The Lounge Guidelines Help Search Members Calendar Blogs

Welcome Guest [ Log In | Register ] ]

82 Pages V  « < 79 80 81 82 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
venetia
post Apr 27 2006, 06:35 PM
Post #1601


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 456
From: Aotearoa (aka New Zealand)


In your estimation Alligator is that the everyday use and everyday common understanding of the term "homophobia", or are you making like Jacques Derrida and deconstructing it for us?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anarch
post Apr 27 2006, 06:13 PM
Post #1602


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 873


badly written Wall Street Journal article blaming feminism for rape.

Thoughtful comment addressing well-meaning guys who react to news of rapes with "Women shouldn't get drunk, go home with guys they just met at bars, should keep their wits about them, should this, should that": "It could be useful for us all to examine our own behaviours and to have discussions about those boundaries with our friends and loved ones. Have you ever ignored an initial protest hoping that your partner would relent? . . . What if we looked at rape like that? How can I take personal responsibility to make sure I don't ever cross the line? How can I encourage other people to do likewise?"

Next time this topic comes up, I'm jumping in early with this kind of point - challenging guys to take some personal responsibility for making sure they and their male friends/family know where the line is and how not to cross it, and for calling male friends/family on asshole attitudes too. Challenge them to give that equal time with their "women shoulds".

Most of the early-mid thread is the usual crap, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alligator
post Apr 27 2006, 03:04 PM
Post #1603


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 106


i'm sorry. the only thing i really can't stand is intolerant people.

Funny. :-)

And I agree, but this brings us right 'round (baby, right 'round, like a record baby) to the whole point of protected speech.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that malicious bigots can shield themselves behind the 1st Amendment, but that's also the whole point of having it. We don't need the 1st Amend for speech everyone agrees with or which doesn't cause a ruckus. The very purpose of the thing is to defend people who say things that make us want to punch them in the nose.

I see the word "homophobia" being thrown around. "Homophobia" is a very specific psychological condition. It does not mean "any dislike or disapproval of gay people or homosexuality whatsoever."

In fact, "homophobia" is a pathology; a kind of mental illness. By calling people less gay-friendly than we are "homophobic," we are essentially saying that they're crazy, which makes US frightfully intolerant because we are defining OUR point of view as exclusively sane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
venetia
post Apr 26 2006, 09:31 PM
Post #1604


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 456
From: Aotearoa (aka New Zealand)


Kjhink, thanks, I think I misunderstood the article. I thought she was harrassing people in class or writing hate mail. Which is not something I would put up with. People have every right to go around foaming at the mouth - outside in the street.

Now it seems to me that she is trying to file a lawsuit against Georgia Tech based on her fears of being stifled rather than on any actual restriction of her speech?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nohope
post Apr 26 2006, 09:01 PM
Post #1605


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 460


In America as I think most of the rest of the world there are no garneted freedoms of speech. In the family the ruling member usually a male sets the boundaries on what is acceptable speech, at work courts have determined that the business owner sets the standard for what is acceptable speech and in school the administration stets the standard what is acceptable speech. Our speech for most of the time is censured.

I agree that censorship is wrong, whether that censorship exercised by courts, by husbands, by police, by death squads, or by school administrators.

That however has no relationship to whether is right to not harass another human being. It can be wrong to deny me the right to harass at the same time that is wrong for me to harass. The fact is we can’t be moral agents as long as our right to be immoral is denied.

This is a pro-choice issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kissmypineapple
post Apr 26 2006, 07:43 PM
Post #1606


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 137
From: Indianapolis


Actually, (and I'm not trying to split hairs or be condescending...just trying to keep the record straight!) BJU did lose their tax exempt status for discrimination. I just read the case 2 weeks ago in my Law of Non Profits course. Discrimination has quite a bit to do with tax exemption, b/c if your organization violates public policy, you don't qualify for exemption. So, I guess the bigger question is, why is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation not yet a matter of public policy?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kjhink
post Apr 26 2006, 06:07 PM
Post #1607


BUSTie
**
Posts: 59
From: St. Louis, MO


venetia, I'm certainly not a lawyer, and it might not be technically violate the first amendment. It could probably be argued that since the individuals who are suing have chosen to be a part of that university community, then they have also decided to take it upon themselves to abide by that uni's rules regarding hate speech. In fact, if this thing lands in court that might very well be the school's argument.

That said, though, the uni receives government support in myriad ways. I think it is a Georgia state school and, consequently, a public university. Limiting someone's speech might be touchy.

Plus, she's getting in trouble for taking issue with the speech of others. Her argument could be that *their* speech is offensive to *her.* If the Pride Alliance can say that they think it's okay to be gay, then she can say the opposite.

Plus, I just think that it's a bad idea to limit most speech between or among adults. If she wants to be an evil bigot. . . I have to say that I feel that she has that right. If you strip it down to its very barest bones, she's saying she has the right to tell someone she disagees with them. I think she does have that right.

I think the contempt of court example you used would be more applicable if she called someone a name in a class. She, however, got in trouble for writing someone a letter (among other things).

Again, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I think this woman is a miserable hag who could most benefit the world with her silence. I just say that if she wants to talk, she probably has a right to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
venetia
post Apr 26 2006, 03:51 PM
Post #1608


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 456
From: Aotearoa (aka New Zealand)


Maybe I don't understand this because I'm not form US America, but ... how is it against their freedom of speech to ban them from doing something on Campus? If they want to do this they can still do it everywhere else, it's not like you're stopping them from doing it. How is it different from, say, Contempt of Court laws (where you can't get up and say whatever you like during a court case)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyger
post Apr 26 2006, 12:57 PM
Post #1609


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 948


i guess that the people in the article are rather confusing to me. i mean, if they want to be allowed to speak out and discriminate against the queer community, then they can't be safe from discrimination/being spoken out against for their discrimination, right? i think that they don't see that they are fighting for the right to be treated just like they treat gay people.

i also can't stand that it's their 'christian faith' compelling them to do this. okay, i'm christian. my mom is protestant. one of my friends is baptist. i've been to a catholic church service wherein the priest said that it didn't matter if people were gay or straight, they were people and deserved the respect that all humans deserved. it is NOT the christian faith that is compelling these people to hate. it is their own close-mindedness that is being encouraged by their branch of christianity, and if they can't see the hipocrisy in 'god loves everyobody (except those deviant evil homosexuals)', then...i don't know. but i do know that if i protested outside their church for being homophobes and wore shirts that said 'god loves gays as much as anyone else' they'd be up in arms, and those are the rights they're fighting for
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vesicapisces
post Apr 26 2006, 12:48 PM
Post #1610


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 473
From: The space between my ears


Tax status doesn't have anything to do with discrimination or lack thereof. I believe that Bob Jones U. turned down *federal grants* that would have obligated it to accept students on a non-discriminatory basis. Boy Scouts is still 501(c)(3).


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
katiebelle2882
post Apr 26 2006, 11:46 AM
Post #1611


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 647
From: NYC


The reason, I think its not equated with racism is bc although I believe homosexuality isnt a choice, it has yet to be proven. the fact that gender/race is genetic really isnt up for debate.

personally i think whether its a choice or you are born that way should be irrelevant.


--------------------
“There's something about the Irish that is remarkable.”-François de la Rochefoucauld
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kissmypineapple
post Apr 26 2006, 08:21 AM
Post #1612


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 137
From: Indianapolis


I'm kinda with kjhink on this one. The second you start telling people that not all speech is protected, simply because it offends you (and don't get me wrong, it offends me too) is the second that no speech is protected. It's a slippery slope, and as much as I don't want to hear anybody gay-bashing, psycho fundies probably don't want to hear me yelling that abortion should be 100% legal and on demand. That offends them. We hear bigotry, they hear murder.

Secondly, does anybody know if the Boy Scouts retained their 501(c)(3) status? I know that Bob Jones University lost theirs because they would not admit unmarried black people, and they basically made it so that interracial relationships were grounds for expulsion. So, they can do that, they just can't be tax-exempt and do it...so it seems like a similar situation with the Boy Scouts. (Of course, the crappy thing is, none of us could initiate litigation to have them stripped of their tax-exemption, b/c with non-profits, you have to be a board member, member, or the attorney general to have standing...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smurfin
post Apr 26 2006, 04:45 AM
Post #1613


BUSTie
**
Posts: 73
From: The old world - Europe, that is.


Crappitycrap, double post


(and all my own fault, as well!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
smurfin
post Apr 26 2006, 04:45 AM
Post #1614


BUSTie
**
Posts: 73
From: The old world - Europe, that is.


Tyger, I think I love you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
venetia
post Apr 25 2006, 07:04 PM
Post #1615


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 456
From: Aotearoa (aka New Zealand)


Surely the people who work in a tertiary/"higher ed" institution have the right to be protected from hostile workplace.

I mean, when you attend a university you are agreeing to abide by its rules and it is agreeing to provide you with a specific type of education. If students can reserve the right to run around hate-speeching people without consequences within an institution, what's next - reserving the right to turn in crappy, badly spelled, unresearched papers and still get an A?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
minx
post Apr 25 2006, 07:00 PM
Post #1616


Fuck me gently with a chainsaw.
***
Posts: 1,178
From: The dregs at the bottom of your coffee cup


Whatever happened to the addage "Love the sinner, hate the sin"? If these people are truely Christian, they really wouldn't be in the business of "hating" anyone. Bring back the new covenant.

This is one of the main reasons why I loathe religion (and that is excluding me being a staunch, unapologetic atheist). It is the incredible amount of hypocrisy which I find alarming and vomit-inducing. I rather think that most of the extremists are not so much "Christian" as "Sociopaths" who got lost and perseverated upon a dogma which suits their not-so-latent phobias and abject fear of death.

Who in the fuck are these people fooling? Get back into your bubble, or go find your own damned country where you can have your fucking THEOCRACY. Until, keep your GODDAMNED religion out of my GOVERNMENT.

*BTW, did anyone else notice that these chicks go to a PUBLIC university? Go fagbashing at one of your private schools. I think it is incredibly embarrassing that a prestigious polytech university like this would tolerate this sort of sophomoric behavior. State-funded education ought not be plagued by phantoms, the living dead, or crazy Bushheads*

Freedom to practice religion my achin' white ass. If you want to be like that, start paying your fucking taxes like every other establishment in America (well, unless you happen to be a Big Business who is a friend of the Bush-bots).

And yeah, I know this is vitriol on my part, but I don't walk into their churches demanding that they give up their false idols. Unless they are inviting that sort of attention from the Pink Mafia, they ought to pray silently and hope for the rapture to take them a bit sooner than planned.


--------------------
It is too late now
Because

You have not been
paying attention
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
treehugger
post Apr 25 2006, 06:02 PM
Post #1617


cryostat bitch
***
Posts: 1,717


Well, I'm coming into this discussion late but I thought the issue was religious freedom? Not so much freedom of speech? At least, that's what THEY are bringing up. So, God hates gays. Kewl. Keep it to yourself, eh?

Just because "god hates gays" doesnt mean you have to be hateful. Just my two cents.

I don't understand how tolerance is undermining religious freedom at all. I mean, what's killing your religion, that you need to be courteous and not hateful?

I just don't get it. I live in a very gay-friendly city and yet we still get some of the fringe religious groups that come in and protest various things...put billboards up and so forth.

I just HATE intolerance and bigotry.


--------------------
To block Steve's latest incarnation, Click Here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tyger
post Apr 25 2006, 05:16 PM
Post #1618


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 948


yeah, but greenbean (at least here in canada) women and men have always been allowed to be boy scout leaders (even before girls were allowed to join as members, which they now are), but men aren't allowed to camp overnight/be leaders for girl guides (canadian equivalent of girl scouts)

quote from someone who thinks it might have originated from michael ignatieff, paraphrased. your right to free speech is like your right to swing a fist; it ends when it hits someone else
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
greenbean
post Apr 25 2006, 01:52 PM
Post #1619


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 954


One of the things that needs to be addressed more is the difference between homosexuals and pediphiles. A lot of ignorant Americans can't distinguish between the two. The boys scouts have had instances of child molestation, and unfortunantly, they think banning gays will solve that problem. They don't get that a pedophile is a sick orientation in and of it self, and that being gay doesn't atomatically make you one, just as being a straight married man doesn't mean you arent capable of being one.
another note, the girls scouts do not have a ban against lesbians...


--------------------
I thank God I was raised Catholic, so sex will always be dirty.--John Waters
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vesicapisces
post Apr 25 2006, 11:42 AM
Post #1620


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 473
From: The space between my ears


You also have to remember - freedom of speech, etc. as laid out in the Constitution are only guarantees that the *government* and public institutions cannot abridge those rights. Individuals and their behavior, and private organizations, aren't restricted by them. Which is why the Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, is allowed to discriminate in who they allow to be members/leaders.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

82 Pages V  « < 79 80 81 82 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: April 25, 2014 - 12:34 AM