Sally Kern: Gays Bigger Threat than Terrorists, Islam

[Darth Wong]

I don't have to, fucktard. Any position other than putting 100% of the blame on the rednecks is pure idiocy. You're just too much of a redneck culture apologist to understand that.

Of course you don't have to back it up, because you fucking can't. Show me where I'vew been saying anything remotely resembling "the rednecks aren't at fault"? I guess that shit about intellectual honesty only fucking applies to others. No, seriously mike, show me where I've been appologizing for redneck culture.

You said BOTH sides are "in the wrong", you lying sack of shit. That's exactly what I pointed out in the paragraph right below:

You seem to think that putting only some of the blame on the rednecks makes you enlightened or something. You must be using the Glenn Beck scale of enlightenment.

No, asshole. It makes me smart enough to understand that if ygo looking for trouble and find it, then don't at all suprised about.

Nice backpedaling. You must work out!

That's my fucking point, asshole.

No, your "point" was that both sides were "in the wrong". That was your exact phrase. Sorry, but if you're "in the wrong" for an incident where people are chasing other people and trying to do violence to them, then this is an assignment of at least partial blame. Your pitiful attempt to pretend otherwise is a sad joke.

There is NO REASONABLE way to say that if someone is a victim of near-victim of violence for merely voicing an unpopular opinion in public, he is to blame at all. They were not going out of their way to confront people on a personal level, like picketing a funeral and naming names.

[Mr. Coffee]

You said BOTH sides are "in the wrong", you lying sack of shit. That's exactly what I pointed out in the paragraph right below:

And pointing out that both sides are in the wrong means I'm appologizing for one specific side, right?

No, your "point" was that both sides were "in the wrong". That was your exact phrase. Sorry, but if you're "in the wrong" for an incident where people are chasing other people and trying to do violence to them, then this is an assignment of at least partial blame. Your pitiful attempt to pretend otherwise is a sad joke.

So on planet Wong everyone is an asshole that acts suprised when someone takes offense? I bet I could think of a dozen things to paint on the side of a car that would get you swinging, Mike. Who's fault would be? Mine for painting things on my car specifically to get you pissed enough to try and hamr me or yours for taking the bait?

You seem to think it's an either or, when it's not.

[Darth Wong]

You said BOTH sides are "in the wrong", you lying sack of shit. That's exactly what I pointed out in the paragraph right below:

And pointing out that both sides are in the wrong means I'm appologizing for one specific side, right?

Yes it does, when one side deserves 100% of the blame.

No, your "point" was that both sides were "in the wrong". That was your exact phrase. Sorry, but if you're "in the wrong" for an incident where people are chasing other people and trying to do violence to them, then this is an assignment of at least partial blame. Your pitiful attempt to pretend otherwise is a sad joke.

So on planet Wong everyone is an asshole that acts suprised when someone takes offense?

So only an "asshole" would say things like "NASCAR sucks" or "Hillary for President" or "Man Love Rules"?

I bet I could think of a dozen things to paint on the side of a car that would get you swinging, Mike.

Like what? "Hockey sucks"? "Bush for President?" "Heteros Rule?" "Rock music is rubbish?"

You know perfectly well that I would just laugh at some idiot with shit like that painted on his car. The only way you could do that is by making it personal, like going after my family, and that is NOT the same thing at all. You're just full of shit.

Who's fault would be? Mine for painting things on my car specifically to get you pissed enough to try and hamr me or yours for taking the bait?

You seem to think it's an either or, when it's not.

See above, you dishonest little shit. You know perfectly well that what they did was only "obnoxious" in the sense that it should have provoked others to laugh at them or tell them off. Not in the sense that they should deserve any kind of blame for a breach of the peace, which is what YOU are saying.

[Mr. Coffee]

Yes it does, when one side deserves 100% of the blame.

And here we are back to "it's their fault entirely that someone else went out of their way to provoke them".

So only an "asshole" would say things like "NASCAR sucks" or "Hillary for President" or "Man Love Rules"?

No, dumbass. Only an asshole would go into an area and paint things on their car specifically intended to piss people off. It'd be the same thing is some one where to drive up and down your street with a sign on there car making fun of asians with the specific intent of pissing you off enough to take a swing at them.

Doesn't matter what was said, or who said it, or who it's said too, you go looking for trouble then don't be suprised when you fuckign find it.

See above, you dishonest little shit. You know perfectly well that what they did was only "obnoxious" in the sense that it should have provoked others to laugh at them or tell them off. Not in the sense that they should deserve any kind of blame for a breach of the peace, which is what YOU are saying.

Mike, in that video, which I have to agree was probably staged, they set out with the stated intent to get each other killed or arrested. Right there says they were not out for laughs or getting told off.


Oh, and nice to see you still haven't shown where I was appologizing for rednecks...

[Darth Wong]

Yes it does, when one side deserves 100% of the blame.

And here we are back to "it's their fault entirely that someone else went out of their way to provoke them".

Yes. It's 100% their fault if they are provoked into attempted violence by something that should provoke, at most, insults.

So only an "asshole" would say things like "NASCAR sucks" or "Hillary for President" or "Man Love Rules"?

No, dumbass. Only an asshole would go into an area and paint things on their car specifically intended to piss people off. It'd be the same thing is some one where to drive up and down your street with a sign on there car making fun of asians with the specific intent of pissing you off enough to take a swing at them.

What's this "intent" bullshit? You don't know what the intention is; your argument rests upon the notion that what they did is inherently so offensive that it should provoke a violent response. And in order to salvage this pathetic so-called "point", you keep trying to up the ante, acting as if it's equivalent to driving through a black neighbourhood with KKK slogans on your car. What did they say that was so offensive?

Doesn't matter what was said, or who said it, or who it's said too, you go looking for trouble then don't be suprised when you fuckign find it.

See above, you dishonest little shit. You know perfectly well that what they did was only "obnoxious" in the sense that it should have provoked others to laugh at them or tell them off. Not in the sense that they should deserve any kind of blame for a breach of the peace, which is what YOU are saying.

Mike, in that video, which I have to agree was probably staged, they set out with the stated intent to get each other killed or arrested. Right there says they were not out for laughs or getting told off.

As you said, it's probably staged. The problem is your bizarre interpretation that if you drive through a neighbourhood with statements of political or cultural taste on your car that bother people, then you somehow deserve blame if these people are such savages that they seriously attempt violence.

Oh, and nice to see you still haven't shown where I was appologizing for rednecks...

I did. You just ignored it.

Just look at yourself, asshole: you keep trying to compare this to stuff that's really offensive, like (in your example) driving through a racial minority neighbourhood advertising racist material. You claimed that I would react the same way, if confronted with the same material. And when I pointed out that Canadianized versions of those slogans wouldn't bother me at all, what did you do? You simply upgraded them to racist slogans, as if it's just as bad to make fun of someone's musical or entertainment tastes as it is to make fun of his race.

You continually insist that the behaviour of the rednecks, fictional or not, is actually in line with the way other people might react. In other words, you are saying that their reaction is not really that far out of line. That's apologism, moron.

[Mr. Coffee]

As you said, it's probably staged. The problem is your bizarre interpretation that if you drive through a neighbourhood with statements of political or cultural taste on your car that bother people, then you somehow deserve blame if these people are such savages that they seriously attempt violence.

Mike, that's because I know full well how fuckign stupid the average Southerner really is. I fucking live here. If you've read any of my rants you'd notice that I fucking hate redneck whitebread trailer trash with a passion. I also know that it's fairly well known that these people will fight over who's favorite NASCAR driver is better. They're also incredibly homophobic.

These are all well known sterotypes about the South, mike. So going into a place where you know that the locals are all fucking idiots and will fight you over the stupidest shit and painting slogans that you know will piss them off is FUCKING RETARDED. It's the same thing as going into Compton dressed as a Klansman, you might get your ass kicked because the locals are easilly excited and prone to violence, just like the South.

Have I made it clear enough yet that I'm not appologizing for rednecks?

You continually insist that the behaviour of the rednecks, fictional or not, is actually in line with the way other people might react. In other words, you are saying that their reaction is not really that far out of line. That's apologism, moron.

No, Mike, I've been insisting that if you know that the people you're about to deal with are violence prone idiots and you go and try to intentionally piss them off, then don't be suprised when they get pissed off.

[Darth Wong]

As you said, it's probably staged. The problem is your bizarre interpretation that if you drive through a neighbourhood with statements of political or cultural taste on your car that bother people, then you somehow deserve blame if these people are such savages that they seriously attempt violence.

Mike, that's because I know full well how fuckign stupid the average Southerner really is. I fucking live here. If you've read any of my rants you'd notice that I fucking hate redneck whitebread trailer trash with a passion. I also know that it's fairly well known that these people will fight over who's favorite NASCAR driver is better. They're also incredibly homophobic.

These are all well known sterotypes about the South, mike. So going into a place where you know that the locals are all fucking idiots and will fight you over the stupidest shit and painting slogans that you know will piss them off is FUCKING RETARDED. It's the same thing as going into Compton dressed as a Klansman, you might get your ass kicked because the locals are easilly excited and prone to violence, just like the South.

Have I made it clear enough yet that I'm not appologizing for rednecks?

So why the fuck do you keep insisting that everybody else would react the same way, asshole? Why did you even claim that I personally would react the same way? If you understand that these people are not like everyone else, why do you keep insisting that they are? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by promoting two completely inconsistent arguments while accusing me of distorting your argument by showing what's wrong with one of them.

You continually insist that the behaviour of the rednecks, fictional or not, is actually in line with the way other people might react. In other words, you are saying that their reaction is not really that far out of line. That's apologism, moron.

No, Mike, I've been insisting that if you know that the people you're about to deal with are violence prone idiots and you go and try to intentionally piss them off, then don't be suprised when they get pissed off.

Have I ever said that they would be smart for doing this? No. What I said is that it's pretty fucking sad to have such a fucked up excuse for civilization in the world's most powerful country. But please, if you can find any place where I said that it would actually be a smart thing to actually do this in real life, go on and show me.

You are making two INCOMPATIBLE arguments: you are claiming that only a fool would provoke these people because they're savages, and I can agree with that. But you are also claiming a MORAL argument, which is what "in the wrong" means, and that is something I can NOT agree with.

[Mr. Coffee]

So why the fuck do you keep insisting that everybody else would react the same way, asshole? Why did you even claim that I personally would react the same way? If you understand that these people are not like everyone else, why do you keep insisting that they are?

Because I know that all it takes is the right phrase and you piss off anyone. You're focusing on using the exact same "insult" on everyone, I'm thinking more along the line of using "insults" tailored to the audience. I know rednecks aren't like everyone else, so what pisses off a redneck would get laughed off by most other people.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, by promoting two completely inconsistent arguments while accusing me of distorting your argument by showing what's wrong with one of them.

You mean like how you keep accusing me of being a redneck appologist?

Have I ever said that they would be smart for doing this? No. What I said is that it's pretty fucking sad to have such a fucked up excuse for civilization in the world's most powerful country. But please, if you can find any place where I said that it would actually be a smart thing to actually do this in real life, go on and show me.

Then why have you been defending Top Gear's stunt all this time?

You are making two INCOMPATIBLE arguments: you are claiming that only a fool would provoke these people because they're savages, and I can agree with that.

Ok, then we can put that bit to rest and move on. Groovy.

But you are also claiming a MORAL argument, which is what "in the wrong" means, and that is something I can NOT agree with.

Yeah, I'll have to conceade that. "in the wrong" can mean different things depending on the situation, people, blah blah.

[Darth Wong]

So why the fuck do you keep insisting that everybody else would react the same way, asshole? Why did you even claim that I personally would react the same way? If you understand that these people are not like everyone else, why do you keep insisting that they are?

Because I know that all it takes is the right phrase and you piss off anyone. You're focusing on using the exact same "insult" on everyone, I'm thinking more along the line of using "insults" tailored to the audience. I know rednecks aren't like everyone else, so what pisses off a redneck would get laughed off by most other people.

Tell me, do you think that Danish cartoonists are "in the wrong" for pissing off Islamic fundamentalists? Because that's where this relativist logic seems to lead.

Then why have you been defending Top Gear's stunt all this time?

Because they did nothing morally wrong. At most, what they did was foolish. And since it does compare so well to the Danish cartoonist example, I'm having trouble seeing how one can hold up the Danish cartoonists to be paragons of free speech while simultaneously saying that these guys are assholes.

You are making two INCOMPATIBLE arguments: you are claiming that only a fool would provoke these people because they're savages, and I can agree with that.

Ok, then we can put that bit to rest and move on. Groovy.

But you are also claiming a MORAL argument, which is what "in the wrong" means, and that is something I can NOT agree with.

Yeah, I'll have to conceade that. "in the wrong" can mean different things depending on the situation, people, blah blah.

OK, fair enough.

[Mr. Coffee]

Tell me, do you think that Danish cartoonists are "in the wrong" for pissing off Islamic fundamentalists? Because that's where this relativist logic seems to lead.

"In the wrong" was probably a poor choice of words on my part. That incident, to me, looks more like they knew that these cartoons would piss someone off, they just didn't have any idea of how badly it would piss them off or how many it would piss off. Where the top gear stunt is like seeing a mouse trap, knowing if stick your hand in it then it will bite you, you stick hand anyway. The Danish cartoon's were more along the lines of there being a black box marked "Where not sure how much this will hurt, but it will hurt at least a little", and they stuck their hands in and found out there was a fucking landmine in the box.

One was an act that was done with full knowledge of what it was they were about to do and what exactly might happen. The other is act that was done mostly out of ignorance of what they were about to do and what exactly might happen. Not the same thing, really.

Because they did nothing morally wrong. At most, what they did was foolish.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. It was a very dumb idea and they did anyway. If it wasn't staged and they had gotten their asses beat, part of me would say "what the fuck is wrong with rednecks" while the other part of me would be laughing at three dumbasses that went and stuck their hand in a mouse trap.

And since it does compare so well to the Danish cartoonist example, I'm having trouble seeing how one can hold up the Danish cartoonists to be paragons of free speech while simultaneously saying that these guys are assholes.

That's just it, I don't really think that most of, if any, of those Danish cartoonists actually had any idea of just how badly their cartoons would piss off Muslims. I don't think they're assholes at all. I do think that they probably didn't put much thought into what it was they were doing at the time other then "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if I drew...".

I can support free speach all day long, even in the case of people I personaly think should shut the fuck up. I don't like what groups like, say, they KKK have to say. I think they're all a bunch of fucking racist morons. But I can still support their right to say it, because if you disallow their free speach just because it might offend some people, where's it going to stop. Who's going to decide what's to "offensive" to be said, I mean in just this thread we've seen how just you and I can disagree on what's "offensive".

[The Yosemite Bear]

Ok, what the fuck caused this train wreck?

[Justforfun000]

Lol. I actually got quite a kick out of the irony of the straight man arguing for the side that asserts gay positive slogans should never be offensive enough to warrant violence, and the gay man sounding like he was saying they deserved it.

At the end it's obvious Mr. Coffee was more trying to make the point of how FOOLISH an action is and not the morality or justification of violence. But it is a very interesting debate as to where and how we draw the line when it comes to laws.

See here in Canada, we don't have quite the same latitude for free speech as America and I've said before that I personally think it's better because we try to put limits on things based on how harmful it might be to people. For example, words hate speech is not allowed.

How should the law be designed in order to accommodate freedom of speech and yet protect the peace from deliberate disturbance? It's kind of tough when you're talking about deliberately provoking responses from people that can lead to violence. Of course it's not RIGHT that they react that way, but if culture and society dictates that's the average reaction at this time, shouldn't it be irresponsible to just let it happen? Would like to hear some opinions.

[Darth Wong]

"In the wrong" was probably a poor choice of words on my part. That incident, to me, looks more like they knew that these cartoons would piss someone off, they just didn't have any idea of how badly it would piss them off or how many it would piss off. Where the top gear stunt is like seeing a mouse trap, knowing if stick your hand in it then it will bite you, you stick hand anyway. The Danish cartoon's were more along the lines of there being a black box marked "Where not sure how much this will hurt, but it will hurt at least a little", and they stuck their hands in and found out there was a fucking landmine in the box.

They would have to be pretty fucking stupid to know about fatwas and death threats against filmmakers and authors such as Salman Rushdie and not know that Muslims could be very easily sparked into a violent rage.

One was an act that was done with full knowledge of what it was they were about to do and what exactly might happen. The other is act that was done mostly out of ignorance of what they were about to do and what exactly might happen. Not the same thing, really.

Actually, since many people view the angry violent idiot redneck American southerner as a movie stereotype rather than a serious reality (indeed, I have been attacked for using this stereotype on this forum), I don't see how this is any more obvious than Muslim rage.

Because they did nothing morally wrong. At most, what they did was foolish.

That's what I've been trying to say all along. It was a very dumb idea and they did anyway. If it wasn't staged and they had gotten their asses beat, part of me would say "what the fuck is wrong with rednecks" while the other part of me would be laughing at three dumbasses that went and stuck their hand in a mouse trap.

And since it does compare so well to the Danish cartoonist example, I'm having trouble seeing how one can hold up the Danish cartoonists to be paragons of free speech while simultaneously saying that these guys are assholes.

That's just it, I don't really think that most of, if any, of those Danish cartoonists actually had any idea of just how badly their cartoons would piss off Muslims. I don't think they're assholes at all. I do think that they probably didn't put much thought into what it was they were doing at the time other then "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if I drew...".

On the contrary, Europeans tend to be more aware of what non-Christians think about things than Americans are. I doubt they were unaware that Muslims would be pissed off, and in the environment of this "Global War on Terror", it's not exactly a stretch to think that Muslims are going to be unusually defensive.

I can support free speach all day long, even in the case of people I personaly think should shut the fuck up. I don't like what groups like, say, they KKK have to say. I think they're all a bunch of fucking racist morons. But I can still support their right to say it, because if you disallow their free speach just because it might offend some people, where's it going to stop. Who's going to decide what's to "offensive" to be said, I mean in just this thread we've seen how just you and I can disagree on what's "offensive".

There's a pretty big difference between defending freedom of speech and declaring that it's impossible to differntiate between what is an immoral thing to say and what isn't. "NASCAR sucks" is a matter of taste, like "Hockey sucks". "Kill the niggers", on the other hand, is obviously far worse, and don't give me that "who's to say" nonsense.

[Mr. Coffee]

Ok, what the fuck caused this train wreck?

That would've been me calling the Top Gear guy's dumbasses a page or two back, TYB.

Actually, since many people view the angry violent idiot redneck American southerner as a movie stereotype rather than a serious reality (indeed, I have been attacked for using this stereotype on this forum), I don't see how this is any more obvious than Muslim rage.

Honestly, before the Dannish Cartoons thing I was aware that there were quite a few Islamics out there that were flat out crazy, but it wasn't until after that I really had an idea of just how wide spread the whole "Asshats For Allah" mentality was. In comparission, I see the ignorant hick redneck sterotype EVERY SINGLE DAY (and don't let anyone fool ya, there's a damned good reason for that sterotype existing).

So I guess for me it's more of a matter of exposure to either. I don't really see angry Islamics as much of a threat to me because their aren't enough Islamics in my entire state to threaten boyscout troop. I do see irate fight-at-the-drop-of-a-hat drunken rednecks everyday and I've seen the sort of damage that results from their shenanigans first hand, so to me they're a much more immediate threat.

On the contrary, Europeans tend to be more aware of what non-Christians think about things than Americans are. I doubt they were unaware that Muslims would be pissed off, and in the environment of this "Global War on Terror", it's not exactly a stretch to think that Muslims are going to be unusually defensive.

Then I guess it is a case of "I told you mouse traps hurt, dumbass". Yippie free speach and all, but if they had an idea of what could happen and they did it anyways then double-dumbass on them. Still doesn't excuse or mitigate the 97.3 shades of dumbassery on the part of the Islamic reaction to the cartoons, but still...

There's a pretty big difference between defending freedom of speech and declaring that it's impossible to differntiate between what is an immoral thing to say and what isn't. "NASCAR sucks" is a matter of taste, like "Hockey sucks". "Kill the niggers", on the other hand, is obviously far worse, and don't give me that "who's to say" nonsense.

True, there's a massive difference between "Your Favorite Sport Sucks" and "Kill all the (Insert Race Here)". That difference is the reason why when groups like Westburough Baptist or Aryan Idiots For White Jesus have a "protest" or whatever they usually require a police escort to keep them from getting the shit beat of them by the people they're trying to "protest" against.

Let's reverse it from the Top Gear situation of relitively harmless slogans to Westburough Baptist holding up signs with slogans that are blatently homophobic and racist. Is it still wrong if someone takes the bait and beats the hell out of them (Yeah, legally it's still wrong in any case)? Are they at fault for getting the shit beat ourt of them for waving around offensive signs and such?

[Darth Wong]

Honestly, before the Dannish Cartoons thing I was aware that there were quite a few Islamics out there that were flat out crazy, but it wasn't until after that I really had an idea of just how wide spread the whole "Asshats For Allah" mentality was. In comparission, I see the ignorant hick redneck sterotype EVERY SINGLE DAY (and don't let anyone fool ya, there's a damned good reason for that sterotype existing).

Yes, but would someone who doesn't live around there know that? It doesn't help that Southerners are so defensive about this stereotype; there used to be plenty of people on this very forum who would angrily attack me whenever I mentioned that stereotype. The same sort of person who calls the American Civil War the "War Between The States".

So I guess for me it's more of a matter of exposure to either. I don't really see angry Islamics as much of a threat to me because their aren't enough Islamics in my entire state to threaten boyscout troop. I do see irate fight-at-the-drop-of-a-hat drunken rednecks everyday and I've seen the sort of damage that results from their shenanigans first hand, so to me they're a much more immediate threat.

On the contrary, Europeans tend to be more aware of what non-Christians think about things than Americans are. I doubt they were unaware that Muslims would be pissed off, and in the environment of this "Global War on Terror", it's not exactly a stretch to think that Muslims are going to be unusually defensive.

Then I guess it is a case of "I told you mouse traps hurt, dumbass". Yippie free speach and all, but if they had an idea of what could happen and they did it anyways then double-dumbass on them. Still doesn't excuse or mitigate the 97.3 shades of dumbassery on the part of the Islamic reaction to the cartoons, but still...

The Salman Rushdie thing was famous world-wide, so I really can't understand how someone could be unaware of it, or what it says about Muslim radicalism.

There's a pretty big difference between defending freedom of speech and declaring that it's impossible to differntiate between what is an immoral thing to say and what isn't. "NASCAR sucks" is a matter of taste, like "Hockey sucks". "Kill the niggers", on the other hand, is obviously far worse, and don't give me that "who's to say" nonsense.

True, there's a massive difference between "Your Favorite Sport Sucks" and "Kill all the (Insert Race Here)". That difference is the reason why when groups like Westburough Baptist or Aryan Idiots For White Jesus have a "protest" or whatever they usually require a police escort to keep them from getting the shit beat of them by the people they're trying to "protest" against.

Let's reverse it from the Top Gear situation of relitively harmless slogans to Westburough Baptist holding up signs with slogans that are blatently homophobic and racist. Is it still wrong if someone takes the bait and beats the hell out of them (Yeah, legally it's still wrong in any case)? Are they at fault for getting the shit beat ourt of them for waving around offensive signs and such?

WBC doesn't just say "offensive" things. They make it personal. They go after the grieving family members and defile the memory of the deceased, right to their faces. That, I think, is on a whole different level. It's like going up to a black gang member and telling him that his momma (using her real name) is a stupid whore and you're going to laugh when she goes to Hell where she belongs.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I wonder if this kind of redneck douchebaggery is related to extreme climates. I grew up in northern Alberta and saw similar behavior firsthand, I still won't forget the numbness that washed over my face when a friend of mine, who was in a bit of a bisexual phase at the time and flamboyantly dressed, was driven out of a pizza parlor by a roaring creatine freak who seemed firm in his assertion that the pizza parlor wasn't for "GODDAMN FAGGOTS". Hell, I've been threatened by rigpigs and rednecks at parties if I try to keep to myself and hold a conversation with the handful of attendees who would be receptive to any discussion above the level of discourse of trucks and paychecks and drugs and women they'd love to dominate, because apparently talking "too much", even if it's not in their company, is justification for assault.