LGBT Rainbow Hate-Flag Found In WDBJ Killer’s Apt.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 12:22:54 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Do I think mocking is a constructive exercise if you are hoping to gain parity? No, not really.

However, when the other sides arguments are so patently ridiculous and hyperbolic, it can sometimes be hard to resist.

i don't think that any form of protest expects equality as an immediate outcome.

[grumpyhermit]

I agree. The fight for equality is definitely a process. I still think if you are trying to bridge that gap though, openly mocking your opponent is probably not the best course of action. Which of course assumes that your opponent is rational, and is capable of rational debate. Typically the groups I see being mocked do not fall into that category.

I wouldn't mock Christians as a collective whole, but I see no issues mocking the hell out of the fringe like the WBC. Should I resist, and try to take the higher ground? Probably, but at the same time I don't have any respect for ignorant bigots, so I'm also not going to lose any sleep over it.

I also think you have to be careful not to assume that the person mocking a given group, isn't also a part of that group. I am white, and I do not hesitate to mock other white people who insist they are being persecuted because of their whiteness. Its as non-nonsensical as Christians saying they are being persecuted in my eyes. Finally losing your privileged status =/= persecution, it just means you are no longer being given an unfair, unearned, advantage. Does that suck for you? Sure, but that doesn't make it an act of aggression.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 12:37:10 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

I agree. The fight for equality is definitely a process. I still think if you are trying to bridge that gap though, openly mocking your opponent is probably not the best course of action. Which of course assumes that your opponent is rational, and is capable of rational debate. Typically the groups I see being mocked do not fall into that category.

I wouldn't mock Christians as a collective whole, but I see no issues mocking the hell out of the fringe like the WBC.

i see the point in mocking Christians that think, for example, gays CAUSED 911.  that is irritating to the point of deserving a mock or two.

[mmhmm]

Aug 28, 2015 12:22:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

i guess so.  and i guess i should have said "should be tolerated in a free an open society" rather than "OK" (which is what i meant).  by OK, i didn't mean i like it, or personally participate in it.  i just meant that i put up with it, because the alternative is that i have less freedom to speak (and possibly be misinterpreted). 

I understand what you were saying. However, semantics (whether we like it, or not) plays strongly into overall understanding when discussing disagreement, I think. The word "mock", to me, has more negative connotation than the word "tease". We tease those we love dearly, but we rarely mock them. It was just a thought.

[grumpyhermit]

Aug 28, 2015 12:52:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:22:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i guess so.  and i guess i should have said "should be tolerated in a free an open society" rather than "OK" (which is what i meant).  by OK, i didn't mean i like it, or personally participate in it.  i just meant that i put up with it, because the alternative is that i have less freedom to speak (and possibly be misinterpreted). 

I understand what you were saying. However, semantics (whether we like it, or not) plays strongly into overall understanding when discussing disagreement, I think. The word "mock", to me, has more negative connotation than the word "tease". We tease those we love dearly, but we rarely mock them. It was just a thought.

I don't know, I think in this particular context, mock is exactly the right word, at least for me.

If I were to claim I was only "teasing" (thereby implying some degree of fondness) it would be an outright lie. I try to be as honest as possible, so that wouldn't really work for me.



 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 12:52:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:22:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i guess so.  and i guess i should have said "should be tolerated in a free an open society" rather than "OK" (which is what i meant).  by OK, i didn't mean i like it, or personally participate in it.  i just meant that i put up with it, because the alternative is that i have less freedom to speak (and possibly be misinterpreted). 

I understand what you were saying. However, semantics (whether we like it, or not) plays strongly into overall understanding when discussing disagreement, I think. The word "mock", to me, has more negative connotation than the word "tease". We tease those we love dearly, but we rarely mock them. It was just a thought.

i understand.  mocking implies CRUELTY.  and i know that cruelty is "wrong" in the public morality sense.  however, i don't feel any ... shame?  in being cruel to people that are being cruel to me or others.  i just don't.  and maybe i should.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 28, 2015 12:17:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 10:39:18 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The point I keep trying to make which ties these issues together is that liberalism is a fundamentalist theology. 

absolutely wrong.  liberalism is fundamentally rational.  fundamentalism is fundamentally dogmatic.  the twain shall never meet.

edit: "liberal totalitarian" is an oxymoron.  when totalitarians come to power, liberals are the first to die.  it happened under Stalin.  it happened under Hitler.  liberals are fundamentally interested in LIBERTY- thus the name.  totalitarians are fundamentally interested in CRUSHING liberty.

i will defend your right to practice your religion to the death, boys.  TO THE DEATH.  but not your right to oppress others.  sorry.  that is where i draw the line.  ditto for any other liberal that is "not on name only".

I'm not going to debate the political definition of liberalism in 2015 America.  

[Opti]

Aug 28, 2015 13:32:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:17:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

absolutely wrong.  liberalism is fundamentally rational.  fundamentalism is fundamentally dogmatic.  the twain shall never meet.

edit: "liberal totalitarian" is an oxymoron.  when totalitarians come to power, liberals are the first to die.  it happened under Stalin.  it happened under Hitler.  liberals are fundamentally interested in LIBERTY- thus the name.  totalitarians are fundamentally interested in CRUSHING liberty.

i will defend your right to practice your religion to the death, boys.  TO THE DEATH.  but not your right to oppress others.  sorry.  that is where i draw the line.  ditto for any other liberal that is "not on name only".

I'm not going to debate the political definition of liberalism in 2015 America.  

Promise? I don't like seeing you post the right-wing definition of it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 28, 2015 13:08:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:52:58 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I understand what you were saying. However, semantics (whether we like it, or not) plays strongly into overall understanding when discussing disagreement, I think. The word "mock", to me, has more negative connotation than the word "tease". We tease those we love dearly, but we rarely mock them. It was just a thought.

i understand.  mocking implies CRUELTY.  and i know that cruelty is "wrong" in the public morality sense.  however, i don't feel any ... shame?  in being cruel to people that are being cruel to me or others.  i just don't.  and maybe i should.

I don't think there's any "should" or "shouldn't" You either feel shame for being cruel to another or you don't. It's not something someone else can tell you to feel. I don't so much worry about public morality as I do my personal morality.  Just because something is ok with the general public doesn't mean it's ok for me and vice-versa.  "He did it first" is not an excuse, IMO, once you've passed about the age of 4.  We, as adults, know better.  We just don't always practice what we know to be right.  Honestly, I don't think anything is going to get better is regards to recognizing and accepting differences until we can refrain from mocking those differences.  Calling it "teasing" is like putting a dress on a pig. 

[Opti]

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

  She did not. The right wing idiosphere however is pretending she did.

And about the mocking. It seems many of the right wing feel the need to mock Obama daily. Not seeing them giving that up any time soon.

[happyhoix]

Liberals worship the state. This is why they hate religious people. A power higher than the state which people believe directs them how to live their lives, especially when those beliefs direct them in ways contrary to state doctrine, cannot be tolerated or ignored.

1)Liberals do not hate religious people. Liberals have the most random, wide ranging religious beliefs possible, and are adamant that they and everyone else they know (including Christians) ought to be free to practice whatever religion they want to embrace or no religion at all. Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, Flying Spaghetti Monster - it's all good, Ra-Men. Where liberals have a problem is when a religion tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. And they have just as much of a problem with Muslims who want to force women to cover their hair in public as they do with Christians who want to display the ten commandments at the court house - for the exact same reason.
2) Liberals are the number one supporter of people living their lives exactly as they please, either because of a religious calling or just because they want to. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Go for it. Want to shave your head and never eat meat? Sounds cool. Want to say a prayer before you eat? Lovely.

What liberals DON'T want is someone saying gay people can't get married because it goes against their particular religion, or that no one is allowed to eat meat because it goes against their religion, or that everyone must say an approved prayer before they eat because their religion requires it. Especially when they pull the old "this is the religion of our founding fathers so we're all obligated to follow it" rule.

As our nation continues to evolve and the established Christian churches continue to lose members and become a minority, it will be the liberals who defend the rights of the Christians to practice their religion exactly as they choose, as long as that practice doesn't include forcing Christian beliefs onto anyone else.
 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 13:32:13 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:17:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

absolutely wrong.  liberalism is fundamentally rational.  fundamentalism is fundamentally dogmatic.  the twain shall never meet.

edit: "liberal totalitarian" is an oxymoron.  when totalitarians come to power, liberals are the first to die.  it happened under Stalin.  it happened under Hitler.  liberals are fundamentally interested in LIBERTY- thus the name.  totalitarians are fundamentally interested in CRUSHING liberty.

i will defend your right to practice your religion to the death, boys.  TO THE DEATH.  but not your right to oppress others.  sorry.  that is where i draw the line.  ditto for any other liberal that is "not on name only".

I'm not going to debate the political definition of liberalism in 2015 America.  

me neither.  anyone who wants to see the definition can look it up in the dictionary.

[happyhoix]

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

Conservative voices dominate the radio channels and Fox news, and they spend a good deal of time mocking people who do not toe the conservative line. Perhaps you notice the liberal jabs against conservatives the most because you disagree with liberals; I assure you, there is plenty of conservative mocking going on. But you know that, you listen to Rush.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals. 

dude.  you mock liberals every day.  so does your girlfriend Ann Coulter, and half of the other blabbermouths on the right.

GMAFB, bro.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 13:57:01 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Liberals worship the state. This is why they hate religious people. A power higher than the state which people believe directs them how to live their lives, especially when those beliefs direct them in ways contrary to state doctrine, cannot be tolerated or ignored.

1)Liberals do not hate religious people. Liberals have the most random, wide ranging religious beliefs possible, and are adamant that they and everyone else they know (including Christians) ought to be free to practice whatever religion they want to embrace or no religion at all. Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, Flying Spaghetti Monster - it's all good, Ra-Men. Where liberals have a problem is when a religion tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. And they have just as much of a problem with Muslims who want to force women to cover their hair in public as they do with Christians who want to display the ten commandments at the court house - for the exact same reason.
2) Liberals are the number one supporter of people living their lives exactly as they please, either because of a religious calling or just because they want to. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Go for it. Want to shave your head and never eat meat? Sounds cool. Want to say a prayer before you eat? Lovely.

What liberals DON'T want is someone saying gay people can't get married because it goes against their particular religion, or that no one is allowed to eat meat because it goes against their religion, or that everyone must say an approved prayer before they eat because their religion requires it. Especially when they pull the old "this is the religion of our founding fathers so we're all obligated to follow it" rule.

As our nation continues to evolve and the established Christian churches continue to lose members and become a minority, it will be the liberals who defend the rights of the Christians to practice their religion exactly as they choose, as long as that practice doesn't include forcing Christian beliefs onto anyone else.
 

furthermore, OVER HALF of all self described liberals attend church service regularly.  they ARE religious.  they just belong to LIBERAL DENOMINATIONS, like Unitarians and Quakers.  you know- the kind that have no problem with women ministers and gay marriage?  yeah.  those.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 14:03:48 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

Conservative voices dominate the radio channels and Fox news, and they spend a good deal of time mocking people who do not toe the conservative line. Perhaps you notice the liberal jabs against conservatives the most because you disagree with liberals; I assure you, there is plenty of conservative mocking going on. But you know that, you listen to Rush.

conservatives dominate OPINION.  over half of OPINION written and broadcast in the MSM is conservative.  something like 80% of OPINION on radio is conservative.  for conservatives to whine about being beaten down is not only hilarious, but it sounds like bullying, really.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 28, 2015 14:49:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals. 

dude.  you mock liberals every day.  so does your girlfriend Ann Coulter, and half of the other blabbermouths on the right.

GMAFB, bro.

I do. The point isn't that all of us engage in some level of mockery- the question is what is the social costs of mocking different targets?  Which targets cannot be mocked at all?  To say that there's no difference is to be blind.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

Holy crap! You just described yourself in your own second sentence. Are you really that blind to your own failings?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2015 15:06:08 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 14:49:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

dude.  you mock liberals every day.  so does your girlfriend Ann Coulter, and half of the other blabbermouths on the right.

GMAFB, bro.

I do. The point isn't that all of us engage in some level of mockery- the question is what is the social costs of mocking different targets?  Which targets cannot be mocked at all?  To say that there's no difference is to be blind.

you are either not reading my posts, or ignoring what they say.  i have already pointed out that the way "calling out" is done is NOT FAIR.  the oppressed get to do it, and the oppressors don't.  that is a fact of life, and i am really sorry for those of us that are part of a privileged group.  nobody wants to hear us whine, and that is NOT FAIR.  we can cry in our martinis while we are out game fishing. 

[mmhmm]

Aug 28, 2015 15:08:49 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

Holy crap! You just described yourself in your own second sentence. Are you really that blind to your own failings?

It might seem socially tolerable to you. I have to assume it does because you use it quite often. However, I don't consider it any kind of tolerable. People are entitled to hold different viewpoints than I (or you) might hold. They don't deserve my scorn; nor, do they deserve my ridicule. I can listen and agree, or disagree without demeaning the individual for not marching in lock-step with my personal stance on an issue.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 28, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I wonder if it might help understanding a bit to change our wording. Instead of "mock", why not think of some of this as "teasing". I do tease folks about all sorts of things (except religion - that's not a matter that's on the table for me) but I don't mock anyone. To me, there's a difference between the two. Mocking has a touch of malice. Teasing doesn't - unless it's disguised mocking. 

Mocking does seem to have scorn built in.  That being said- scorn seems socially tolerable when directed towards Christians, conservatives, TEA Party members, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, et al. than scorn directed towards liberals.  In fact, if even a liberal makes a remotely sensible observation about reality itself they're labeled "conservative" which is practically a dirty word due to the unbridled, constant verbal drubbing we take from the left all day every day.  Just ask Juan Williams.  And observe that Hillary Clinton just compared people that criticize Planned Parenthood and/or hold a pro-life view with members if ISIS.

And you compared Hillary Clinton to a wildebeest.

Aug 25, 2015 19:05:39 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 25, 2015 15:27:55 GMT -5 dondub said:

The snickering from the left, about Paul's bogus "Alinskyite", should be audible too.

Oh, it's not bogus. You wish that it were, but it's not.  Obama, Hilldebeast, Bill, Warren, Sanders-- there's not a bit of daylight between them ideologically.

[swamp]

I get the point. It's neither keen nor nuanced.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Let's give an example:

ESPN.

dailycaller.com/2015/08/27/espn-has-no-balls/

In fact, I'd go so far as to say this article does a wonderful job of pointing out precisely the point I'm trying to make.  Your snarky, insulting, even nasty personal insults align with liberal dogma- you keep your job at ESPN.  You kill someone driving hammered, but you have your genitals mutilated-- you might actually get an award from ESPN.  You make a benign joke about Dominicans and baseball, or point out that Donovan McNabb might possibly be overrated because some in the NFL and the sports media are desirous of a black quarterback doing very well? You're done.

[kittensaver]

Aug 28, 2015 15:04:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 13:57:01 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

1)Liberals do not hate religious people. Liberals have the most random, wide ranging religious beliefs possible, and are adamant that they and everyone else they know (including Christians) ought to be free to practice whatever religion they want to embrace or no religion at all. Wiccan, Jewish, Muslim, Flying Spaghetti Monster - it's all good, Ra-Men. Where liberals have a problem is when a religion tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. And they have just as much of a problem with Muslims who want to force women to cover their hair in public as they do with Christians who want to display the ten commandments at the court house - for the exact same reason.
2) Liberals are the number one supporter of people living their lives exactly as they please, either because of a religious calling or just because they want to. Want to marry someone of the same sex? Go for it. Want to shave your head and never eat meat? Sounds cool. Want to say a prayer before you eat? Lovely.

What liberals DON'T want is someone saying gay people can't get married because it goes against their particular religion, or that no one is allowed to eat meat because it goes against their religion, or that everyone must say an approved prayer before they eat because their religion requires it. Especially when they pull the old "this is the religion of our founding fathers so we're all obligated to follow it" rule.

As our nation continues to evolve and the established Christian churches continue to lose members and become a minority, it will be the liberals who defend the rights of the Christians to practice their religion exactly as they choose, as long as that practice doesn't include forcing Christian beliefs onto anyone else.
 

furthermore, OVER HALF of all self described liberals attend church service regularly.  they ARE religious.  they just belong to LIBERAL DENOMINATIONS, like Unitarians and Quakers.  you know- the kind that have no problem with women ministers and gay marriage?  yeah.  those.

You know the difference between conservatives and liberals (especially those nasty, liberal left-wing Christians)?

Conservatives say: it's never happened to me, so why should I care? (And the particularly vicious conservatives also tack on: and if you were just smart like me or you listened to my wisdom, it wouldn't happen to you either).

Liberals say: it shouldn't happen to anyone, and that's why I care.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 28, 2015 11:11:30 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If we embrace the recent hysteria surrounding the confederate flag, Redskins logo, etc., it would indeed appear that current public opinion, not historical legacy, determines what a flag (symbol, more generally) represents.

Christ. You too? I thought you were smarter than that. It's not current public opinion. That flag has stood for racism and hatred ever since a bunch of southerners said, "how dare you yankees tell us to free our n_____s" and went to war trying to keep the institution of slavery alive under it. People don't like the confederate flag specifically because of its historical legacy, which has been consistently on the side of oppressing non-white people ever since some southern gentlemen designed the damn thing.

Semiotics of the Confederate Flag

This is the first resource I turned to, and it succeeded in convincing me that one simply cannot claim the issue is as simple as (literally) black and white.

The flag was taken down because 35% (or whatever it was) of southerners polled in 2015 believed it was a racist symbol, not because it holds this intrinsic meaning, as Dr. Sarratt points out.

If public opinion is the standard by which we judge the suitability of public symbols, rainbow flags aren't exempt either.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2015 8:52:34 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 27, 2015 20:34:05 GMT -5 garion2003 said:

the poor oppressed Christians. It must be awful having to undergo the persecutions inflicted on them daily. 

No, but the daily mocking of a whole group over the actions of a minority gets old.  Especially when those same people doing the mocking are the first to say you shouldn't judge any group by the actions of a few members.

You mean like the people mocking proud Southerner's displays of a symbol of their proud heritage?

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 28, 2015 12:17:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 10:39:18 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The point I keep trying to make which ties these issues together is that liberalism is a fundamentalist theology. 

absolutely wrong.  liberalism is fundamentally rational.

You certainly like to think it is.

Watch how quickly liberals dismiss rationalism as hatred, victim blaming, lack of empathy, alarmism, "all relative", or naivety as soon as it tells them something they don't want to hear.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2015 11:11:30 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If we embrace the recent hysteria surrounding the confederate flag, Redskins logo, etc., it would indeed appear that current public opinion, not historical legacy, determines what a flag (symbol, more generally) represents.

Christ. You too? I thought you were smarter than that. It's not current public opinion. That flag has stood for racism and hatred ever since a bunch of southerners said, "how dare you yankees tell us to free our n_____s" and went to war trying to keep the institution of slavery alive under it. People don't like the confederate flag specifically because of its historical legacy, which has been consistently on the side of oppressing non-white people ever since some southern gentlemen designed the damn thing.

That would be a great post... if it wasn't for the fact that the bolded is all revisionist BS.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2015 12:14:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2015 12:12:18 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I don't think it's ok to mock anyone. It's not the way I was raised to behave. 

me neither.  but mocking is "unkind speech".  speech is protected in this country.  therefore, mocking is protected.  i might loathe it, but i will fight to the death to protect a person's right to do it.

Unfortunately, I forget that on occasion, but that still doesn't make it ok.

Why would it be ok to mock Christians but not to mock liberals, conservatives, young, old, black, white, gay, straight, men women....?

i never claimed that it was not OK to mock any of these groups.  however, it will cost you a lot more social capital to mock, say, the DISABLED, than it would cost you to mock, say DONALD TRUMP, who earns a good mocking every waking hoursecond.

Fixed that for you!