1 5 6
To borrow from Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street": Political Correctness is Good. Laws - and Zero Tolerance - against Hate Crimes/Speech Works.
It's done my country no harm. So fundie racists & homophobes in the secular
UK can't say what they like, because our laws say they can't? I'm a left-wing Atheist. Yeah..:
What's wrong with being Politically Correct, pray tell? Isn't it better to be Correct, than Wrong? I like being Correct. 'Freedom of Speech'? Fine, eh? So Rush Limburger, Sarah Failin, Mike Fuckabee, Batscat Shelly, and Fred Phelps - certainly in terms of their 'opinions' - are so
right in what they say.
And that's the problem.
Fundies in the US scream 'Persecution' over the repealment/overturning of DADT, Prop. 8, DOMA etc, which gives greater rights to LGBT people. That's their problem.
Their so-called 'opinions' don't count for shit against the law.
...and when they came for the right-wing fundies, I did not speak out, because I was not a right-wing fundie.
Because I was the left-wing Atheist who reported them to the authorities for their Thoughtcrime.
When right-wing Fundamental
ist Christians have suffered constant bigotry, 'fundiebashings', lynchings, inquisitions, pogroms, ghettoisation, 'FEMA camps' (CTSTDT) etc for several thousand years, then maybe - just maybe - will they have gained the slightest shred of sympathy; even considered the 'underdog' (and we Brits always support the underdog; it's why Oswald Mosley & his fascist 'Blackshirts' were chased out of London by the Cockneys, for what they did to British Jews).
...nope. Not seeing that Persecution yet, fundies. So cry more. We'll continue pointing & laughing at your pathetic bleatings you think are 'opinions'. And the civilised, secular world will continue to crush your so-called 'opinions' with more than justifiable legislation, should you dare become uppity about such.
So 'Political Correctness' is the dominant, nay, superior
social paradigm eh, fundies? You're no longer in charge of the playground, thus you spit your dummy & throw your rattle out of your collective pram, because you can no longer have your way, eh? Deal with it.
Here endeth the lesson.
...oh, and Canuovea, I refer you to the previous post by Dalillama. Just sayin'. ~_^
And it's best to let the fundies stick up for themselves - and their so-called 'opinions'; let them justify their unjustifiable 'opinions' themselves. If they can, that is.
If they're so secure in,, nay, so 'right' about said so-called 'opinions', they can defend them by themselves
. So why don't they, if what they say is so right, then surely the facts of what they say in their 'opinions' will be more than able to stand up to scrutiny.
...but then, that's probably why they don't. [b]Can't face the notion of you - and your so-called 'opinions', and the minset, nay, beliefs
such 'opinions' are based on being proved wrong
, and having to change
your 'beliefs' in the process. But hey, just ask Jonathan Edwards:
If he could change his own beliefs - by no less than his own opinion based on his own
critical thinking - then everyone else can. It wouldn't kill you.
Changing your own opinion(s) won't kill you, neither. Just your 'pride', by being proven wrong in the first place.
Probably why those on Ruptured Retards daren't show their faces round these parts. Buzzardnuts & Mr. (Wo)Mannn, I'm looking at you.
Like I say: as a left
-wing Atheist, I like being Correct.
So what are you afraid of, fundies? Let those 'opinions' of yours shine!
(*sharpens verbal & intellectual blades
10/7/2011 9:21:56 AM
Freedom of speech isn't about being right, it is about someone not telling you what to say or think.
You talk about diplomacy and tact, but you turn about and say you are going to force people to think a certain way? How do you not see the contradiction here? Use of force is the opposite of diplomacy.
Furthermore. You are so sure of your support for these anti-thought laws because they fall on your side. What if the UK suddenly decided to pass a law against being left wing? Or atheist? It is the same thing, from an objective perspective, as outlawing being right wing or theist.
"But I'm right!" You say. No, not according to everyone. Laws aren't based on objective truth, particularly moral objective truth, they are based on what people think is fair. What is the atheist to Christian ration in the USA? Pretty lopsided, isn't it? It is the entrenched constitution, including freedom of speech, that protects minorities... including atheists!
As for what Dalillama said... that fits my argument more. Simply because freedom of speech allows these opinions to come to the surface so they can be combated through logic, and if that fails, then ridicule.
Outlawing thoughts just forces those nasty beliefs into a dark place where they sit and stew, eventually spreading. Look at Germany's problems with those neo-nazis! It is outlawed, but it is becoming an increasingly difficult problem. It needs to be openly and actively confronted by discussion and reason, not law.
10/7/2011 11:21:32 AM
"Freedom of speech isn't about being right, it is about someone not telling you what to say or think."
In my opinion, the sequel "Aliens" is better than the original film "Alien". See? No harm done. In the opinion of the critics, the sequel to the first "Transformers" film was far worse; some said that you must be (in not so many words) 'mentally deficient' if you went to see "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". The cinemagoing public proved said critics' 'opinion' wrong
in their droves. The only harm done was to said critics' pride. Who was right? Who was wrong? You tell me.
If you think the 'opinions' of certain people have the right to be heard, then cop for this...:
Do you agree with Vox Day's 'opinion' here? Is he right
in what he's suggesting Think extremely carefully before answering (check one):
[ ] Yes. Then my point is proven, and you've destroyed your own argument.
[ ] No. Then my point is proven, and you've destroyed your own argument.
'this, being a mere hypothesis
, can be argued.
And tested, if you're feeling especially scientific this weekend.' Now, what would your 'opinion' of his 'opinion' , nay, his contemplating the notion of even thinking
of that 'opinion' be, if 'hypothetically', he condoned the assault, rape and murder of babies? Again, think very carefully before answering.
Mere 'opinion', or actual 'argument'? Poe or no? (and considering Vox Day's track record of 'opinions' quoted here in FSTDT, I'm leaning toward the latter, in both cases). You decide. Either way - and in both cases - nothing more needs to be said, Canuovea.
PROTIP: As for (quote) 'it is about someone not telling you what to say or think.', now you know precisely why we in the UK have OFCOM. And why there isn't - and never will be - a UK arm of Faux News. Because political bias is illegal in our news programmes. Forced neutrality. Where people here have to figure things out for themselves, instead of being spoon-fed 'opinions'.
Faux News. Along with The Bible...
...it does the thinking for you.
"You talk about diplomacy and tact, but you turn about and say you are going to force people to think a certain way? How do you not see the contradiction here? Use of force is the opposite of diplomacy."
So certain people shouldn't be sectioned under the Mental Health Act; if not for the safety of the public, at least for their own
safety. So you think certain states of mind, - and the thinking
behind such - are not only perfectly fine, but should be encouraged
, nay, given full protection under the law, eh? Just so's we know...
Remember: with rights, come responsibilities.
And that means you have rights, but within the law
. So we in the UK have laws that you - in your 'opinion' - disagree with (and I don't
); in Germany, it's illegal to openly say that the Holocaust didn't happen. Problem?
10/8/2011 10:25:53 AM
I didn't see the second Transformers, or the third one. I wouldn't say that the droves of people who went to them prove the critics wrong. I think, in fact, the critics were right. Neither film was a good movie, just a bunch of giant robots smashing the crap outta each other.
Vox Day's opinion is shit. But, he is totally within his rights to say so. If he can't be persuaded he is wrong, then he can be openly mocked for it. That is fair.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I'll say this, competition of ideas is healthy. The shit ones get removed and marginalised and the good ones become stronger. Letting them stew in darkness is a foolish idea and it just breeds danger. In Germany, people may not say that the Holocaust didn't happen... and that is a problem, because there are those who still think that and they aren't being corrected.
And if someone is dumb enough to watch Fox news... Also, it isn't such a great time to be bragging about the UK's news system. Just saying... But, what the news reports and what people think is a different issue.
Certain bad thoughts shouldn't be encouraged to exist... but they should be allowed to be voiced. There is both a pragmatic level and a moral level to this.
Simply, what people think isn't the jurisdiction of the law. What people do is the jurisdiction of the law.
Perhaps I should just argue against absolutist "right" and "wrong".
10/8/2011 12:07:35 PM
Well. Okay then. If you get to say that, um... conservatives and religious people don't exist. There's no proof, after all.
4/3/2013 2:57:01 PM
If you're trying to make fun of people saying that God doesn't exist, you failed. What you did instead is take two forks and stab out your eyes.
4/3/2013 4:08:20 PM
1 5 6