 sj |
||
|
||
BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred
|
|
|
Subject: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Oct 05 - 09:13 PM Although this is almost about a band, I think it counts as BS. In the UK we have a recent Blairite law that prohibits the promotion of religious hatred. There is a metal band called "Cradle of Filth". They sell merchandising that some find offensive. One of their tracks is called "Cherish the Whore" and they have long sold a T-shirt that bears on the front that track name plus a picture of an improbably voluptuous nun masturbating with a crucifix. Within the last week or so, a young man wearing such a T-shirt with an addditional inscription on the back of "Jesus is a cunt" has been convicted of inciting religious hatred. Is this a justified restriction of freedom of speech or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: bobad Date: 19 Oct 05 - 09:33 PM Nah, that's just a childish, profane attempt to curry attention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Deckman Date: 19 Oct 05 - 09:52 PM But it might sell CD's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 Oct 05 - 10:05 PM Art (and I don't mean Mr Thieme!) has long often skirted the limits of 'currently accepted offensiveness' in attempts to shock the audience into new ways of thinking. Sometimes it's an advance, sometimes it's a retrograde step - usually only judged in hindsight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: John O'L Date: 19 Oct 05 - 10:47 PM It can't be all black or all white. What people wear on their T-shirts is their business until they wear it where it can be seen by someone else's children. Children should not have to be introduced to the ugliest society has to offer as soon as they learn to read. I regard that as child abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Paco Rabanne Date: 20 Oct 05 - 07:39 AM I'd tell his mum! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bunnahabhain Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:16 AM Yes, it is entirley justified. Imagine if the T-shirt had had the same woman in Islamic clothing, and "Mohammed is a Cunt" on the back. This man would have convicted in three seconds flat, and almost certainly have recieved a much harsher punishment. This is, of course, assuming he was actually arrested*. If he was wearing a T-shirt as I described, in many areas he'd find himself in hospital, not a police station. Possibly alive, as well. If you're going to have this law it must be applied to all faiths, without Bias. * either for the incitement to hatred, or being criminally stupid,a nd a danger to himself. I don't know if that's possible, but it seems a good idea sometimes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Wesley S Date: 20 Oct 05 - 11:20 AM Recently here in Texas a woman was wearing a T-shirt that was a takeoff on the movie "Meet the Fockers" - but it had a picture of the president and vice president and it said "Meet the Fuckers". She was told she could not board an airplane { Southwest Airlines I believe } until she covered up the shirt or changed it. She felt her free speech was infringed upon. I disagree. While I agree with her assessment of the president and vice president I don't think a t-shirt with that language should be worn if there is the very real chance that kids would be exposed to it. That same t-shirt worn at a Democratic Party fund raiser or an anti-war rally might be just fine. But I don't think the general public needs to have it forced upon them. Aside from I think that an airline - like any other business - has the right to tell people using their services what clothing is suitable. Your opinion may vary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:06 PM I think we need to keep in mind who is doing the censoring. If someone wears a tasteless and / obscene T-shirt or such, the government has no business whatsoever in getting involved. If, however, you're running a restaurant and someone comes in wearing a message T-shirt that you find offensive and feel certain that some of your other patrons might also, then you're perfectly within your legal and Constitutional rights to refuse them admission or service. This would hold true for any privately owned business, such as an airline. If I own a public address system and someone wants to use it to broadcast a message that I don't agree with, the Constitution—and the First Amendment—do not require that I allow him to use it, no matter how much he may protest that I am abridging his freedom of speech. One should be clear about this: the Constitution restricts the powers and actions of the government. But not private citizens. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: GUEST, Devil's Advocate Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:10 PM But, shurely Jesus is a component of the Holy Trinity and, therefore, is God and, therefore, omnipotent and, therefore, all things and, therefore, ... a cunt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Jon W. Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:21 PM How do you go from Omnipotent (All-powerful) to "all things?" That's where your logic breaks down. It would be logically impossible for God to be "All things" since some things are mutually exclusive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:31 PM If God were "all things," then He/She/It is both Good and Evil. That means that God must also be Satan. That puts a whole new spin on theology. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:57 PM Erm ... yes, that's exactly what all powerful means. Good AND evil at the same time. That's where Abramic theology breaks down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Auggie Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:08 PM I would suggest it is rather, where our 'understanding' of God in Abramic theology breaks down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:21 PM Ahh ... so the logic is sound but we're too stupid to interpret it correctly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Auggie Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM Quite frankly, there are any number of concepts which come to mind that I am most assuredly "too stupid" to comprehend, not the least of which is the true nature of God. But I hold hope that perhaps some day I shall become as enlightened as you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:50 PM Good one. Ouch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Auggie Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:52 PM Sorry Just funnin don't you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:04 PM My respect for TheBigPinkLad has just taken a quantum leap! When someone can recognize that they've been parried, then nailed with a solid riposte, and acknowledge the hit, therein one finds a gentleman and a scholar! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:07 PM Or a sarcastic sod, Don ;o) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:20 PM Fuck it... it's a t-shirt... you dont' like it? Tough... don't buy one... You don't like that I'm wearing one? Tough... Don't buy my CD... Don't like that -I- hate your religion? Tough... That's life for ya... Some people are going to hate you... sometimes for no reason... Try not to lose any sleep over it... You don't like that your poor little baby might have to see what's on my t-shirt? THink of this as an opportunity for you to show the world what a good parent you are by taking the time to talk to them about it... I don't give a shit about your baby.... And I'm not gonna change my driving just because YOU put a stupid "Baby On Board" sign in your car window... the world doesn't change cauae YOU put up a sign... Or because you don't like what I have on my t-shirt... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 20 Oct 05 - 04:01 PM I think the young man's T-shirt expresses contempt. That's not necessarily the same thing as expressing hatred. The only way such a shirt could incite hatred would be to incite hatred against the person wearing it. That's not a crime, it's stupidity on the wearer's part. Trust me, nobody felt the least bit compelled to go burn down a church after reading the message on that T-shirt. Furthermore, the shirt didn't say something like "Jesus is a cunt. Mohammed is the true prophet." Its message is nihilistic, not antagonistic. Last time I checked, nihilism was still a legal worldview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Oct 05 - 04:25 PM Hells bells. For I think the first time ever I agree with BOTH the above posters! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 05 - 04:36 PM They would probably have arrested Cornelis van Haarlem (1562-1638) Dutch painter (Haarlem), for "The Monk and the Nun," 1591, Oil on canvas, Frans Halsmuseum, Haarlem. If you scroll down on the description, you'll find that everything has it's pious explanation. All that's needed is a good lawyer. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 20 Oct 05 - 05:38 PM I'm sorry, but the ARE things which are simply beyond the pale. Tee Shirts of that sort could be worn in 'some' places, at private gatherings, but as liberal as I am, and relatively tolerant, I would not appreciate stuff **designed** to be offensive and crude. Clever things with double-entendré remarks are one thing: stupid, hateful obscenities are another. I simply do NOT feel that anything goes, and that the filtering is the responsibility of everyone else. Anyone who puts on a shirt like that KNOWS whether it crosses the line, and they are doing it because it crosses the line.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:33 PM Best t-shirt I ever had read: "I am trying to see things from your point of view but I can't stick my head that far up my ass." I made use of it once many years back in a meeting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 21 Oct 05 - 12:37 AM " I simply do NOT feel that anything goes" Fortunately, it's not your world... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: John O'L Date: 21 Oct 05 - 01:16 AM Don't get so upset Clinton. You're such an old softie... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: open mike Date: 21 Oct 05 - 02:19 AM i heard another t-shirt story to compare to the "faukers, fockers" one a fellow was wearing a shirt that had George Bush's face and the words "international Terrorist" on it. he was refused boarding on a plane because someone took offense at his shirt, or rather the image on it. He was asked to remove or cvhange the shirt and he would not. He was removed from the plane and offered a free ticket for the inconvenience. This was a different airline than the one the woman was on in the previous story. The fellow was david rovics (www.davidrovics.com) a brilliant singer songwriter who has many hard-hitting songs. He says you can get the shirt at http://www.internationalterrorist.com/ As far as rights go, he learned that when you are in the "PUBLIC" airport terminal, your rights are protected more than when you are in the "private" airplane. he said it was unfortunate that the woman's shirt had a profanity on it, as it could have made a more positive statement if it was not as offensive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Piers Date: 21 Oct 05 - 04:45 AM I'm with Stephen Fry on this one: 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Liz the Squeak Date: 21 Oct 05 - 05:03 AM Hells teeth, our children are forced to grow up so quickly already, can we not save a few obscenities for them to discover on their own? But I also have to agree (shudder) with the remark that we should take some time and explain to our children what the word means and why it is not suitable to repeat it. I do that with Limpit and the result is, she knows a lot of obscene words but doesn't use them, a) because she knows I don't like her to and b) because we try not to use them at home. They are words for special occasions, not for everyday. I have no problem with people wearing obscenities on their bodies, just don't tell me I've got to like it. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 21 Oct 05 - 05:58 AM Anyone who puts on a shirt like that KNOWS whether it crosses the line, and they are doing it because it crosses the line.... The line is one of judgement personal taste and not fixed. But the question is less one of taste but of what could or should be done to address such things if or when someone consider that someone else has crossed a line. Is it really anyone else's business what another chooses to wear in public. Other people wearing nothing would offend some of us and be thought to be crossing a line and would risk arrest. I suggest that - it would not offend any of our various gods and creators who felt this mode of dress was perfectly acceptable in which to be introduced to the world and through a certain orifice - often called a cunt. But is it really so bad to read something that is not to your taste when no one is forcing you to agree with it? If someone is intentionally crossing a line only to shock, offend and be noticed - perhaps it is best to simply ignore it? For everytime a fuss is made - it simply means that the next time someone wishes to intentionally cross the line - it will be crossed even more. Hysterical reactions tend not to help but always to make matters worse. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' Probably the very worst thing for someone who does something only to be noticed - is not to notice them. Artists do not usually mind if their work offends or delights - they do mind if no one notices it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: John O'L Date: 21 Oct 05 - 06:12 AM The human is a social animal and as such needs certain conventions by which to operate within the society. Without these conventions society would not operate at all, and those who choose to ignore those conventions do so in order to be ostracised. Some of them end up here. That's OK, we all wear obscene t-shirts here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 21 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM What a suggestion! If any one is wearing an obscene T-shirt whilst reading or posting to this thread - that is really crossing the line. I have come over all faint and weak at the knees at just the thought of it. I demand that this thread is subject to imposed deletion or closure from our anonymous fellow posters immediately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Peace Date: 21 Oct 05 - 02:18 PM Read my t-shirt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: bobad Date: 21 Oct 05 - 02:23 PM Can you just move a little closer to your monitor, I can't quite make out all the words. I can see a F... and O.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 21 Oct 05 - 03:21 PM "Don't get so upset Clinton" Who's upset? I'm HAPPY it's not BillDs world.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:38 AM I prefer to type my posts without a t-shirt - in fact wearing nothing at all. Is no one offended by this confession and is no one going to pass judgement and demand that someone does something about this practice? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Peace Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:40 AM "Is no one offended by this confession and is no one going to pass judgement and demand that someone does something about this practice?" S'far as I'm concerned, you can practice your typing as much as you want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 22 Oct 05 - 05:38 AM Is it not to be judged as 'obnoxous'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 22 Oct 05 - 11:47 AM *standing VERY close to monitor...although facing away*... me...now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: bobad Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:04 PM Good one BillD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: JohnInKansas Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM And please note that Bill D. appears to have mudcat on the monitor. I can't quite read his next post though. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM of course...Bill usually has Mudcat on the monitor! *grin*...(and sometimes he combs his hair before typing, but putting on the tee-shirt...well..)) That is this thread before my post..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Cluin Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:04 PM Technically, it should read "Jesus WAS a cunt". Sloppy thinking... that's what I have no tolerance for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: dick greenhaus Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:24 PM If you have to draw a line somewhere, it prolly dosen't make much difference exactly where you draw it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:44 PM oh, sure it does, Dick...it's like 'folk music'...there stuff that clearly IS and stuff that clearly is NOT....and a gray area in between. One draws lines in the 'clearly' area... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 23 Oct 05 - 05:02 PM Perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: John O'L Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:41 PM Sloppy thinking Cluin? Wishful thinking more like. I don't think he was or is half the cunt he's going to be when he comes back and sees what we've been up to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: dick greenhaus Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:34 PM Bill- The posiyion of the line--whether it's obscenity or folkishness--depends upon the sensibilities of the line-drawer. Just try defending your idea of what's clearly "not folk" to a most mudcatters, and you'll see what I mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 23 Oct 05 - 10:10 PM *grin*...oh, I totally understand your point, Dick...but the very laws we live by every day are decided the same way. Every law on the books probably has someone who doesn't believe in it. Just because I can't convince everybody, doesn't mean I'm 'wrong' about the need to draw a line. There is a legal concept of behavior that is prohibited because it disturbs the peace or incites a riot....in other words, stuff you can do alone, or in private gatherings, but which cause too much consternation when done in public. (Naked girls walking down the street 'can' contribute to traffic accidents....on certain beaches, they are not a serious problem....if you see what I mean.) And playing bagpipes outside YOUR window at 3AM might not meet with approval, no matter how well they're played, or how sincer the piper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Oct 05 - 09:37 AM In Germany, it would be a question of the context. As a cartoon accompanying an article critical of a faith it would be considered as free speech. Someone wearing the T-shirt at a concert of the band would be considered free speech. Someone wearing the T-shirt walking down just any street would probably still considered using his right of free speech. Someone wearing that T-shirt ostentatively during a Christian religious procession or in a church would probably be sentenced. Someone walking with that T-shirt in Bunnahabhain's version down a street with nearly exclusively Muslim neighbourhood would be sentenced for inciting religous hatred. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:14 AM you see?! If Wolfgang & I both agree, it MUST be the right approach! ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 24 Oct 05 - 11:42 AM One more and you can invade Poland. I have heard a recent rumour That some German's are judges of humour Perhaps they're confusing What they find amusing With the misery that comes with a tumour? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Oct 05 - 08:01 AM BillD, "Clever things with double-entendré remarks are one thing: stupid, hateful obscenities are another." And you will now comment on all the stupid, hateful obscenities piled on conservatives here? Or is it that ALL remarks about conservatives are "Clever things with double-entendré remarks" ? It always seems that the offensive speech or image that SHOULD be suppressed is that of those who the supresser does not agree with. I would still rather have the impact of the offensive speech than the supression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: DavidHannam Date: 25 Oct 05 - 09:14 AM Yes. When i hear words like offensive, i cringe. I cringe because just as the bully at school called me big-nose, i called him fatty, being offensive has been human nature since the dawn of time. We are human afterall. I as you may imagine, get called many names, do i get offended, yes sometimes, do i think that person should be locked up for offending me, no. Being offensive is what happily makes us human. Laws trying to change that are really the pinnacle of repression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: GUEST Date: 25 Oct 05 - 10:46 AM I once saw a tee shirt that said "I'm so horny the crack of dawn looks good." I was amused by that, because know a woman named Dawn. However another I saw said "Smile if you like to fuck." that one reminded me that profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM "profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself" What an inane, ludicrous and erroneous statement... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 05 - 11:43 AM "stupid, hateful obscenities piled on conservatives here?" ...you will note I don't use such. I object to ALL gratuitous use of obscenities - especially in conducting arguments. When I am made Lord High Mudcat Poobah of Taste and Delicacy the standards will be a bit higher. In the meantime, I am hard pressed to remember just how & when conservatives were singled out. I barely remember it happening at all. What I remember is Martin Gibson, local conservative, dishing it out in the other direction. I don't want to spur a frenzy of searching and posting examples,ala Shambles, but do you really remember LOTS of "stupid, hateful obscenities piled on conservatives here"? And why did you expand my remark about basic bad taste to include purported castigation of conservatives??? Followed by an extra bit of "straw man" hyperbole: " Or is it that ALL remarks about conservatives are "Clever things with double-entendré remarks" ?" I was not talking about conservatives! Conservatives had not been an issue until you dredged it up! Why, some of my best friends are conservatives! ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Oct 05 - 11:54 AM "When I am made Lord High Mudcat Poobah of Taste and Delicacy" Then we'll know there isn't any taste or delicacy.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: GUEST Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM ...an inane, ludicrous and irroneous statement? I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 05 - 12:31 PM giving your spell checker a rest, too, I see... ☺ "Then we'll know there isn't any taste or delicacy...." gee, Clinton,..and I was gonna make you my deputy! Now I have to look for someone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 25 Oct 05 - 01:20 PM Taste is the enemy of art. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM BillD, We were discussing the line you would draw between free speech and stupid, hateful obscenities: I chose the example of the sometimes objectionable ( ie, if it was done to a side one supported one would object) treatment of the minority viewpoint here. I DID NOT state that YOU were talking about conservatives. YOUR statement was "Clever things with double-entendré remarks are one thing: stupid, hateful obscenities are another." Thus, my comment. How is that a straw-man arguement? If you chose not to voice your objection to treatment you claim to object to, what should I think, given your statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 05 - 02:15 PM straw man is suggesting arguments that have not been made in order to ridicule them..... Suggesting that "...ALL remarks about conservatives are "Clever things with double-entendré remarks" is such a usage, even when asked in a rhetorical way. The example feels like 'bait' to change the issue under discussion. " I DID NOT state that YOU were talking about conservatives." ..of course not....but the choice of examples seems to imply that I should. As to 'sometimes objectionable treatment of minority viewpoints'...it happens to all viewpoints at times, although I still do not see the volume here that would make THAT a good choice of examples. One's choice of examples, just as in one's choice of insults, steers the conversation awry. It is, sadly, the case that many extreme conservative viewpoints are expressed with a rigidity and attitude (ala Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter) that make it VERY hard to debate certain points seriously. (No...I do NOT think that 'most' liberal viewpoints employ similar rhetorical devices...so pointing out one example won't convert me.) short version of all this: It felt like bait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Oct 05 - 03:59 PM Profanity is the spice rack in the kitchen of language... muthafuka |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 05 - 04:16 PM indeed, Clinton...if used judiciously! Those who salt, pepper and flavor EVERY dish with lots of spices lose the taste of the food....and 'mothafuka' has been so overused that it means almost nothing anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: dick greenhaus Date: 25 Oct 05 - 04:36 PM re; DRAWING LINES DIYARBAKIR, Turkey (Reuters) - A Turkish court has fined 20 people for using the letters Q and W on placards at a Kurdish new year celebration, under a law that bans use of characters not in the Turkish alphabet, rights campaigners said. The court in the southeastern city of Siirt fined each of the 20 people 100 new lira for holding up the placards, written in Kurdish, at the event last year. The letters Q and W do not exist in the Turkish alphabet. Under pressure from the European Union, Turkey has improved language and human rights for its Kurdish minority, but the EU says implementation has been patchy and loopholes remain. The 1928 Law on the Adoption and Application of Turkish Letters changed the Turkish alphabet from the Arabic script to a modified Latin script and required all signs, advertising, newspapers and official documents to only use Turkish letters. More than 30,000 people have been killed, most of them Kurds, since the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels began an armed campaign for Kurdish self-rule in the mainly Kurdish southeast of Turkey. As I said before, if you're gonna draw a line, it doesn't much matter exactly where you draw it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 05 - 07:24 PM "scholars in that case, it made a great deal of difference....and in that case, those who drew the line knew exactly what they were doing in daring anyone to assert a cultural/political position different from the government's. In Quebec, they draw the lines differently, requiring that signs must not be in English only. I maintain that lines can be drawn that allow everyone 'some' leeway, or that guarantee strife. Unless you are using a pretty personal notion of 'makes no difference', I don't see why you say it that way, Dick. Are you advocating drawing no lines? You don't say so specifically. I DO advocate carefully considered lines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: dick greenhaus Date: 25 Oct 05 - 07:56 PM No Bill- I'm all in favor of lines. I just don't believe that there's any inherent righness of wrongness in where they happen to be drawn. I went through this in agonizing detail when my daughter was in high school, and dress codes were imposed by the school. I funally convinced her that there was no magic skirt length measurement that was decent; just one that the rules prescribed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: John Hardly Date: 25 Oct 05 - 08:26 PM "What I remember is Martin Gibson, local conservative, dishing it out in the other direction." I'm not sure, speaking as a conservative (though I'm no Poobah of conservatism), that I can remember a time that I ever agreed with Martin Gibson. I do own a Martin and a Gibson. A Yamaha, 2 Harmonys, and a Flatiron as well. I own dishes too. In fact, I make dishes. I rarely "dish out" though. I will say that, though I was raised around a Christian fundamentalism that believed in the ultimate persecution of the Church, I tended to kind or poo-poo the idea (which is different that Pooh-bahing the idea). I never ran into the kind of religious hatred that would make me believe in the capacity for people to persecute the Church. Then I ran across the mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 05 - 10:10 PM "...no magic skirt length measurement that was decent;" I'm beginning to see your point, Dick...indeed there is no way to 'specify' a single point for a line to be drawn that is clearly THE right place, but there are obvious wrong places.... as I said up there ↑, there is a grey area where most of the dithering takes place. I guess that grey area is where different administrations take turns re-drawing lines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: Clinton Hammond Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM "has been so overused that it means almost nothing anymore" That's yout take... it's a 'chili' I happen to like a lot... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Date: 26 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM As to the first - since the T-shirt bears the image of a "nun" masturbating it would violate "public" obscenity laws in the U.S. We can't even show a cartoon butt anymore without worrying about getting fined. On the second I would pass it off to very poor taste on the part of the wearer. You can usually find a sign near the entrance to most "public" places that are privately owned which state: We reserve the right to refuse services. If he want's to wear it fine. But that doesn't mean he's going to be able to wear it anywhere he likes. And as far as the message goes, it is not freedom of speech to make a statement using vulgar or obscene language. The message could have been made without that language For most of us not wearing / saying / displaying offensive messages or materials is understood to be part of a social contract to ensure we all get along. Some are to childish to understand that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: dianavan Date: 27 Oct 05 - 12:54 AM The Queen's stupid, little purse hanging over her arm offends me. I also thought the Queen Mother's hats were very offensive. There otta be a law! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: T-Shirt/Censorship/Religious hatred From: The Shambles Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:10 AM I'm with Stephen Fry on this one: 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' -------------------------------------------------------------- The main trouble with the drawing of lines is that those who could exist quite happily on either side – will be then excluded from one side or the other. Down On The Border Down on the border, where do you draw that line? Well here I can lay down my life for a land that will never be mine If I was standing on the outside, you wouldn't let me in It might be my religion or the colour of my skin Down on the border, when you draw that line Am I standing inside, or am I left outside? They're telling you life should be rosy, "ain't you living in your own backyard"? The stakes are getting higher, time to play that nationalist card That joker's a wild one, eager to get out of the pack It ain't so easy, trying to get the bastard back Down on the border, when you draw that line Am I standing inside, or am I left outside? Does the fruit really taste better, just because it's home grown? Why should there be an improvement, when we are ruled by one of our own? When they come and they tell you. it's time to make a stand Remember the good and the bad apples, growing on your land Down on the border, when you draw that line Am I standing inside, or am I left outside? Whatever country claims you, it's no measure of your worth You can take no credit, it's just an accident of birth Why not strive for a union, a federation of states? Sustained by co-operation, where nations are maintained on hate Down on the border, when you draw that line Am I standing inside, or am I left outside? Roger Gall 1997 |
