NationStates Jolt Archive

In almost every "controversial" topic that is debated on these forums, invariably someone will result to flames/lies/gross distortions to make a point.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0928.html

This, I think explains alot of it.

In almost every "controversial" topic that is debated on these forums, invariably someone will result to flames/lies/gross distortions to make a point.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0928.html

This, I think explains alot of it.
i dont get it. what explains what?

i dont get it. what explains what?
How Americans are never happy unless they're screaming blindly at each other about meaningless shit.

My mere existence makes me a cultural warrior, apparently.

How Americans are never happy unless they're screaming blindly at each other about meaningless shit.
thats true enough but how did it explain it?

My mere existence makes me a cultural warrior, apparently.
You live to destroy!

Of course people will start telling lies etc...
This is what they feel about this point.
If i felt strongly i about this thread i would say that i am a shrink but considering i'm not and it is completly against the thread!

In almost every "controversial" topic that is debated on these forums, invariably someone will result to flames/lies/gross distortions to make a point.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0928.html

This, I think explains alot of it.

I'm very much in agreement with the article. I've experienced nonsense from both liberals and conservatives who assumed that because of my position on a particular subject I was [insert particular flaw here].

In almost every "controversial" topic that is debated on these forums, invariably someone will result to flames/lies/gross distortions to make a point.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0928.html

This, I think explains alot of it.

Although I have a predisposition to disagree with feminists, I can agree with a few aspects of this article.

Parents have no control over what their children "learn" in schools these days. I believe (and have been of the belief for some time now) that public schools are where indoctrination of the status quo is initiated. Since there is no filter ( parents cannot be there for every class), the children are exposed to whatever the "politically correct" curriculum should dictate.

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).
hmmm

hmmm

Hmmmm what?

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against). Mixing the genes is good for the offspring. Mixed-culture is COMPLETELY different from mixed-race.

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).

Why?

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).Holy crap!

Even on the internet people are usually circumspect about their racism...
(Except if they are talking about Arabs or Jews)

I applaud your honesty and bravery; if not your vile viewpoint.

I wonder why the word "culture" is used in this article. Being pro/con homosexual relationships has absolutely nothing to do with culture. It's an opinion on a certain issue.


Against mixed-race relationships? well, in my "culture", this is called "racism" and - as far as I know - illegal. I HOPE it's illegal... :headbang:

I wonder why the word "culture" is used in this article. Being pro/con homosexual relationships has absolutely nothing to do with culture. It's an opinion on a certain issue.


Against mixed-race relationships? well, in my "culture", this is called "racism" and - as far as I know - illegal. I HOPE it's illegal... :headbang:

Are you truly advocating the illegality of a certain point of view? :confused:

In almost every "controversial" topic that is debated on these forums, invariably someone will result to flames/lies/gross distortions to make a point.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0928.html

This, I think explains alot of it.
I think it does too. I've been guilty of flamming those with whom I strongly disagree, and have been banned from General three times for so doing. On a few highly sensative subjects I can react rather strongly, and often without pausing to consider consequences.

IRL, I will almost always be willing to compromise, or at the very least, to discuss reasonably and without raising my voice.

DISCLAIMER: The last paragraph does not apply to arguments with my ex! :D

Are you truly advocating the illegality of a certain point of view? :confused:


I want neonazism to be illegal. I want racism to be illegal. I want antisemitism to be illegal. I want sexism to be illegal. (etc.)
Neonazis, racists, antisemitists, sexists ... are not only discriminating against me or friends of mine, they are mostly dangerous. Yes. For my own safety, ban their points of view.

I want neonazism to be illegal. I want racism to be illegal. I want antisemitism to be illegal. I want sexism to be illegal. (etc.)
Neonazis, racists, antisemitists, sexists ... are not only discriminating against me or friends of mine, they are mostly dangerous. Yes. For my own safety, ban their points of view.

How do you ban a point of view? The only way I can think of involves killing anyone holding that point of view, and anyone actually passing a law like that would be obliged to start with themselves. You can ban actions, and that is often justifiable, but not opinions, even ugly ones.

Against mixed-race relationships? well, in my "culture", this is called "racism" and - as far as I know - illegal. I HOPE it's illegal... :headbang:

It is not, and cannot, be illegal to believe that mixed-race relationships are wrong. Or even to say that they are wrong. That's an opinion protected by the First Amendment.

However, it is illegal to ban mixed-race relationships. The Supreme Court overturned all anti-miscegenation laws in the US in 1967 as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

In other words, he can express his opinion all he wants, but he can't try to get it enacted into law. (Well, he can try - there's plenty of instances of people trying to get clearly unconstitutional laws passed, and even succeeding - but the courts will just strike it down.)

I want neonazism to be illegal. I want racism to be illegal. I want antisemitism to be illegal. I want sexism to be illegal. (etc.)
Neonazis, racists, antisemitists, sexists ... are not only discriminating against me or friends of mine, they are mostly dangerous. Yes. For my own safety, ban their points of view.
What is it about an expression of racism/sexism/whateverism that is dangerous?
Surely, if I were to state "Blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites", I wouldn't be limiting the freedom of others, would I? How, then, is it wrong?

Racism isn't, and shouldn't be illegal. People must be free to believe any stupid, messed up thing they wish to, it comes hand in hand with the freedom to believe advanced, enlightened, and beautiful things.

But the actions of racism can and should be illegal. It's not illigal to hate [fill in race group] but it's illegal to kill them, or "discriminate" (talk about a highly inappropriate use of a word... 'discrimination' is an excellent quality. what we politely but inaccurately refer to as 'discrimination' is nothing better than groundless, organized hatred) against them is.

As to the article referenced, the man is wholly in the wrong. He wasn't notified because the lesson had nothing to do with sex. Just because that's the aspect of homosexuality his deeply repressed fantasies might linger on doesn't mean that's what it's all about.

The lesson said, essentially, "Some people are born different from you or your father, and they are human beings, too, and their familes are just as valid as our own."

This isn't a choice or an opinion. It's reality. While people have a twisted, effed up "right" to deny that obvious reality, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse their children by preventing them from being exposed to the truth in any way.

What is it about an expression of racism/sexism/whateverism that is dangerous?
Surely, if I were to state "Blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites", I wouldn't be limiting the freedom of others, would I? How, then, is it wrong?

Saying something that idiotic and messed up isn't illegal... Actually doing it? Actually preventing those two people from marrying because of the stupidity of others...? Of course that's wrong.

It is not, and cannot, be illegal to believe that mixed-race relationships are wrong. Or even to say that they are wrong. That's an opinion protected by the First Amendment.

However, it is illegal to ban mixed-race relationships. The Supreme Court overturned all anti-miscegenation laws in the US in 1967 as violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

In other words, he can express his opinion all he wants, but he can't try to get it enacted into law. (Well, he can try - there's plenty of instances of people trying to get clearly unconstitutional laws passed, and even succeeding - but the courts will just strike it down.)

It amazes me. I post this article, in which it points out how some "culture warriors" react in an extreme way to arguments from the other side.

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).

He/she posts that they are fundamentally against something. Which is their right, to believe however they choose to be. Protected speech and all that.

Yet in this very thread Celatea get's attacked, and his/her views distorted. His/her views called "vile" and he/she is called a racist. He didn't say he wanted to ban anything, just that he was personally against it.

I guess it goes further to prove the article.

neocons are to blame for the climate of incivility--all they do is lie on the air all the time

He/she posts that they are fundamentally against something. Which is their right, to believe however they choose to be. Protected speech and all that.

Yet in this very thread Celatea get's attacked, and his/her views distorted. His/her views called "vile" and he/she is called a racist. He didn't say he wanted to ban anything, just that he was personally against it.

I guess it goes further to prove the article.
Ah, but isn't it also our right to disagree? You'll notice that I didn't say "Celatea shouldn't be alllowed to say that" or "It should be a crime to even think that". It is my right to be oposed to anything I want.

Also, how is saying "I am fundamentally against mixed-race relationships." not racist? I am fundamentally against people encouraging racial segregation... and I'll speak out against it whenever I choose.

What is it about an expression of racism/sexism/whateverism that is dangerous?




If a neo-nazi runs around telling people that you have to kill jews, he's dangerous, because he could become violent, because he could make others believe in what he says etc. Therefore, neonazism is illegal.

If a KKK member advocates the lynching of blacks, he's dangerous, for the same reasons. Therefore, racism is illegal.


I know you can't have a "thoughtcrime"-law, not in an amlomst-free nation. But as soon as someone expresses his racist/sexist/... beliefs, he is insulting those he hates and since the government has to protect them, the racist/sexist/... has to be punished.
Nobody can stop me from thinking that all blacks are subhumane beings and should be destroyed, but as soon as I write or talk about it, I'm a criminal. :mad:


P.S.: I DON'T think that all blacks are subhumane beings and should be destroyed.

If a neo-nazi runs around telling people that you have to kill jews, he's dangerous, because he could become violent, because he could make others believe in what he says etc. Therefore, neonazism is illegal.

If a KKK member advocates the lynching of blacks, he's dangerous, for the same reasons. Therefore, racism is illegal.

So if folks could potentially become violent because of their views, their views should be illegal? Oh dear. I guess that means eveything but pacifism should be illegal.

So if folks could potentially become violent because of their views, their views should be illegal? Oh dear. I guess that means eveything but pacifism should be illegal.


Great idea! :D :D

Pacifism rules! :sniper: :p

Parents have no control over what their children "learn" in schools these days. I believe (and have been of the belief for some time now) that public schools are where indoctrination of the status quo is initiated. Since there is no filter ( parents cannot be there for every class), the children are exposed to whatever the "politically correct" curriculum should dictate.

Given that "politically correct" means "correct, in a political sense", when did being correct become a bad thing?

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).

And praise Jesus that you took such a class. If you had been left to stew in your ignorance with no outside influence at all, what kind of person would you be?

Although I have a predisposition to disagree with feminists, I can agree with a few aspects of this article.

Parents have no control over what their children "learn" in schools these days. I believe (and have been of the belief for some time now) that public schools are where indoctrination of the status quo is initiated. Since there is no filter ( parents cannot be there for every class), the children are exposed to whatever the "politically correct" curriculum should dictate.

I remember taking a class that utilized a textbook which advocated mixed-race and homosexual relationships (both of which I am fundamentally against).

Then my very existance must offend you.

I think that Celatea's statement has been taken out of context. (S)he confessed to being personally against homosexuality and interracial marriage. This could quite easily be interpreted as meaning that Celatea would never indulge in either of thise things, but would never seek to interfere if others wanted to do them.

To get back on topic, I also believe that the screaming matches in america are to do with american culture, an overriding american culture that spans both sides of every debate - individualism. Individualism isn't a bad thing in itself, but in america it has become too strong a cultural force.

Americans are brought up to believe that the individual is paramount, ans that each person is not only entitled to hold their own views (however ridiculous) but also entitled to believe that their own views are the correct views, and entitled to have those views taken seriously by other people.

So many americans are entirely convinced of their own superior worth and the superior worth of their beliefs in relation to those of others that they can't help yelling and bawling at each other. What would you do if you were a selfish self-centred soul with an absolute conviction of your correctness and the incorrectness of others?

I believe that in europe, at least in the UK, we are more brought up to be tolerant of other views, and to believe that while we are entitled to our opinions, we should know when they are founded on shaky intellectual ground, and be prepared to accept that some of what we believe might be bollocks.

I think New Independants has pretty near nailed it. I assume that from the tone of your post that you are not an American. Being an American myself, I can't speak for any other country but I would find it hard to disagree with you on your post.

That being said... politically correct became a bad thing when it went too far. By that I mean, for example, the term "drug bust" has become insensitive and racist in Boston College, Indiana University now has ginger persons instead of gingerbread men, firefighters having to have sensitivity training before they could respond to hurricanne Katrina.

neocons are to blame for the climate of incivility--all they do is lie on the air all the time
:rolleyes: Can't you hear yourself?

I wonder why the word "culture" is used in this article. Being pro/con homosexual relationships has absolutely nothing to do with culture. It's an opinion on a certain issue.
The fact that homosexuality is an issue at all is indicitive of a conflict of cultural views.

As to the article referenced, the man is wholly in the wrong. He wasn't notified because the lesson had nothing to do with sex. Just because that's the aspect of homosexuality his deeply repressed fantasies might linger on doesn't mean that's what it's all about.
The lesson said, essentially, "Some people are born different from you or your father, and they are human beings, too, and their familes are just as valid as our own."
This isn't a choice or an opinion. It's reality. While people have a twisted, effed up "right" to deny that obvious reality, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to abuse their children by preventing them from being exposed to the truth in any way.
Bump this.

the lesson wasn't about sex, it was about tolerance, and oppenness. I think these concepts fall squarely into the domain of the public school system.

Bump this.

the lesson wasn't about sex, it was about tolerance, and oppenness. I think these concepts fall squarely into the domain of the public school system.
Personally, I would almost always side with the parents on issues like this. I don't think it's the school's job to tell a parent how they should raise their children. Barring abuse etc.

Personally, I would almost always side with the parents on issues like this. I don't think it's the school's job to tell a parent how they should raise their children. Barring abuse etc.

So the parents get to choose what curriculum their children study, always?

Ok, lets say i'm a parent who wants his children to learn in a state school that Adolf was misunderstood, Jews are evil, blacks are inferior, homosexuals should be gassed, a womans place is in the kitchen and if she doesn't get there she should be beaten, and that Celine Dion is the most talented musician ever to record.

Now...are you going to change the school curriculum for me?

Personally, I would almost always side with the parents on issues like this. I don't think it's the school's job to tell a parent how they should raise their children. Barring abuse etc.Its a line schools have to constantly toe. It simpossible. Every parent had different requirements for how they want their child raised, and school is a huge part of a childs intelectual and ideological developement however you cut it. If you try to de-intelectualize schools to the degree that you're teaching a watered-down, bare, stripped, version of everything, you're doing children a great disservice. Parents are important, but the public system has its own mandate, and it shouldn't bow to parents every time.

I wonder if there was a child with same sex parents in the classroom.

So the parents get to choose what curriculum their children study, always?

Ok, lets say i'm a parent who wants his children to learn in a state school that Adolf was misunderstood, Jews are evil, blacks are inferior, homosexuals should be gassed, a womans place is in the kitchen and if she doesn't get there she should be beaten, and that Celine Dion is the most talented musician ever to record.

Now...are you going to change the school curriculum for me?
That's not what I said... I said almost...
And I think parent notification is extremely important. Not necessarily that the parents have a say in what is taught in the classroom, but they should have an opt out available.

An odd example, Im not too sure about Christian Scientists and their beliefs, but if a biology class were to go against their beliefs, I would be hard pressed to force their child to go to one.

Again, the reasonable person lithmus test would have to be applied.

If a neo-nazi runs around telling people that you have to kill jews, he's dangerous, because he could become violent, because he could make others believe in what he says etc. Therefore, neonazism is illegal.
You still haven't explained why it matters if other believe him. If he becomes violent, he is already doing something illegal, so we don't need to ban racism because of that.
I know you can't have a "thoughtcrime"-law, not in an amlomst-free nation. But as soon as someone expresses his racist/sexist/... beliefs, he is insulting those he hates and since the government has to protect them, the racist/sexist/... has to be punished.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to insult each other? If someone wants to call me something derogatory, I don't see why they should be stopped from doing so.
Nobody can stop me from thinking that all blacks are subhumane beings and should be destroyed, but as soon as I write or talk about it, I'm a criminal. :mad:
Well, that seems a tad authoritarian for my tastes.

That's not what I said... I said almost...
And I think parent notification is extremely important. Not necessarily that the parents have a say in what is taught in the classroom, but they should have an opt out available.

An odd example, Im not too sure about Christian Scientists and their beliefs, but if a biology class were to go against their beliefs, I would be hard pressed to force their child to go to one.

Again, the reasonable person lithmus test would have to be applied.

Yeah but then we enter the area of "what is reasonable?" and "how far does a secular state have to bow to a set of beliefs?".

I dunno, i think educationally, up to a certain point, one size should fit all. UP TO A POINT. I mean, with the Christian Scientist example, it's not like the laws of biology are going to alter themselves to follow the Christian Scientists beliefs, are they? So, i find it a little remiss of the school system to be pandering to a belief system.

ANY belief system, by the way. School should teach the bare facts, and whether you choose to believe them is another matter, but i dislike the idea - intensely - that parents can decide what facts their children are taught, because that pretty much dictates the level of understanding of the world the child has, and traps them into a cycle of ignorant (or deluded) belief.

(I'm not saying belief is ignorant, by the way - although a fair proportion of belief is ignorant - simply that by denying children the opportunity to learn certain facts that challenge your belief system would mean that their belief is ignorant. And - in my eyes - a denial of the basis of most, if not all, of the Abrahamical religions, which make a great play about Free Will)

Obviously, the example of the article is a "moral" example, and the school, in my eyes, shouldn't be teaching it as unchallengeable fact. But then again, it's hardly wrong to be teaching "there are some men who live with other men. Some of these men have children".

Yeah but then we enter the area of "what is reasonable?" and "how far does a secular state have to bow to a set of beliefs?".

I dunno, i think educationally, up to a certain point, one size should fit all. UP TO A POINT. I mean, with the Christian Scientist example, it's not like the laws of biology are going to alter themselves to follow the Christian Scientists beliefs, are they? So, i find it a little remiss of the school system to be pandering to a belief system.

ANY belief system, by the way. School should teach the bare facts, and whether you choose to believe them is another matter, but i dislike the idea - intensely - that parents can decide what facts their children are taught, because that pretty much dictates the level of understanding of the world the child has, and traps them into a cycle of ignorant (or deluded) belief.

(I'm not saying belief is ignorant, by the way - although a fair proportion of belief is ignorant - simply that by denying children the opportunity to learn certain facts that challenge your belief system would mean that their belief is ignorant. And - in my eyes - a denial of the basis of most, if not all, of the Abrahamical religions, which make a great play about Free Will)

Obviously, the example of the article is a "moral" example, and the school, in my eyes, shouldn't be teaching it as unchallengeable fact. But then again, it's hardly wrong to be teaching "there are some men who live with other men. Some of these men have children".
You are right, (going back to my example) the rules of biology don't change. However, Christian Scientists don't do modern medicines. This country has always uphelp their right to refuse medical treatment, even though the rest of the country, including the "reasonable person" thinks that is just stupid.

Freedom of religion is a tricky thing.

My view... the school violated state law, and they do seem to fall into the mold that Wendy laid out... unwilling to compromise, calling police when there was no real need, etc. And the school supporters made (illogical) leaps of logic calling the father evil etc.

I support the school as I support teaching sexual diversity. The parents can try to indoctronate their children, but the community has a responsibility to produce citizens who can function well in society (gay marrage is here to stay in Massachusetts).

I want neonazism to be illegal. I want racism to be illegal. I want antisemitism to be illegal. I want sexism to be illegal. (etc.)
Neonazis, racists, antisemitists, sexists ... are not only discriminating against me or friends of mine, they are mostly dangerous. Yes. For my own safety, ban their points of view.

Yes if you are a black jewish gay.

I hate you and the blacks and the nazis and the gay and the church :mp5: :sniper:
I have the right to hate anyone and to tell about it openly and to teach my children to hate them as well.
I dont have the right to act on this hatred :fluffle: :mp5: :gundge:

Yes if you are a black jewish gay.

I hate you and the blacks and the nazis and the gay and the church :mp5: :sniper:
I have the right to hate anyone and to tell about it openly and to teach my children to hate them as well.
I dont have the right to act on this hatred :fluffle: :mp5: :gundge:
Technically you do have the right to act on that hatred. Freedom of Assembly. You have the right to not associate with someone whom you hate.

That doesn't mean they have to accomidate you, but you have the right to shut yourself away from those groups... only associate with like minded groups etc.


But this is all getting off topic, the point of which is...
Why is it that someone who believes differently than you (the general you) do on an issue of great importance to you is "evil" almost by definition?

Yes if you are a black jewish gay.

I hate you and the blacks and the nazis and the gay and the church :mp5: :sniper:
I have the right to hate anyone and to tell about it openly and to teach my children to hate them as well.
I dont have the right to act on this hatred :fluffle: :mp5: :gundge:


I'm a white christian hetero. :rolleyes:

Do you really have the right to teach your kids to hate them? If you were e.g. gay and you'd tell your kids (let's assume you found out about your homosexuality some time AFTER procreating children) to be homosexual too, I'm sure there'd be a public outcry: "A gay person allowed to educated children and influence them!!" ... And yet, homosexuality doesnt hurt anyone.
But raising little want-to-be-murderers is.

Why is it that someone who believes differently than you (the general you) do on an issue of great importance to you is "evil" almost by definition?

Not everyone considers people with different opinions "evil". Depends on how tolerant they are and how important an issue is to them.

I like having discussions (like most people in forums... ;) ) and I don't mind if someone disagrees with me. If (s)he has been thinking about the pros and cons of a certain issue, has listened to other points of view and still thinks (s)he's right, what's the problem? As long as they let me have my p.o.v. and I let them have theirs...

There are some issues I consider too important than being able to live with someone (literally, like having e.g. a partner with a totally different opinion. I don't care about, neighbours/colleagues/..) who disagrees. As a pacifist, I could e.g. not live with a soldier, although I don't consider soldiers "evil"...

There are some issues I consider too important than being able to live with someone (literally, like having e.g. a partner with a totally different opinion. I don't care about, neighbours/colleagues/..) who disagrees. As a pacifist, I could e.g. not live with a soldier, although I don't consider soldiers "evil"... They don't smell that much…

Anyway - would raising children to hate be "acting" on hatred, as you would be raising them to act in the future? I don't think anyone should be banned from indoctrinating their children - everyone does to some extent, for instance with values like decency and honour (hopefully).

:rolleyes: Can't you hear yourself?
it may sound like Im being a hypocrite but in reality Im a fighter of hypocrisy-Besides what I say is a verifiable fact. There are entire websites devoted to exposing the rampant lies of the hate media

it may sound like Im being a hypocrite but in reality Im a fighter of hypocrisy-Besides what I say is a verifiable fact. There are entire websites devoted to exposing the rampant lies of the hate media
How is "neocons are to blame for the climate of incivility" verifiable fact?

How about the anti-war movement's inflammatory rhetoric "Bush favours genocide", etc. Does that not count as inciting incivility because you agree with them?

Do you not think that you are encouraging incivility yourself by blaming everything on the other side?

How is "neocons are to blame for the climate of incivility" verifiable fact?

How about the anti-war movement's inflammatory rhetoric "Bush favours genocide", etc. Does that not count as inciting incivility because you agree with them?

Do you not think that you are encouraging incivility yourself by blaming everything on the other side?
it all started when the neoconazis hijacked the media and started the inflammotory hate media which was designed to demonize their moral superiors and spread the lies of the corporate beast at the same time.

the anti-war movement made an accurate statement comparing the unjust war in Iraq to genocide because thats exactly what it is--it may be incivil but incivility is ok if its true

I blame the guilty civility be damned--I wasnt put in this life to be polite to people who want me dead

I blame the guilty civility be damned--I wasnt put in this life to be polite to people who want me dead
How is this consistent with your position that the neocons are to blame for the lack of civility? Are you holding them responsible for the things you say?

How is this consistent with your position that the neocons are to blame for the lack of civility? Are you holding them responsible for the things you say?
yes

they make me say all manner of bad things