but the nature of US society and history will prevent this kind of law from ever existing here.

Thanks for posting this. I actually was researching the differences too, and I am not too fond of the I-can-say-whatever-I-want-it's-free-speech(!) approach of the USA.

Here's another link if anyone is interested that outlines some of the differences b/w a few countries (USA, Canada, UK, Sweden, Brazil).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hatespeech.htm

[dreadgeek]

I'm curious. If someone comes up to me and starts yelling at me that I'm a ni--er or calling me some homophobic slur or telling me that I'm hell-bound what am I supposed to compromise on? What side am I supposed to be seeing? I hear this a lot from people (usually white people--sorry but there it is) that I should "see all sides" or "focus on what we have in common". I'm equally curious why *I* should have to compromise. Why is it incumbent on the *targets* of bigotry to do the compromising, to see all sides, including the side of those that hate? I rarely see anyone asserting that it's the bigots who should see all sides or compromise. In that situation--which isn't about policy it's about personhood--what am I supposed to be compromising *on* exactly? What side am I supposed to be seeing? What is it that I'm supposed to understand there?

I've listened to a lot of different things in my 40+ years. Not only have I listened, I've *heard* a lot of things. When I hear the word 'nigger' I don't see what there is to compromise on. What I hear and what I listen to can be translated to "I don't think you're human. I think you're low, dishonest, dirty and not someone who should be admitted where decent people are..."

I agree, their views ARE important. I WANT to hear them shout their hate from the rooftops if that is in their heart. What's more, I want *YOU* (generic you, Kobi not specific) to hear them so you can decide which side you're on and what, if anything, you want to do about it. I disagree that I need to be ready to compromise with the person hurling epithets at me. The person who disagrees with me and is willing to sit down and have a genuine discussion and meeting of the minds? Sure, absolutely. The person who is hurling epithets that boil down to "you're not human", I see no compromise that presents itself. They aren't going to admit that I *might* be human or they wouldn't be hurling the epithet. I'll be damned if I'm willing to grant that they might be right and maybe I'm not fully human. At that point, I don't really *care* about their feelings and I'm not interested in understanding where they are coming from. My interest, at that point, collapses into one thing: how can I conclude whatever business we might have to transact in the fastest, most efficient manner so that they can go on their way and I can go on mine and never again bother the others' eye with our visage.

Lastly, I don't think anyone *wants* to subscribe to an us-them mentality but sometimes there really IS an 'us' and there really IS a 'them'. If someone makes it clear that they have an America and that their America doesn't include me and that, given the opportunity, they will make certain that there is no place for me in their America, they’ve gone out of their way to make themselves, well, Them. I have never, in my entire life, started or invited a racist incident nor have I ever started or invited a sexist or homophobic incident. But I have had those experiences all more than once or twice. The person who *did* instigate those incidents was bound and determined to make me their 'them' and I'd be a fool (or a corpse) if I didn't take that person very, very seriously.

Cheers
Aj

[Dean Thoreau]

Has anyone noticed that the anti-governemnt,,keep government out of our business people seem to think it is alright for the government to stick their nose in a woman's right to choose and homosexuality...

Seems the only thing these people want regulated is what goes on in people bedrooms and their reproduction decisions...

i think that sux, really sux

think i will call the FBI, ATF, DEA on all the tea party bigots... (joke sort of...maybe)



sorry if this pisses off any B_F tea party members.....

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Prejudice is not eradicated by legislation, neither is discrimination but that is just my opinion. I have seen to many people being screwed by the very laws designed to help them simply because the perpetrators use a roundabout route to justify their deeds while circumenting the law.

I think that we sometimes mix up the desire to see a world without discrimination with a world without prejudice. I would love for my granddaughter to NEVER have a racist or sexist experience in her life. That would be a good world from where I sit. However, I doubt she'll live in that world. What world I *can* leave her with is a country where it is not legal to discriminate and THAT we can legislate.

Let me be clear, I do not care if any given white person hates me because I'm black. I really do not give a damn what any particular white person thinks of me. What I *do* give a damn about is whether or not that white person can make their racism my problem. Calling me the 'n-word' makes it my annoyance but not my problem. Refusing to treat me fairly in an interview, refusing to grant me credit, not taking me seriously in class or in the workplace, passing me over for promotion or paying me less than my colleagues--even those who have less experience than I do--IS making it my problem and THAT I expect my society to put quite a bit of energy into doing something about. The same applies for men and for straight people. Don't care. Genuinely don't. As long as they cannot *legally* make it my problem, what someone carries in their own head neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, to use Jefferson's memorable phrasing. As long as I have a legal recourse then that is as good as I think any society will do.

The above, by the way, explains why I have said on numerous occasions that where we are today--right here, right now--in America is probably the best any of us can expect as far as racial harmony is concerned, notwithstanding all of the genuflecting about white privilege and talk of unpacking of knapsacks. I don't expect anything to get noticeably better in my lifetime *because* you can't legislate away prejudice. I choose to work on eliminating those things you *can* legislate away--like it being legal to fire someone for no better reason than that they are queer. Or it being legal to harass someone at work or school because they are queer. Or it being legal to refuse to rent to someone because they are queer, etc. etc.

Cheers
Aj