Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/200414/6
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
edavidt - Posted - 02/26/2011: 18:01:15
quote:
Originally posted by BanjoLink
edavidt - I agree with your lasts two posts - they make a lot of sense. However, Richard also brings up an interesting point regarding a jury knowing someone's state of mind when a crime is committed. There has been a huge amount of discussion regarding black on white hate crime versus white on black hate crime. Statistically, I believe that white on black crime is likely to occur about five times (not exactly sure of the ratio, but way out of whack) the rate as black on white crime. The reasoning being that a "group" that does not have the "power" (i.e. blacks) cannot perpetrate a hate crime, unless there is overwhelming evidence that it was done because of hate. On the other hand those with the power are practically committing a hate crime whenever any crime is perpetuated on a "group" that does not have power. That is very simplified, but that's about what it amounts to. It is that kind of logic that bothers me about defining hate crimes.
I've gone back over this thread and tried, in vain, to find anyone who has defended hate crimes or those who instigate them.
kipperr also brought up motivation earlier. Here is how I think about it (but I am not a lawyer). To be prosecuted as a hate crime, there would have to be evidence submitted that the accused committed the crime because of the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. of the victim. However, the prosecutor would not have to demonstrate to the jury how the accused felt about the victim. Just that the victim was singled out for one of the reasons listed in the legal definition of most hate crime statutes.
In other words, I don't think the legal definition includes the notion of the state of mind of the accused.
KE - Posted - 02/26/2011: 18:21:54
To elucidate that point, there were two cases cited in an article in our local paper (previously cited). In one, the pair of gay men were beaten but remained conscious to testify that the perpetrators stood over them repeating the word "faggot". There was a conviction on a hate crime charge in addition to assault because of the testimony of the epithet. In another case, the two gay men were jumped and beaten unconscious such that they had no recollection of the attack. Hence, no conviction of a hate crime. In both cases, the probable motivation was clear, but they couldn't get a conviction in the second because of lack of evidence.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011: 18:24:00
Legal definitions are notions completely removed from the way we are talking in this thread. We are mostly talking about psychology, ethics, and the rules of conversation. Legal notions are the opposite of these ideas. What that means is that someone could be convicted for a crime he didn't commit just because a jury has been shown that at some previous point in the accused's life he didn't like some ethnic group. What actually occurred doesn't legally matter. That's the law for you: an evil sword when it is in the hands of evil people.
In short, never go to the law to learn about right and wrong.
jbanjoist - Posted - 02/26/2011: 20:56:29
I see the SPLC lists the new black panthers as a "hate" group.
Have to hand it to them on not ignoring the facts of that matter.
What's amusing in general is how when some "people" talk about hate groups it's 99% about a group hating anyone OTHER than regular run of the mill white folks. It always seems the victim must be black, gay, anything else at all but regular white folks or Christians. I guess we aren't capable of being hated to those "people" but we are and how rare is it to hear on the news and also in these pages......
When the NBP guy said they had to kill some white people and kill their babies where was the concern from the "people" that are always ready to squall bloody murder at the mention of any other types of hate speech?
So it's kind of hard to take seriously people that are that hypocritical and to whom the facts mean nothing if they show bias against anyone other than their championed victims.......
Fair is fair, facts are facts, the truth is the truth except to those that can't use it when it doesn't meet their agendas.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/26/2011: 21:08:44
Here is a little light on the background of 'hate groups'.
Thought crime is a theme that has recurred throughout history. It is an tactic rejected by free societies and eagerly wished for in tyrannies. Does anyone feel comfortable on this thread helping to promote trickery that is only used by tyrants, dictators, iatollus, the rulers, the bosses, the man, the chief, the king... you know who I mean--the bigshots with scummed souls?
This kind of thinking is creeping closer and closer to the self-righteousness we see in people who bemoan slavery when it was legal in the country, feeling so good about themselves, but diverting attention from the slavery that is widespread all over the place right now today. They say they hate slavery but they nourish it instead. What's going on?
David Cunningham - Posted - 02/27/2011: 05:15:23
quote:
Originally posted by dlc
quote:
Originally posted by pick1936
I keep hearing the word homophobes, Who are They?? The most hated people today are Christians, So are these people called Christiphobes?? I Do Not hate anyone, but I have read so much of this thread, That it is really kinda scarry the way some folks beleave, according to many on here We All are a little bit haters. I think We should show love to all.
Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso
Yep. (That's not a comment, it's an agreement.)
I don't know folks. I'll be singing in the church choir this morning with no thought whatever of being some persecuted Christian, but I've been hated for being many other things in my life enough to know it and have it on my consciousness. I think you'd have to cross an ocean to find a place where Christians as a group are hated. On this continent I think the prevailing attitude of the non-Christians is that the more extreme and fundamentalist sects are perhaps a bit nutty, but not so much hated.
Hatred in this country is far more focused on many other groups. For instance, think the War On Drugs hasn't generated an enormous amount of hate toward a group while lining the pockets of a select group of people with money taken from the taxpayers? We are a country with privatized prisons (D. Cheney was a BIG investor indicted by grand jury a few years ago). When privatization occurred, they may as well have burned the constitution. Prison corporation stocks should NOT be traded on Wall Street. If you owned stock in a prison and you were a public official, how is it not a conflict of interest to be tough on crime? It allows the fox in the henhouse. That is just one of many examples of the way hate is publicly funded in this country. United we stand, divided we fall - Wall Street and the wealthy have always used side issues to separate the masses thus concentrating political power and wealth. You can always pay one half of the poor to kill the other half.
Voyageur - Posted - 02/27/2011: 06:41:19
quote:
Originally posted by jbanjoist
I see the SPLC lists the new black panthers as a "hate" group.
Have to hand it to them on not ignoring the facts of that matter.
What's amusing in general is how when some "people" talk about hate groups it's 99% about a group hating anyone OTHER than regular run of the mill white folks. It always seems the victim must be black, gay, anything else at all but regular white folks or Christians. I guess we aren't capable of being hated to those "people" but we are and how rare is it to hear on the news and also in these pages......
When the NBP guy said they had to kill some white people and kill their babies where was the concern from the "people" that are always ready to squall bloody murder at the mention of any other types of hate speech?
So it's kind of hard to take seriously people that are that hypocritical and to whom the facts mean nothing if they show bias against anyone other than their championed victims.......
Fair is fair, facts are facts, the truth is the truth except to those that can't use it when it doesn't meet their agendas.
"Regular white folks?" !!??!?!?
I wonder if you have the ability to step back and look critically at what you just wrote, and recognize the inherent and no doubt unconscious bias in it. Your words suggest that being white is somehow the standard for being human; to be white is to be "regular" and "run of the mill," to be anything else is to be "other." Your use of quotation marks around the word "people" strengthens this impression. You used it three times in your post, for example, you say,
"I guess we aren't capable of being hated to those "people."
The quotation marks suggest that they are people in name only and you don't really regard them as such. REAL people are white Christians.
You may respond by saying that isn't what you meant, that I have misinterpreted your words, etc. In fairness to you, I don't think you meant to put other people down, only to stand up for yourself and people like you, and that's fine. But I have encountered this kind of language before, in other places: an unconscious or semi-conscious view that real, normal, regular, actual human beings are white, male, heterosexual, conservative, gun-owning, Protestant Christians, born and raised in the USA. Since only two of those characteristics describe me, I am a bit leery of this view when I encounter it.
Also, in response to another post, I do not believe that "the most hated people today are Christians." Nonsense! An ABC poll reported that 83% of Americans are Christians. Unless Christians are hating themselves, they can't possibly be the most hated group. Maybe some Christian leaders are telling people that Christians are the target of hate in order to scare people into donating money...
mullie1 - Posted - 02/27/2011: 06:53:25
Holy cow, just about snorted out the morning coffee after reading some of the recents posts in this thread. It is a sad day indeed when the discussion of the rise in hate crimes in this country (& the world) evolves in to this. Actually, it isn't surprising.
jbanjoist:....What's amusing in general is how when some "people" talk about hate groups it's 99% about a group hating anyone OTHER than regular run of the mill white folks...........and christians
Richard Dress:.....self-righteousness we see in people who bemoan slavery when it was legal in the country
pick1936:.......You know the homsexuals took, and (ruined) the word Gay............This sickness started It Was called (GRIDS) Gay Related Imune Deficiency. BUT thru the power of All Their Hollywood friends and There powerfull lobby's, They got it changed to (Gay).
Oh, well...and I was feeling so good about myself about bemoaning slavery when it was legal, lol. On a brighter note, great day of skiing yesterday and the conditions are fabulous for another one today. I'll make sure to be on the lookout for any gangs of thugs seeking out regular white folks while also defending against those disease causing homosexuals (I'll try not to call them "gay" out of respect for this board).
You can't make this bs up.
Dagnabbit - Posted - 02/27/2011: 06:59:23
The self anointed, self serving, moral guardians of the SLPC learned long ago that fear mongering, although a great way to separate a certain demographic from their money, requires an ever escalating level of hype to sustain.
By consequence, the definitions they employ to warrant listing as a hate group continue to ever broaden and focus on the hot button issues of their narrow donor demographic. At the same time, groups which espouse very controversial beliefs largely in concert with the political ideology of their donor base escape scrutiny.
Part of the hype entails counting any group with multi-state participation multiple times. In last years "alarming" report on the "astonishing" increase in patriot groups, four groups managed to get counted 184 times. Those four groups represented nearly forty percent of the category. (The John Birch Society, The Constitution Party, We the People, Oathkeepers)
As far as I can tell, admittedly with only a fairly rudimentary knowledge of the beliefs of those groups, none of these present any danger to public safety or engage in, or promote criminal activity. But reading the verbiage on the SPLC's "Hate Map"page, I find that that criminality or even the potential for criminality is not even a factor. Merely expressing your opinions in concert with others of similar beliefs, if contrary to the SPLC's ideology, is enough to earn a spot on the list, while analogous activities even if promoting or committing criminal acts, escapes such notice when better aligned with the SLPC's particular viewpoint .
Can you hate "hate" without becoming exactly what you condemn? I'm not at all sure. But I'm also not at all convinced that beyond self enrichment and self aggrandizement the SLPC isn't predominately just a political group that seeks to silence those who hold views contrary to their own.
For myself, I wholeheartedly support the practice of bigots and extremist political ideologues to self-identify. In my community, there is significant hatred publicly expressed, for "big box stores" replete with vile stereotypical characterizations of the owners and those that patronize those establishments. Developers, landlords, Republicans, Christians, carnivores, conservatives of any stripe, corporations, those skeptical of AGW, Sarah Palin, Walmart, "old white men" and SUV owners are frequently, openly and publically maligned and demeaned by a host of people with various common organizational ties. They appear to embrace only such diversity that nests squarely within their own ideology. They don't make the cut apparently. I'm certain there are all the other kinds of bigotry too. They are just different flavors of the same human condition.
I think it's great. I value free expression and personal liberty far above my personal beliefs, even though I can hardly deny I'd be happy if everyone was reasonable and simply believed exactly as I do.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 07:24:28
The progressive mind, lacking the wit to address the issues raised here are reduced to reading minds, quoting out of context, ad hominems, whatever they can do to dodge the painful truth. I think they have exhausted all their ploys and are ready to wander off.
mullie1 - Posted - 02/27/2011: 07:24:38
quote:
Originally posted by Dagnabbit
... In my community, there is significant hatred publicly expressed, for "big box stores" replete with vile stereotypical characterizations of the owners and those that patronize those establishments. Developers, landlords, Republicans, Christians, carnivores, conservatives of any stripe, corporations, those skeptical of AGW, Sarah Palin, Walmart, "old white men" and SUV owners are frequently, openly and publically maligned and demeaned by a host of people with various common organizational ties. ...
As mentioned several times throughout this thread, the political debate regarding your much maligned groups stated above is a completely different topic...unless christian old white carnivores that love Palin and to to WalMart in their SUV's have suddenly become targets of murder, torture, beatings and bomb attacks. That said I feel terrible that those people in your community are being publically maligned. It can't very comfortable to be constantly demeaned like that.
mullie1 - Posted - 02/27/2011: 07:30:21
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dress
The progressive mind, lacking the wit to address the issues raised here are reduced to reading minds, quoting out of context, ad hominems, whatever they can do to dodge the painful truth. I think they have exhausted all their ploys and are ready to wander off.
I'm a libertarian that strongly believes in personal freedoms so long as you are not harming others. Your wily attempts at assumming that those disagreeing with you are "intellectual, faculty member, progressives" has come up a bit short.
While I feel guilty about bemoaning slavery while it was legal and think it awful that regular white christian folks are being targeted with such violence....I too am aghast that the homosexuals ruined the word "gay.
Frisco Fred - Posted - 02/27/2011: 07:34:28
quote:
Originally posted by minstrelmike
And I've always been on the fringe which is why it's a lot easier for me to see the flaws in other people's 'principles' of culture or ethics or religion or whatever.
In high school during desegregation, none of the Hispanics or Blacks tolerated me because I was (and still am) White. Most of the Whites despised me because I was a long-hair. Most of the White long-hairs despised me because I didn't buy into any of their reasons for protesting 'the man.'
Groups that are large enough can do whatever the hell they want.
We call it History.
I know exactly how you feel. It drives a man (human, ah, homimid, ah, inhabitant of Earth, general organisim in the Milky Way) to play a five string intrument with three fingers to a two / four beat.
In other cultures, it may have been an accordion
Edited by - Frisco Fred on 02/27/2011 07:47:52
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/27/2011: 07:43:47
quote:
Originally posted by mullie1
It is a sad day indeed when the discussion of the rise in hate crimes in this country (& the world) evolves in to this.
I'm sure you meant devolve.
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/27/2011: 07:57:04
quote:
Originally posted by Voyageur
Also, in response to another post, I do not believe that "the most hated people today are Christians." Nonsense! An ABC poll reported that 83% of Americans are Christians. Unless Christians are hating themselves, they can't possibly be the most hated group.
I don't know, Mary, it would seem that enough of them have a sufficient basis for self-loathing to make this a statistical possibility.
edavidt - Posted - 02/27/2011: 08:43:53
quote:
Originally posted by Sultans of Claw
I don't know, Mary, it would seem that enough of them have a sufficient basis for self-loathing to make this a statistical possibility.
Oh, if you only knew my father!
feldspar1333 - Posted - 02/27/2011: 08:54:38
quote:
Originally posted by davidius
quote:
Originally posted by dlc
quote:
Originally posted by pick1936
I keep hearing the word homophobes, Who are They?? The most hated people today are Christians, So are these people called Christiphobes?? I Do Not hate anyone, but I have read so much of this thread, That it is really kinda scarry the way some folks beleave, according to many on here We All are a little bit haters. I think We should show love to all.
Nechville. In Higginsville.
Lee Kelso
Yep. (That's not a comment, it's an agreement.)
I don't know folks. I'll be singing in the church choir this morning with no thought whatever of being some persecuted Christian, but I've been hated for being many other things in my life enough to know it and have it on my consciousness. I think you'd have to cross an ocean to find a place where Christians as a group are hated. On this continent I think the prevailing attitude of the non-Christians is that the more extreme and fundamentalist sects are perhaps a bit nutty, but not so much hated.
Hatred in this country is far more focused on many other groups. For instance, think the War On Drugs hasn't generated an enormous amount of hate toward a group while lining the pockets of a select group of people with money taken from the taxpayers? We are a country with privatized prisons (D. Cheney was a BIG investor indicted by grand jury a few years ago). When privatization occurred, they may as well have burned the constitution. Prison corporation stocks should NOT be traded on Wall Street. If you owned stock in a prison and you were a public official, how is it not a conflict of interest to be tough on crime? It allows the fox in the henhouse. That is just one of many examples of the way hate is publicly funded in this country. United we stand, divided we fall - Wall Street and the wealthy have always used side issues to separate the masses thus concentrating political power and wealth. You can always pay one half of the poor to kill the other half.
Davidius-
Thank you for bringing some sanity into this conversation. I don't see Christians as the most hated group in America either... they are not even in the running. Ask Ted Haggard which has caused him more grief in his life, being gay or being Christian (though I doubt he will take our phone call).
(edited to remove extra spacing)....
Edited by - feldspar1333 on 02/27/2011 08:55:31
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 08:57:38
mullie,
Since you read my post and misunderstood the part about slavery, why don't you also answer the question that was the main point?
"Does anyone feel comfortable on this thread helping to promote trickery that is only used by tyrants, dictators, iatollus, the rulers, the bosses, the man, the chief, the king... you know who I mean--the bigshots with scummed souls?"
I was asking how it feels to be the minion of a tyrant, and got no answer. I must assume that silence means "Yes, I do".
But let me ask again. What was your answer to the question, the answer that you didn't reveal?
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:05:54
Richard, wouldn't a blackboard and video camera be more effective for this presentation style of yours?
Edited by - Sultans of Claw on 02/27/2011 09:07:03
Hotrodtruck - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:09:27
Well, I haven't contributed to this thread, although I have slogged through all 11 pages.
There is no doubt (to me at least) that the term "Hate Crime" is a political construct. It is a mechanism of attaching significance to a crime that advances someone's agenda, or pocketbook. We are supposed to heap additional penalty on someone accused of a "hate crime", the same way we are supposed to be lienient on someone who suffers from a "bad or disadvantaged upbringing".
A crime is a crime. The reason that the person committed the crime is really irrelevant under the rule of law, (IMO), because the crime must be punished in it's own right. Whatever the criminal was thinking (which is protected by the Constitution) should neither increase nor diminish the penalty.
I do realize that the rule of law is selectively applied, especially to politicians, celebrities, and selected groups. But I digress.
We are all free to hate to our heart's content (kind of an oxymoron, I know). If that hatred drives us to murder, it is the crime that must be punished- not the thought.
The radicals of the '60s, who are lionized by segments of our society, should surely fit the bill for the SPLC "hate group" list, although some of the current and past members of that organization are the same '60s era radicals.
YOMV
Mike
Dagnabbit - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:23:11
quote:
Originally posted by mullie1
As mentioned several times throughout this thread, the political debate regarding your much maligned groups stated above is a completely different topic...unless christian old white carnivores that love Palin and to to WalMart in their SUV's have suddenly become targets of murder, torture, beatings and bomb attacks. That said I feel terrible that those people in your community are being publically maligned. It can't very comfortable to be constantly demeaned like that.
Not hardly. The topic of the thread is the "
Sudden Rise in Hate Groups" as defined and reported by the SLPC. You don't get to recharacterize the debate in terms you think are more supportive of your prejudices.
First and foremost, the SLPC clearly states that violence is not the yardstick by which they measure hate groups and I was very specific about that fact. Every word of my previous post relates to the verbatim, self serving proclamation of the SLPC contained in the original post and on statements easily accessed at the SLPC website.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:28:12
Be careful there, Hotrod. You are throwing cold water just when things are getting really fun. We just watched "It's silly to say Christians are hated. Boy, I sure hate Christians."
If you read 11 pages you will see how every issue was avoided by one of these funny contortions. You can't get them to address any relevant points, so the best you can expect is to watch their acrobatics. After 11 pages it begins to get tiresome. It's always the same recipe: ignore the issue, pursue an irrelevancy, and call names.
Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/27/2011 09:29:39
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:33:59
Let's call it the "Dying Squid". The progressive's recipe for argument.
When threatened, squirt off in a random direction, leaving a thick cloud of fecal matter behind.
feldspar1333 - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:41:20
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dress
Be careful there, Hotrod. You are throwing cold water just when things are getting really fun. We just watched "It's silly to say Christians are hated. Boy, I sure hate Christians."
Richard,
If you are talking about my post, you have only proven that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Weren't you the one cautioning about throwing out these sorts of attacks online?!?!?
From Greylock to Bean Blossom - Posted - 02/27/2011: 09:58:47
Hotrod,
Nice summary and a good way to put this one to rest. Your reply showed common sense (I was always wary of the guy that told me he could prove that 1+1=3), justice, and a knowledge of what our constitution says.
Thanks
Ken
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 10:11:32
Not talking about your post, FP. Just discussing the general drift of the thread. There are so many branches that generalizing is the only way to get through these long struggles. No, I wasn't thinking about you when I posted and I wasn't attacking any person.
I picture a bunch of people making up an imaginary 'progressive' and I address myself to that mental construct. You could say it's a template approach. It gets fleshed out by the real individuals participating in the thread and since it is an aggregate, my phantom will never match a real person on the HO. So it doesn't make much sense to complain about it, right? And it gives you a way to change the drift of the thread when the going gets uncomfortable
Now that the drift of the thread has been sidetracked and I have been maligned, let me go back and refresh your memory of the main point of that thread you are posting about:
----------------
Let's call it the "Dying Squid". The progressive's recipe for argument.
When threatened, squirt off in a random direction, leaving a thick cloud of fecal matter behind.
-------------------------
I ask you, do you think that is a fair assessment?
David Cunningham - Posted - 02/27/2011: 10:17:49
The same tricks that were used during the dawn of the progressive era are still being used - by both the left and right. Left and right, black and white, christian and muslim, and so on are not the core issue truly affecting our daily lives. These arguments are ginned up by the corporations and wealthy OF ALL AFFILIATIONS and nations to distract us from the reality, that no matter what president or senator is SELECTED the end product is just about the same. They create emergencies and then tell us that only they can save us, but it will be very expensive. Hate is just another tool in the box used to control the idiot masses (and justify spending enormous amounts on weapons that we can no longer afford). The wealthy elite enjoy socialism - All us regular folks get capitalism. Think it ain't true? What was that bailout for? It's best I think to turn off Fox and MSNBC and all the other media noise, read the histories you won't find in classrooms and play your banjo. That way it's less likely that anti-intellectual parasites like Sarah Palin get the chance to cloud anyone's thinking. We prop up people in national debates who aren't qualified to run a hot dog stand (not to mention let them serve two terms as president). If everyone is arguing about the way the manure smells, no one's watching the horses run. Sadly, in the case of politics and policy in the US, the manure is more interesting than the animals producing it. I'm playing my banjo while Rome burns.
Edited by - David Cunningham on 02/27/2011 10:29:48
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/27/2011: 10:53:20
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dress
Now that the drift of the thread has been sidetracked and I have been maligned . . .
When threatened, squirt off in a random direction, leaving a thick cloud of fecal matter behind.
I ask you, do you think that is a fair assessment?
Yes, all but the part about your having been maligned.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 10:59:29
I am just talking in general, but as you look back over the thread, I think we can all be honest and see it is a fair assessment. Not pointing any fingers, mind you.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:06:33
When he awakens we shall then see. (HPL)
feldspar1333 - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:24:46
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dress
Not talking about your post, FP. Just discussing the general drift of the thread. There are so many branches that generalizing is the only way to get through these long struggles. No, I wasn't thinking about you when I posted and I wasn't attacking any person.
I picture a bunch of people making up an imaginary 'progressive' and I address myself to that mental construct. You could say it's a template approach. It gets fleshed out by the real individuals participating in the thread and since it is an aggregate, my phantom will never match a real person on the HO. So it doesn't make much sense to complain about it, right? And it gives you a way to change the drift of the thread when the going gets uncomfortable
Now that the drift of the thread has been sidetracked and I have been maligned, let me go back and refresh your memory of the main point of that thread you are posting about:
----------------
Let's call it the "Dying Squid". The progressive's recipe for argument.
When threatened, squirt off in a random direction, leaving a thick cloud of fecal matter behind.
-------------------------
I ask you, do you think that is a fair assessment?
Richard,
Thank you for the courtesy of a response.
The main point of the thread was about a SPLC report that referenced the increase of Hate Groups in America, as far as I can tell, the thread has nothing to do with dying squids. I do not feel motivated to answer your question.
I wanted to show you the same courtesy that you showed me by responding to, rather than ignoring, your request.
jbanjoist - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:37:48
Don't you love it? When I say regular white folks that is exactly what I meant. Your everyday run of the mill white people. No where was it intimated that they were anything more than that. No more special than anyone else. Just that when people such as the NBP say what they say you hear nothing in defense of those the they target, regular run of the mill white people. The very same people that run to the defense of every other group stands mute or says it is a non-issue?
All hate speech is bad. Because it is less common towards whites that makes it less bad?
I certainly hope not.
Facts are facts. Hate exists in many forms and should be denounced in all it's forms.
Even the SPLC sees it exists in the form of the NBP but it isn't even considered by the those that tout the SPLC articles on "other" hate groups and then twist my words into a mess.
Well go ahead and do it again. Turn this post into something altogether different from it's meaning.
But I'd ask, do us a favor for the sake of the HO and reasonable discussion.
ASK before you ASSUME.
I mean don't assume that because I play a banjo I absolutely hate tambourines. Yes that is just how far it goes.......
Edited by - jbanjoist on 02/27/2011 11:39:14
Cornflake - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:46:15
Richard, I've been following your posts and have thought you've made some good points: labeling anything and everything you don't like as a hate group is not productive. However, I am put off by what seems to be your all-or-none, us-versus-them, black-versus-white approach. So when push comes to shove, you bring out the generalization "you progressives." I believe that most people of whatever political slant should try to weigh all sides of the issue. I happen to believe that in this world dogmatism doesn't work very well. I consider myself one of the evil progressives, but I certainly hold "conservative" values such as monogamy in marriage, the value of a good education, thriftiness and saving for the future, the productiveness of a free-market economy, albeit with controls over Smith's "invisible hand.". Earlier you brought up--again-- the nastiness of government grants. When I was a kid I was taught that government was not a pejorative term. I was proud of being an American and of our government--even after Vietnam, which I strongly opposed, I believed in our institutions--well, up to a point. Now government has become the new in-group to hate.
KE - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:47:36
It should be abundantly clear now, if it was not before, why the Southern Poverty Law Center fulfills a vital mission.
I have sent them a donation in honor of Friends of the Banjo Hangout so that they may be encouraged to carry on.
I only wish I had an address list of members so all y'all could be on the mailing list. 
KE - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:54:03
Thanks to bobbybanjo for kicking off the discussion, even if it was a hit-and-run one post wonder.
Richard Dress - Posted - 02/27/2011: 11:58:52
Cornflake,
I agree with your sentiments. But look at it this way. You see how the normal flow of argument goes in these threads. Doesn't the Dying Squid sum it up? I am searching for a way to cut to the chase and not always be running around in circles after bloated squid. You say there is a better way and maybe I will find it. Right now I am searching for the best way to navigate blind. I will be grateful for suggestions on a more productive way to counter the really difficult Bruce Lee tactics that KE is practicing.
Sultans of Claw - Posted - 02/27/2011: 12:04:38
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dress
Right now I am searching for the best way to navigate blind. .
Can't see for your own ink?
BanjoLink - Posted - 02/27/2011: 13:24:20
quote:
Originally posted by KE
It should be abundantly clear now, if it was not before, why the Southern Poverty Law Center fulfills a vital mission.
I have sent them a donation in honor of Friends of the Banjo Hangout so that they may be encouraged to carry on.
I only wish I had an address list of members so all y'all could be on the mailing list.
Thank you for this post KE. By it, you have demonstrated the problem much better than any of us could have imagined!
Bill Rogers - Posted - 02/27/2011: 13:24:49
The mods think this one's run its course, and it's generating unacceptable posts. So it's locked.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
