Which people-groups are currently allowed to be hated?

Page 4 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next


Which people-groups are currently allowed to be hated?
Christians 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
"Fundies" 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
"Neocons" 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Whites 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Non-whites 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Men 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Women 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Adults 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Teens 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Children 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Infants 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Unborns 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Elderly 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
"Racists" 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
"Homophobes" 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
A combination of the above and more 31%  31%  [ 11 ]
Nobody *is* "allowed" to be hated, but hating some groups is often more socially acceptable than hating others. 33%  33%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 36

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

17 Oct 2010, 5:01 am

hyperlexian wrote:
really classy to dis him after he's gone. /sarcasm


If he's gone; if he stays gone then I''l retract my statement.

hyperlexian wrote:
you're seeing in real time what has driven people out of PPR, or even right off WP: rampant racism and hate speech gone unchecked. i believe that this will change with time, but i am resting easy as a white person. when people are being racist on here, it is not directed at ME. one step removed, and i can't imagine how terrible it would feel to be black or muslim in here, with people making derogatory remarks and getting away with it. frankly, it's sick.


Convenient, isn't it? Timely too. You want to read all sorts of speculative intentions into my every word; yet I question an action by a poster who has a lot to gain if he's taken at face value and suddenly I'm out of line? Hey, I haven't accused you of being in on the con yet have I? :lol:


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

17 Oct 2010, 6:44 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
For people just entering this thread, this is not about "which people groups should be hated" but rather "which people groups are socially accepted as targets of arbitrary impersonal hate". In the past, 50 years ago, racism against people on the basis of having a skin color that wasn't white was then socially acceptable, and that was as wrong back then as it would be now. Now however it is socially acceptable to hate people on the basis of them being white. Similarly, any opposition to homosexually or the abduction of symbols by the (rainbow, purple, marriage) leads to accusations of "homophobia", the fear or hatred of homosexuals, regardless of whether people in opposition to homosexuality as a practice have any fear or hatred of proponents of homosexuality. "Racist"© is a label which is socially acceptable to only be applied to an Evil-Whiteman™. "Homophobe"© is just about as equally hollow as the appellation of "Racist"©, and likewise anyone given a cliched appellation of this nature is socially permitted to receive unmitigated hatred without fear of reprimand or repercussions of any kind since "They deserve it"™.


Believing that gays stole marriage IS irrational, not to mention f*****g ridiculous. Thus naming it "Homophobia" fits perfectly. Irrational fear of gays.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Oct 2010, 7:14 am

Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
For people just entering this thread, this is not about "which people groups should be hated" but rather "which people groups are socially accepted as targets of arbitrary impersonal hate". In the past, 50 years ago, racism against people on the basis of having a skin color that wasn't white was then socially acceptable, and that was as wrong back then as it would be now. Now however it is socially acceptable to hate people on the basis of them being white. Similarly, any opposition to homosexually or the abduction of symbols by the (rainbow, purple, marriage) leads to accusations of "homophobia", the fear or hatred of homosexuals, regardless of whether people in opposition to homosexuality as a practice have any fear or hatred of proponents of homosexuality. "Racist"© is a label which is socially acceptable to only be applied to an Evil-Whiteman™. "Homophobe"© is just about as equally hollow as the appellation of "Racist"©, and likewise anyone given a cliched appellation of this nature is socially permitted to receive unmitigated hatred without fear of reprimand or repercussions of any kind since "They deserve it"™.


Believing that gays stole marriage IS irrational, not to mention f***ing ridiculous. Thus naming it "Homophobia" fits perfectly. Irrational fear of gays.


The abduction of terminology and symbols is historically true. The word "gay", for example, used to mean "cheerful". The hue purple once had associations to royalty and not to homosexuality. The rainbow only last century was adopted by them, though previous adoption as a reminder of the flood is millennia old. The word "queer" used to mean just weird and was not specifically attached to homosexuality. The term "marriage" has not been abducted yet, so you're right that it has not been stolen.

As long as the term "Homophobia"© is used to denote the Irrational fear of homosexuals, how about the term "Hetero-phoni-phobia"™ as meaning the Irrational fear of hearing anything which remotely sounds different in comparison to what is socially accepted to be currently non-taboo?



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

17 Oct 2010, 9:52 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
For people just entering this thread, this is not about "which people groups should be hated" but rather "which people groups are socially accepted as targets of arbitrary impersonal hate". In the past, 50 years ago, racism against people on the basis of having a skin color that wasn't white was then socially acceptable, and that was as wrong back then as it would be now. Now however it is socially acceptable to hate people on the basis of them being white. Similarly, any opposition to homosexually or the abduction of symbols by the (rainbow, purple, marriage) leads to accusations of "homophobia", the fear or hatred of homosexuals, regardless of whether people in opposition to homosexuality as a practice have any fear or hatred of proponents of homosexuality. "Racist"© is a label which is socially acceptable to only be applied to an Evil-Whiteman™. "Homophobe"© is just about as equally hollow as the appellation of "Racist"©, and likewise anyone given a cliched appellation of this nature is socially permitted to receive unmitigated hatred without fear of reprimand or repercussions of any kind since "They deserve it"™.


Believing that gays stole marriage IS irrational, not to mention f***ing ridiculous. Thus naming it "Homophobia" fits perfectly. Irrational fear of gays.


The abduction of terminology and symbols is historically true. The word "gay", for example, used to mean "cheerful". The hue purple once had associations to royalty and not to homosexuality. The rainbow only last century was adopted by them, though previous adoption as a reminder of the flood is millennia old. The word "queer" used to mean just weird and was not specifically attached to homosexuality. The term "marriage" has not been abducted yet, so you're right that it has not been stolen.

As long as the term "Homophobia"© is used to denote the Irrational fear of homosexuals, how about the term "Hetero-phoni-phobia"™ as meaning the Irrational fear of hearing anything which remotely sounds different in comparison to what is socially accepted to be currently non-taboo?


Your use of the word "yet" actually reinforces my point. To please your love of sophistry and semantics, I shall also say "Believing that gays are GOING TO steal marriage is f*****g ridiculous."

OMG THE GAYS ARE COMING! Whilst hijacking the word "gay" was a bit cheeky, its not as if it actually MATTERS. They stole your word for cheerful. What the f**k are you going to say instead? How about... alert, animate, animated, blithe, blithesome, bouncy, brash, carefree, cheerful, cheery, chipper, chirpy, confident, convivial, devil-may-care, festive, forward, frivolous, frolicsome, fun-loving, gamesome, glad, gleeful, hilarious, insouciant, jocund, jolly, jovial, joyful, joyous, keen, lighthearted, lively, merry, mirthful, playful, pleasure-seeking, presuming, pushy, rollicking, self-assertive, sparkling, spirited, sportive, sprightly, sunny, vivacious, wild, zippy OR brave, bright, brilliant, flamboyant, flashy, fresh, garish, gaudy, intense, rich, and showy? Thank Christ for the richness of the english language and the easy access to a thesaurus on the internet.

Purple STILL relates to Royalty. Its also quite popular with women, goths and people who like rich colours, including people who just like purple. I have purple curtains (drapes) in my home, and I'm pretty sure with my four kids and "vivid" sex hetero-sex life that I'm not gay, or even bi-curious.

Rainbows were always a bit gay even before gay was gay. Its also a common choice for any "Diversity" movement, sexually, racially or neurologically.

Stop trademarking words. It looks stupid, and is pointless, and whatever point you thought you were trying to make has slipped into farce.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

17 Oct 2010, 9:58 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Speaking of Con-Artists™, have you two rehearsed this much or is this purely ad-lib?


It's one of the many puns that's been tangentially and unconciously assembled in my head (another being "Slick Hillie" - which, after doing a google search, I found other people had independently invented).


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

17 Oct 2010, 11:25 am

Dox47 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
really classy to dis him after he's gone. /sarcasm


If he's gone; if he stays gone then I''l retract my statement.

hyperlexian wrote:
you're seeing in real time what has driven people out of PPR, or even right off WP: rampant racism and hate speech gone unchecked. i believe that this will change with time, but i am resting easy as a white person. when people are being racist on here, it is not directed at ME. one step removed, and i can't imagine how terrible it would feel to be black or muslim in here, with people making derogatory remarks and getting away with it. frankly, it's sick.


Convenient, isn't it? Timely too. You want to read all sorts of speculative intentions into my every word; yet I question an action by a poster who has a lot to gain if he's taken at face value and suddenly I'm out of line? Hey, I haven't accused you of being in on the con yet have I? :lol:

what con? ummmmm are you seriously that paranoid? BigK helped me calm down enough to stay at one time in the past, and now i've been PMing him to try to get him to return but he is not responding.

i am not sure you will ever understand that this is about people and not just ideas.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

17 Oct 2010, 11:27 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
he tried. he spoke up more than anyone against all the nonsense. but he was a member of a hated group, and that is a hard pill to swallow - to know that you are hated/disrespected/derided for something so ridiculous and unchangeable as your skin colour. he was one of the few people of a minority who was willing to even enter this forum.


I think there are a few others, but most don't enter the shouting arena know as PPR. There's a disgusting amount of ignorance on PPR from outright racists, closet racists, and oblivious "libertarian" commentators, I will admit. Internet forums tend to be magnets for filth.

hyperlexian wrote:
one brave muslim poster recently left in disappointment as well...


To be fair, the "Brave Muslim" was pretty self-righteous in starting a thread attacking a religion (Christianity) and expecting to be free from criticism. I critiqued his theme with a pork comment and I viewed it as justified as Islam is a religious group, which is sort of ideological, and I've attacked other religions (and sustained attacks from the faithful) in the past. The "Brave Muslim" also wasn't that racially enlightened as he made REALLY offensive remarks on Hispanic immigrants "taking jobs".

hyerlexian wrote:
i disagree that censorship is the wrong way to deal with it. not total silencing, but without the support of moderation this part of the forum is mostly intolerable to the people who are targets. they would like to be able to come here to discuss PPR topics like anyone else, but it is exhausting, and enraging, and dispiriting to have to defend yourself for something like your skin colour.


I think the may method should be HIT BACK - but do so in a detached way in which you show little anger or partiality to the posters in question. I've learned that the Con Artists pretty much whine like infants when you use their dirty tricks against them and - if enough people do it - they may get the message that what they are doing is reprehensible.


Speaking of Con-Artists™, have you two rehearsed this much or is this purely ad-lib?

did you miss the part where Master_Pedant completely disagreed with me?

i guess those terrible canadian con artists can't even agree with each other! must be so bumbling.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

17 Oct 2010, 11:38 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
For people just entering this thread, this is not about "which people groups should be hated" but rather "which people groups are socially accepted as targets of arbitrary impersonal hate". In the past, 50 years ago, racism against people on the basis of having a skin color that wasn't white was then socially acceptable, and that was as wrong back then as it would be now. Now however it is socially acceptable to hate people on the basis of them being white. Similarly, any opposition to homosexually or the abduction of symbols by the (rainbow, purple, marriage) leads to accusations of "homophobia", the fear or hatred of homosexuals, regardless of whether people in opposition to homosexuality as a practice have any fear or hatred of proponents of homosexuality. "Racist"© is a label which is socially acceptable to only be applied to an Evil-Whiteman™. "Homophobe"© is just about as equally hollow as the appellation of "Racist"©, and likewise anyone given a cliched appellation of this nature is socially permitted to receive unmitigated hatred without fear of reprimand or repercussions of any kind since "They deserve it"™.


Believing that gays stole marriage IS irrational, not to mention f***ing ridiculous. Thus naming it "Homophobia" fits perfectly. Irrational fear of gays.


The abduction of terminology and symbols is historically true. The word "gay", for example, used to mean "cheerful". The hue purple once had associations to royalty and not to homosexuality. The rainbow only last century was adopted by them, though previous adoption as a reminder of the flood is millennia old. The word "queer" used to mean just weird and was not specifically attached to homosexuality. The term "marriage" has not been abducted yet, so you're right that it has not been stolen.

As long as the term "Homophobia"© is used to denote the Irrational fear of homosexuals, how about the term "Hetero-phoni-phobia"™ as meaning the Irrational fear of hearing anything which remotely sounds different in comparison to what is socially accepted to be currently non-taboo?

i'd really like to know why it is such a big deal that heterosexuals can't use the word 'gay' in its original meaning, yet they don't care that words like 'yule' were stolen by christianity. it is not possible to use the word 'yule' in its original context and have anybody understand what you mean - in english it has come to mean christmas or the christmas season. or the word 'virgin'... although it can mean untainted in other ways, it is rarely used that way because of the sexualized meaning that christianity imposed.

the english language is under constant evolution, and word meanings change. complaining about the word 'gay' is just an excuse to promote the hatred of homosexual people. if people really cared about the preservation of english, they would be using ALL words in the original context, not just harping about one single word.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Oct 2010, 12:40 pm

Crimsonfield wrote:
Racist, socialist and terrorist are overused words because they're politically useful and instigate fear or shame, just like words like heretic and witch were during the inquisitions in the middle ages. "Obama's a socialist! Very socialist. You wanna vote for him? You shouldn't vote for him! You don't want Hitler to come back do you? He's also a terrorist..."

Overused yes, but there are still times when all of those words are appropriate. There are socialists, terrorists, and racists in the world, and refusing to acknowledge their existence merely because some people overuse/abuse the terms doesn't make the real racists, terrorists, or socialists go away. If anything, it gives them a free reign.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Oct 2010, 1:23 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Stop trademarking words. It looks stupid, and is pointless, and whatever point you thought you were trying to make has slipped into farce.


I'll keep trademarking word if I want to, even if you call it a Farce™.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Oct 2010, 1:27 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
he tried. he spoke up more than anyone against all the nonsense. but he was a member of a hated group, and that is a hard pill to swallow - to know that you are hated/disrespected/derided for something so ridiculous and unchangeable as your skin colour. he was one of the few people of a minority who was willing to even enter this forum.


I think there are a few others, but most don't enter the shouting arena know as PPR. There's a disgusting amount of ignorance on PPR from outright racists, closet racists, and oblivious "libertarian" commentators, I will admit. Internet forums tend to be magnets for filth.

hyperlexian wrote:
one brave muslim poster recently left in disappointment as well...


To be fair, the "Brave Muslim" was pretty self-righteous in starting a thread attacking a religion (Christianity) and expecting to be free from criticism. I critiqued his theme with a pork comment and I viewed it as justified as Islam is a religious group, which is sort of ideological, and I've attacked other religions (and sustained attacks from the faithful) in the past. The "Brave Muslim" also wasn't that racially enlightened as he made REALLY offensive remarks on Hispanic immigrants "taking jobs".

hyerlexian wrote:
i disagree that censorship is the wrong way to deal with it. not total silencing, but without the support of moderation this part of the forum is mostly intolerable to the people who are targets. they would like to be able to come here to discuss PPR topics like anyone else, but it is exhausting, and enraging, and dispiriting to have to defend yourself for something like your skin colour.


I think the may method should be HIT BACK - but do so in a detached way in which you show little anger or partiality to the posters in question. I've learned that the Con Artists pretty much whine like infants when you use their dirty tricks against them and - if enough people do it - they may get the message that what they are doing is reprehensible.


Speaking of Con-Artists™, have you two rehearsed this much or is this purely ad-lib?

did you miss the part where Master_Pedant completely disagreed with me?

i guess those terrible canadian con artists can't even agree with each other! must be so bumbling.


Meh, I'm not making an actual accusation against you in terms of staging the whole thing, although if it is not a political stunt in association with the exodus of the one offended dude then it, to me, brings into question your comprehension of my threads - such as this one - which you call Racist© without realizing that it is against racism in actuality. All forms of racism are equally wrong, not just the one which continues to be a dead equine suffering physical abuse.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

17 Oct 2010, 1:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Stop trademarking words. It looks stupid, and is pointless, and whatever point you thought you were trying to make has slipped into farce.


I'll keep trademarking word if I want to, even if you call it a Farce™.


Carry on. Then someone can sue you for trying to trademark a previously trademarked trademark.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

17 Oct 2010, 1:43 pm

Orwell wrote:
Crimsonfield wrote:
Racist, socialist and terrorist are overused words because they're politically useful and instigate fear or shame, just like words like heretic and witch were during the inquisitions in the middle ages. "Obama's a socialist! Very socialist. You wanna vote for him? You shouldn't vote for him! You don't want Hitler to come back do you? He's also a terrorist..."

Overused yes, but there are still times when all of those words are appropriate. There are socialists, terrorists, and racists in the world, and refusing to acknowledge their existence merely because some people overuse/abuse the terms doesn't make the real racists, terrorists, or socialists go away. If anything, it gives them a free reign.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

17 Oct 2010, 1:49 pm

Orwell wrote:
Crimsonfield wrote:
Racist, socialist and terrorist are overused words because they're politically useful and instigate fear or shame, just like words like heretic and witch were during the inquisitions in the middle ages. "Obama's a socialist! Very socialist. You wanna vote for him? You shouldn't vote for him! You don't want Hitler to come back do you? He's also a terrorist..."

Overused yes, but there are still times when all of those words are appropriate. There are socialists, terrorists, and racists in the world, and refusing to acknowledge their existence merely because some people overuse/abuse the terms doesn't make the real racists, terrorists, or socialists go away. If anything, it gives them a free reign.


that.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

17 Oct 2010, 1:52 pm

waltur wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Crimsonfield wrote:
Racist, socialist and terrorist are overused words because they're politically useful and instigate fear or shame, just like words like heretic and witch were during the inquisitions in the middle ages. "Obama's a socialist! Very socialist. You wanna vote for him? You shouldn't vote for him! You don't want Hitler to come back do you? He's also a terrorist..."

Overused yes, but there are still times when all of those words are appropriate. There are socialists, terrorists, and racists in the world, and refusing to acknowledge their existence merely because some people overuse/abuse the terms doesn't make the real racists, terrorists, or socialists go away. If anything, it gives them a free reign.


that.


Agreed.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Oct 2010, 2:10 pm

Macbeth wrote:
waltur wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Crimsonfield wrote:
Racist, socialist and terrorist are overused words because they're politically useful and instigate fear or shame, just like words like heretic and witch were during the inquisitions in the middle ages. "Obama's a socialist! Very socialist. You wanna vote for him? You shouldn't vote for him! You don't want Hitler to come back do you? He's also a terrorist..."

Overused yes, but there are still times when all of those words are appropriate. There are socialists, terrorists, and racists in the world, and refusing to acknowledge their existence merely because some people overuse/abuse the terms doesn't make the real racists, terrorists, or socialists go away. If anything, it gives them a free reign.


that.


Agreed.


True enough, but using them as rhetorical weapons is still wrong regardless of whether any of the abused words can still be used legitimately.