As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Intolerant of the Intolerant?

emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
edited September 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
I was part of a discussion group yesterday and the topic shifted to how modern day life is different from life in the fifties. Now I believe that we're a little better off now than people were then thanks to instantaneous communication . Someone else brought up the point, though, that we're also more enlightened than our 1950s counterparts because we're more tolerant. The brief example was, of course, television and the argument was while there was no swearing or lascivious shennanigans, there were few Jews or blacks and no interracial relationships or gays or defenses of communism, etc etc. Today, having an all-white, all-heterosexual cast on a TV sitcom would be 'bizarre.'

I didn't say anything on this at the meeting but I kept thinking, "You just haven't found the right thing to hate, that's all." Our tolerance is overestimated to a point; we're generally critical of hate groups and chastise hate speech because we're disturbed by them. If your son or daughter came home and finally admitted they were gay, well, a little shock but no big deal. You still love 'em. But if a son or daughter came home with a swastika tattoo on their thigh, you'd throw them out on their ear.

Do you consider that intolerance? In the 1950s, a father might try to beat the gayness out of his son and send him to a psychologist. Today, a father might try to beat the racism out of his son and force him into some community service projects benefiting minorities. Ignoring social stigmas, is it ever okay to hate people for their beliefs? If the goal of societies is to promote unity between its citizens, do you accept everyone or are you intolerant of the intolerant?

A little side story but when I was in North Carolina, the Ku Klux Klan marched and, going by the newspapers, the Christians protesting the march jumped the barricades at some point and beat up some marching stragglers when the police guarding the event weren't able to watch.

emnmnme on
«13456714

Posts

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I was part of a discussion group yesterday and the topic shifted to how modern day life is different from life in the fifties. Now I believe that we're a little better off now than people were then thanks to instantaneous communication . Someone else brought up the point, though, that we're also more enlightened than our 1950s counterparts because we're more tolerant. The brief example was, of course, television and the argument was while there was no swearing or lascivious shennanigans, there were few Jews or blacks and no interracial relationships or gays or defenses of communism, etc etc. Today, having an all-white, all-heterosexual cast on a TV sitcom would be 'bizarre.'

    I didn't say anything on this at the meeting but I kept thinking, "You just haven't found the right thing to hate, that's all." Our tolerance is overestimated to a point; we're generally critical of hate groups and chastise hate speech because we're disturbed by them. If your son or daughter came home and finally admitted they were gay, well, a little shock but no big deal. You still love 'em. But if a son or daughter came home with a swastika tattoo on their thigh, you'd throw them out on their ear.

    Do you consider that intolerance? In the 1950s, a father might try to beat the gayness out of his son and send him to a psychologist. Today, a father might try to beat the racism out of his son and force him into some community service projects benefiting minorities. Ignoring social stigmas, is it ever okay to hate people for their beliefs? If the goal of societies is to promote unity between its citizens, do you accept everyone or are you intolerant of the intolerant?

    A little side story but when I was in North Carolina, the Ku Klux Klan marched and, going by the newspapers, the Christians protesting the march jumped the barricades at some point and beat up some marching stragglers when the police guarding the event weren't able to watch.

    People don't just "end out" in the KKK. There's groundwork being done by the parents long beforehand. It's not normally as huge a surprise as you'd think. I've never met a skinhead that didn't have a prick for a father. Anecdote? Maybe... but also true. Also, Tolerant isn't some holy answer. It's not even that nice a word. Very different from acceptance.

    Personally I think any sort of racial march should be met with waterballoons. I don't care who's doing the marching. From the NAACP to the Michigan Militias and Arian Nation, a public gathering and protest permit should have the stipulation that any onlookers can pelt you with water balloons.

    dispatch.o on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Yes, it is ok to not tolerate the intolerant. Jesus Christ.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Yes, it is ok to not tolerate the intolerant. Jesus Christ.

    Yes. WWJD?

    emnmnme on
  • Big DookieBig Dookie Smells great! Houston, TXRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Yes, it is ok to not tolerate the intolerant. Jesus Christ.

    Hah, yes.

    I mean, you have to ask yourself, what are the benefits of tolerating intolerance? Racial, Sexual, Gender, etc tolerance have many positive aspects to them, with not many negatives. Tolerance of intolerant people just doesn't make much sense though. It's like asking, "Should we tolerate pre-meditated murder?" Well, there aren't exactly many positive aspects to that, and the negatives are pretty huge. So what's the point?

    Big Dookie on
    Steam | Twitch
    Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited August 2007
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    From the NAACP to the Michigan Militias and Arian Nation

    Please tell me you're not seriously comparing the NAACP to the fucking Aryan Nation.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Big Dookie wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Yes, it is ok to not tolerate the intolerant. Jesus Christ.

    Hah, yes.

    I mean, you have to ask yourself, what are the benefits of tolerating intolerance? Racial, Sexual, Gender, etc tolerance have many positive aspects to them, with not many negatives. Tolerance of intolerant people just doesn't make much sense though. It's like asking, "Should we tolerate pre-meditated murder?" Well, there aren't exactly many positive aspects to that, and the negatives are pretty huge. So what's the point?

    I just hate people who get so caught up in theoretical oversimplifications that they forget what reality looks like.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Yes, it is ok to not tolerate the intolerant. Jesus Christ.

    Seriously, this thread is retarded. How is this even a question?

    Sexual oreintation/gender/race != malleable beliefs which are irrational and have no basis and are easily left behind.

    You don't choose to be black, you do choose to be an asshole neo-Nazi shithead.

    End. Of. Thread.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    From the NAACP to the Michigan Militias and Arian Nation

    Please tell me you're not seriously comparing the NAACP to the fucking Aryan Nation.

    This is what I'm talking about. It only works if you reduce the groups to "organisations interested in race and society" and then completely ignore everything else about them. Its incredibly fucking stupid.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    From the NAACP to the Michigan Militias and Arian Nation

    Please tell me you're not seriously comparing the NAACP to the fucking Aryan Nation.

    This is what I'm talking about. It only works if you reduce the groups to "organisations interested in race and society" and then completely ignore everything else about them. Its incredibly fucking stupid.

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    When did people stop being discerning?

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    I blame the media

    no, seriously. They're so invested in seeming 'fair' that they'll give completely uncritical airtime to the most hateful, ignorant, incoherent retards on issues where there really isn't a sensible opposition.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Well, this thread is also a happy reminder that proclaiming ourselves to be history's best progressives isn't correct. And while joining a neo-Nazi group is a choice, it's harder to imagine people just choose to be racists. Becoming a racist/misogynist is probably coming from exposure to other social environments growing up and taking in biased or inaccurate information from others.

    It's not like you wake up one morning and hate white people today for exploitations that happened long ago.

    emnmnme on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    I blame the media

    no, seriously. They're so invested in seeming 'fair' that they'll give completely uncritical airtime to the most hateful, ignorant, incoherent retards on issues where there really isn't a sensible opposition.

    It's fucking ridiculous, really.

    I mean, I constantly hear people noting that Group/Belief X are similar to Group/Belief Y in Superficial/Minor way Z, and thus X = Y.

    And I just want to beat their face in with a beer bottle, like that horrible scene in Pan's Labyrinth.

    People just have gotten this idea into their heads that's it's somehow not our place to judge, or discern, or evaluate.

    Why use the most important faculties that you as a human being are endowed with? How silly! It would be much better to just assume a nihilistic stance, which other stupid people will call moral relavitism, and react to by only taking absolute stances on all issues.

    And then we're all good and well fucked, and it's Jesus's fault. The fucker.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, this thread is also a happy reminder that proclaiming ourselves to be history's best progressives isn't correct. And while joining a neo-Nazi group is a choice, it's harder to imagine people just choose to be racists. Becoming a racist/misogynist is probably coming from exposure to other social environments growing up and taking in biased or inaccurate information from others.

    It's not like you wake up one morning and hate white people today for exploitations that happened long ago.

    Bullshit. Fucking. Bullshit.

    I'm sorry -- I don't care how fucking shitty your childhood was; you're a goddamn adult now, so fucking act like one.

    Jesus Christ.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited August 2007
    Well, on racial issues specifically, a lot of these threads here have shown me that there's a certain demographic of forum-using nerdling who have decided, absent any actual information, that racism must be caused by people talking about race. So a black wanting to advance blacks' station is just as bad as a white KKK member.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, this thread is also a happy reminder that proclaiming ourselves to be history's best progressives isn't correct.

    My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Well, this thread is also a happy reminder that proclaiming ourselves to be history's best progressives isn't correct.

    My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.

    Goddamnit it's not moral relavitism! It's moral equivalency.

    Relativism -- relative. Better and worse are relative terms. Evaluative terms. Discerning terms.

    Relativism is good.

    Nihlism/equivalency is bad.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    My muscular buttocks

    *fapfapfap*

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    you and your... your words! *shakes fist*

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Big Dookie wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    Yes, it is ok to not tolerate the intolerant. Jesus Christ.

    Hah, yes.

    I mean, you have to ask yourself, what are the benefits of tolerating intolerance? Racial, Sexual, Gender, etc tolerance have many positive aspects to them, with not many negatives. Tolerance of intolerant people just doesn't make much sense though. It's like asking, "Should we tolerate pre-meditated murder?" Well, there aren't exactly many positive aspects to that, and the negatives are pretty huge. So what's the point?

    I just hate people who get so caught up in theoretical oversimplifications that they forget what reality looks like.
    You mean I can't create a perceptual dichotomy, where if one thing isn't "this", then it has to be "that"?
    I think there's a difference between allowing someone, let's say a hippy, to practice hippy-ness and allowing someone to practice racism or hatred-- which is dedicated to stopping other people from being said hippy or other practice.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    you and your... your words! *shakes fist*

    :P

    Oh, and another thing I hate about this bullshit is that it's totally rooted in religion.

    I mean, fundamentally, basically all religions require the believer to cede some degree of human reason in favor of divine revelation -- which is just such a fucking insult to the human ability to evaluate. It's basically saying that true knowledge is attainable only by going beyond human reason.

    Plus Christianity, in all it's loving of subordination and baseness and meekness really goes overboard in debasing human reason. I hate Paul so fucking much. And so then self-degrading views on human evaluative faculties become indeed a sign of piety and righteousness -- to ignore your ability to examine the world is to be holy!

    And so it becomes ingrained in our culture, even as more and more crawl out from under religion, the value remains.

    And it pisses me the hell off.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited August 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    *shakes fist*

    *fapfapfap*

    Seriously, though, this whole thread is founded on the hoariest, most cobwebby far-right cliche. "Hur hur - ya libral's ain't so tol'rant of ever'thing, hyuck." No shit. I hate the way that we've allowed that segment of the population to corner the market on arguments based on morality and values - because to me, normative statements of morality are the heart and soul of liberalism. Starving people is wrong. Exploiting people is wrong. Bullying the weak is wrong.

    Conservatives are the ones who think that any old atrocity can be justified if it has the weight of tradition behind it, or rich people do it.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    you and your... your words! *shakes fist*

    :P

    Oh, and another thing I hate about this bullshit is that it's totally rooted in religion.

    I mean, fundamentally, basically all religions require the believer to cede some degree of human reason in favor of divine revelation -- which is just such a fucking insult to the human ability to evaluate. It's basically saying that true knowledge is attainable only by going beyond human reason.

    Plus Christianity, in all it's loving of subordination and baseness and meekness really goes overboard in debasing human reason. I hate Paul so fucking much. And so then self-degrading views on human evaluative faculties become indeed a sign of piety and righteousness -- to ignore your ability to examine the world is to be holy!

    And so it becomes ingrained in our culture, even as more and more crawl out from under religion, the value remains.

    And it pisses me the hell off.
    Historians sometimes call this, Puritanism.
    It will haunt us for a while still :x

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    I remember, in college, I was helping establish a "tolerance club." Basically, it was a collection of homosexuals, atheists, feminists, etc. on a strictly Southern Baptist campus that were really tired of the must-be-Christian-must-be-straight-must-be-whatever attitude that pervaded the campus. We decided to found this group, and the point was that, within the group, you could be who you felt you were without judgment, and there were counseling services and stuff like that, because a few guys were going around defacing the rooms of homosexuals around the same time.

    Some of the football players responsible for the campus attitude and feelings came to the second meeting. We had a sort of introduction period for everybody. I stood up and said something to the extent of, "Hello, my name is [uncomfortable putting that out there], and I'm here because I'm an atheist. I feel unable to freely express this fact because of the treatment I've received in the past on this campus."

    Five guys in the back held up notes that said "YOUR (sic) GOING TO HELL." Every time anybody else stood up and said anything, they held up the signs. So we kicked them out.

    The next time we meet, they're there again, but this time with an administrator. They do the same thing, and we kick them out quicker than before. The day after that, we, the leadership of the group, are approached by the administrator and told that we're no longer allowed to meet and organize because didn't follow our own charter in not tolerating their opinions and beliefs. We made our case in front of the student council, but seeing as how any group that tolerates homosexuality on the campus is immediately looked at as unfit, the hearing lasted about fifteen minutes and the apes on the council handed down the same decision that the administrator did.

    All that is to say this: it is wrong, absolutely wrong, to tolerate intolerance because being tolerant of intolerance gives it some sort of creedence thast it absolutely doesn't fucking deserve. If a belief, opinion, whatever, is not founded in reality, it should absolutely not be tolerated.

    Fuck 'em. Fuck racists, fuck sexists, fuck homophobes, fuck everybody that has some stupid fucking Pleasentville delusion about life.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I mean, maybe hate is bad (self-destructive etc - WWBD?). But whether it's hate, dislike, or long-suffering sadness, it's certainly OK to have problems with someone because of their beliefs.

    I mean, fuck, they're beliefs. Not their race or hair colour or gender or whatever. Their ideas.

    The OP is basically 'it's bad to hate people just because they're evil'.

    Talk about missing the fucking point of tolerance.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    You should be a motivational speaker, Aemilius.
    TheCat wrote:
    My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.

    Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop) women professionals still earn 83% of their male counterparts so I'm just saying we shouldn't have swelled heads. We still have some parallel faults to the 1950s. Racists are people too. They're a social eyesore but there has to be a better solution than hating them.

    emnmnme on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I remember, in college, I was helping establish a "tolerance club." Basically, it was a collection of homosexuals, atheists, feminists, etc. on a strictly Southern Baptist campus that were really tired of the must-be-Christian-must-be-straight-must-be-whatever attitude that pervaded the campus. We decided to found this group, and the point was that, within the group, you could be who you felt you were without judgment, and there were counseling services and stuff like that, because a few guys were going around defacing the rooms of homosexuals around the same time.

    Some of the football players responsible for the campus attitude and feelings came to the second meeting. We had a sort of introduction period for everybody. I stood up and said something to the extent of, "Hello, my name is [uncomfortable putting that out there], and I'm here because I'm an atheist. I feel unable to freely express this fact because of the treatment I've received in the past on this campus."

    Five guys in the back held up notes that said "YOUR (sic) GOING TO HELL." Every time anybody else stood up and said anything, they held up the signs. So we kicked them out.

    The next time we meet, they're there again, but this time with an administrator. They do the same thing, and we kick them out quicker than before. The day after that, we, the leadership of the group, are approached by the administrator and told that we're no longer allowed to meet and organize because didn't follow our own charter in not tolerating their opinions and beliefs. We made our case in front of the student council, but seeing as how any group that tolerates homosexuality on the campus is immediately looked at as unfit, the hearing lasted about fifteen minutes and the apes on the council handed down the same decision that the administrator did.

    All that is to say this: it is wrong, absolutely wrong, to tolerate intolerance because being tolerant of intolerance gives it some sort of creedence thast it absolutely doesn't fucking deserve. If a belief, opinion, whatever, is not founded in reality, it should absolutely not be tolerated.

    Fuck 'em. Fuck racists, fuck sexists, fuck homophobes, fuck everybody that has some stupid fucking Pleasentville delusion about life.
    What's so neat about the constitution is that every jerk gets to be a jerk as long as they don't interfere with anyone else being a jerk at the same time!

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Racists are people too. They're a social eyesore but there has to be a better solution than hating them.

    you cannot be serious with this shit.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop)

    That's so... clever! Both groups are angry! So they're the same!

    You wanna debate, son, rather than just throwing out pseudo-thought?

    Do you believe in right and wrong? Do you, emnmnmnmnme believe that some kinds of activities are wrong because they hurt people?

    Because if you don't then we don't have enough common ground to talk.

    And if you do you're an astonishing hypocrite.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Racists are people too.

    Some people deserve to die.

    Seriously, a person's worth isn't founded in personhood.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    You should be a motivational speaker, Aemilius.
    TheCat wrote:
    My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.

    Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop) women professionals still earn 83% of their male counterparts so I'm just saying we shouldn't have swelled heads. We still have some parallel faults to the 1950s. Racists are people too. They're a social eyesore but there has to be a better solution than hating them.

    Man, I am this close to regressing to my really hateful Nietzche-reading days, where I would talk about how people like that are absolutely not human on the same level as the rest of us, but are in fact human cancer cells, leeching the resources of our society, and how it would be totally just fine to permanently remove them by any means necessary.

    But I'm not there yet. Let's give it another page.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Aemilius wrote:
    But I'm not there yet. Let's give it another page.

    I so beat you there. This post time limit is killing me.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    You should be a motivational speaker, Aemilius.
    TheCat wrote:
    My muscular buttocks it isn't. 40 years ago I couldn't open a bank account without a written note from my male guardian, let alone earn two degrees, live and work where I choose, and opt out of reproducing before 25. Take your stupid braindead version of moral relativism and shove it.

    Anyways, as vocal as the comments are getting (as vocal as what would would happen if I mentioned a Jew should be the next President in a 1950s barbershop) women professionals still earn 83% of their male counterparts so I'm just saying we shouldn't have swelled heads. We still have some parallel faults to the 1950s. Racists are people too. They're a social eyesore but there has to be a better solution than hating them.

    Man, I am this close to regressing to my really hateful Nietzche-reading days, where I would talk about how people like that are absolutely not human on the same level as the rest of us, but are in fact human cancer cells, leeching the resources of our society, and how it would be totally just fine to permanently remove them by any means necessary.

    But I'm not there yet. Let's give it another page.
    Is there a such thing as a racist-againster?

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."

    Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.

    I remember a funny little interview with Toni Morrison where she attended some kind of political event and all the white politicians were exceedingly nice to her, holding her around the shoulder for photo ops and whisking her away to the other side of the room to talk with more white politicians. All the talk didn't amount to anything, she said. She was convinced they were using her to ward off any hints that they don't give black Americans any serious thought.

    The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?

    emnmnme on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."

    Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.

    I remember a funny little interview with Toni Morrison where she attended some kind of political event and all the white politicians were exceedingly nice to her, holding her around the shoulder for photo ops and whisking her away to the other side of the room to talk with more white politicians. All the talk didn't amount to anything, she said. She was convinced they were using her to ward off any hints that they don't give black Americans any serious thought.

    The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?
    You are using one of those argument error things but I'm too lazy to look it up. I think it's okay to put limits on people who's mission in life is to ruin other people because they are a different color or have sex with the same sex.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited August 2007
    Aemilius wrote:
    But I'm not there yet. Let's give it another page.

    I so beat you there. This post time limit is killing me.

    I once wrote a twenty-three page essay about why it would be totally cool to slaughter people like that. And materialistic, unthinking tools. And the extremely religious.

    ...This is why I don't read Nietzsche anymore.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."

    Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.

    Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited August 2007
    emnmnme wrote: »
    The stigma against racists is on the rise and there shouldn't be any stigmas against anyone, right?

    You get +10 for Willful Misinterpretation

    In other words, quit being thick. There should be stigmas against bad people. It's only dudes like you, busily trying to whip up a bullshit smokescreen for reprehensible behavior, who have any difficulty understanding this.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."

    Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.

    Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.

    this statement boggles me. "You could believe anything! Theres no way we can let you vote!" o_O

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."

    Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.

    Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.

    this statement boggles me. "You could believe anything! Theres no way we can let you vote!" o_O

    What would you say racism, not just prejudice, but active racism, usually goes hand in hand with?

    I bet all those are bad things, too.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Exactly. You can't just proclaim, "Well, you're a racist and I don't want you fucking up society so you can't vote or work for the government. And if I ever hear you ever whistle Dixie, you're life is ruined."

    Racists become second class citizens and we all know where that goes next.

    Racists make themselves second class citizens by being willfully re-fucking-tarded. I don't think they should be allowed to vote at all, because if you're so fucking stupid as to be a racist, there's no telling what you believe.

    this statement boggles me. "You could believe anything! Theres no way we can let you vote!" o_O
    I completely disagree with OP, but yeah, our constitution is there for a reason.
    Again, it's meant to protect all the jerks as long as no one interferes with each other.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
Sign In or Register to comment.