Now Hear This

[doitagain1]

If and when an enemy is identified, I don't mind calling them names. Assigning slurs to wide groups of people which don't just include the enemy but widely stereotype a race or culture is wrong- now, later, for all mankind, and ever since the Decalaration of Independence.

I consider such talk to be anti-American. In fact, indulging in it, to me, gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

I appreciate the intelligence showed by some on this board, and hope a little bit is learned from it.

I agree that yesterday's events should not damage our society as a whole- that which does not destroy us makes us stronger. America has survived and will prevail. We will also do this without lowering our standards, which is our true greatness. As the enemy proved yesterday, any idiot can perpetuate senseless, misdirected violence.

We're going to wrap up these OT discussions by moving them to another forum. Please feel free to continue the discussions there, in accordance with the User Agreement.

[Professor Joe]

Thank you. Very well said.

[trow]

doitagain is right! We Americans simply cannot allow another group to steal our joy. We are all saddened by these events.

I have grieved over the last couple of days, but that is acceptable. However, refering to another group of people either publicly or privately as a racial sterotypical slur is not.

This type of terrorist act comes from an isolated group of people who probably are missing one or more of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs from their lives (Cultish). One could blame this on high heat and a lack of sexual gratification as part of this degradation of their once innocent minds, who really knows. There is no need to call them names and hate bash, this will only hurt those who take part in it, and won't have any effect on those responsible for the evil!

Emotions are only positive when they are channeled in a positive way. The American people have channeled their feelings in positive ways before, we can certainly do it again, and I have no doubts that we are, and will!

Stay positive!

[CamKing]

Originally posted by doitagain:
<STRONG>
We're going to wrap up these OT discussions by moving them to another forum. Please feel free to continue the discussions there, in accordance with the User Agreement.</STRONG>

I looked but I couldn't find the "Ben Loden is a towelhead" forum.

BTW, if I say "the palestinians that were dancing in the streets yesterday are a bunch of towelheads", that is not a racist statment. If I said "all palestinians are Towelheads" that would be a racist statment.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: CamKing ]

[imisscogan]

If i say that Cam-King is myopic cracker bigot that is not racist, but if I say that all white people are myopic cracker bigots that is.

Cam-King, that is just what you said but geared towards a perspective that you might understand.

[CamKing]

Originally posted by imisscogan:
<STRONG>If i say that Cam-King is myopic cracker bigot that is not racist, but if I say that all white people are myopic cracker bigots that is.

Cam-King, that is just what you said but geared towards a perspective that you might understand.</STRONG>

You are right, and I'm fine with that. If you think the things I say or do make me a "myopic cracker bigot", that does not make it a racist statment.
You would be wrong about me, but you are judging me on something I have done or said. You are not basing it on the color of my skin, my religion or a group I'm connected with.

If a persons actions perpetuate a certain stereotype, then I see no reason not to call that person a name that fits that same stereotype.

BTW, my brother-in-law is from Iran. I would never call him a towelhead, but he wasn't dancing in the streets, cheering the deaths of 1,000's of americans.

[imisscogan]

I know CAMKING, I've heard it before...let me guess, "some of my best friends are Arabs, but....."

What I said about you was a judgement on what you posted, and that was wrong. But it was done in the same spirit that you made your hateful remarks towards arabs. I am not trying to defend anybody, but the bigotry that many americans show in these times of crisis, put us on the same fundamental footing that our enemies are on.

[Turn13]

That's good- there are a lot of Muslims in the U.S. Armed Forces. There are a lot right here in my county, which overwhelmingly elected GWB. There are a lot of patriotic Muslims in the good ol' U.S.A, and their presence helps make it what it is. I think that should be recognized and respected.

[Turn13]

Eric- I like you. I think you're a great enthusiastic fan, as I have told you in private emails. You don't like the User Agreement. Your last three chances were your last chance. Your deeds, not mine. As others have pointed out, if we don't enforce the User Agreement, then we don't HAVE a User Agreement.

[CamKing]

Originally posted by imisscogan:
<STRONG>

What I said about you was a judgement on what you posted, and that was wrong. But it was done in the same spirit that you made your hateful remarks towards arabs. I am not trying to defend anybody, but the bigotry that many americans show in these times of crisis, put us on the same fundamental footing that our enemies are on.</STRONG>

It seems you got one of those new Politically Correct dictionaries. It is not Bigotry or Racist to make any statment about a person based on that persons actions. If I meet you and tell you you are an idiot, based on your actions, that is not racist. If I see you walking down the street and tell you you are an idiot, based soley on your skin color or religion, that would be racist.

You need to get a Webster's and look up Racist and Bigot. They do not apply to anything I have said.

[StatMan]

Turn13, I don't wish to drag this thing out and if my questioning is crossing the line then tell me and I will stop.

But, one of his "offenses" I saw was the signature line containing "OH *****." You or doitagain told him the censors are there for a reason and not to fool the censors with what amounts to profanity. Someone posts things like "D@MN""a$$" "$H1T" "HE&#0124;&#0124;" every so often without a mention.

Especially ironic, either you or doitagain (I forget who) used the phrase "bull----" (except using letters for dashes - the computer won't let me type the word in, it **'s it out.) I guess the automatic censorship doesn't apply to you guys. I know there were other thing you had trouble with, but this seems a bit hypocritical to me.

-StatMan

[imisscogan]

CamKing, I don't want to go around in circles with you. I think all of us should do our part to turn this back into a racing forum, but there is a word that would explain the ACTIONS of the people that committed these terrible acts. Using your logic, its not racist to speak of a persons actions. There is a word that would allow you to make a credible remark towards them without using the words that I quoted you on and without making a reference to a persons skin color or their ancestry or their place of birth.

The word is TERRORIST.

It is times like this where I wish I could have been with you during the OKC bombing. Did you say the same things about Tim McVeigh before you found out he was of the same cultural makeup of most of the people in the racing industry?

[CamKing]

Originally posted by imisscogan:
<STRONG>
Did you say the same things about Tim McVeigh before you found out he was of the same cultural makeup of most of the people in the racing industry?</STRONG>

No, I think I called him a ******* nazi, I hope I didn't hurt his feelings.

BTW, I replied to your private message

[doitagain1]

StatMan- you're right, it is hypocritical. I thought the censor software would take care of it for me. I apologize.

[NDGator]

When I sall,

"There are a lot right here in my county, which overwhelmingly elected GWB."

and

"Myopic"

in the same thread, I realized my glasses must have fell off.

Hey, Dog - Is the shield up over your house yet. We've got digital Time-Warner, but no shield on the East side. Just wondering about the West side.

[doitagain1]

CamKing- it's not the feelings of the terrorists we need to be careful of- it's the rights, privileges, and mutual repsect of fellow human beings, fellow citizens, fellow victims, and fellow heroes we should be mindful of. Maybe I didn't get that point across before.

[dog-ring]

Originally posted by NDGator:
<STRONG>When I sall,

"There are a lot right here in my county, which overwhelmingly elected GWB."

and

"Myopic"

in the same thread, I realized my glasses must have fell off.

Hey, Dog - Is the shield up over your house yet. We've got digital Time-Warner, but no shield on the East side. Just wondering about the West side. </STRONG>

Shields have been activated Captain Kirk. Preparing to launch Photon torpedoes.

[CamKing]

Originally posted by doitagain:
<STRONG>CamKing- it's not the feelings of the terrorists we need to be careful of- it's the rights, privileges, and mutual repsect of fellow human beings, fellow citizens, fellow victims, and fellow heroes we should be mindful of. Maybe I didn't get that point across before.</STRONG>

And being disrespectful towards palistinians dancing in the street over the deaths of americans has nothing to do with anybody else. If a person is hurt by a simple word that is directed at someone else, that person needs to grow up.

[doitagain1]

My point is, CamKing, that the word used doers NOT refer to just those palestinians, it refers to an entire race or culture. That's why it's wrong. See the difference?

You also must consider these things from the point of view of those likely to be offended. The point of view of the offender doesn't matter; it's not his rights that are violated by using the word. That's just the way it is .

[doitagain1]

Think about it this way- use the language you would use in the office, with some "good" people of the "persuasion" you're abusing being present.

[CamKing]

Originally posted by doitagain:
My point is, CamKing, that the word used doers NOT refer to just those palestinians, it refers to an entire race or culture. That's why it's wrong. See the difference? No i don't. Who said these words refer to an entire race or culture, it is racist to think they do. one person's definition of a word is not everybody's definition. If I call someone from Indiana "Gomer", it may be just because his name is Gomer.

You also must consider these things from the point of view of those likely to be offended. The point of view of the offender doesn't matter; it's not his rights that are violated by using the word. That's just the way it is .If that is true, this country is in real trouble. How does a word violate someones rights?

[CamKing]

Originally posted by doitagain:
<STRONG>Think about it this way- use the language you would use in the office, with some "good" people of the "persuasion" you're abusing being present.</STRONG>

I always do. Where do you think I learned some of these words.

[IndyMichael]

Originally posted by NDGator:
<STRONG>
Hey, Dog - Is the shield up over your house yet. We've got digital Time-Warner, but no shield on the East side. Just wondering about the West side. </STRONG>

Not sure about dog, but we have Comcast digital, but unfortuneately no shield either.

[IndyMichael]

Originally posted by CamKing:
<STRONG>

And being disrespectful towards palistinians dancing in the street over the deaths of americans has nothing to do with anybody else. If a person is hurt by a simple word that is directed at someone else, that person needs to grow up.</STRONG>

Exactly!

[MrIndy]

I too saw the videos of the Palestinians dancing and celebrating in the streets. I also saw Yassar Arafat almost in tears. If you want to throw stereotype lables, lets use "sub human forms" to descirbe them.

I do not believe, and I hope, that no nation or society state in the world as a whole or by political conviction has supported the actions of yesterday or those sub human forms who would perpetrate these kinds of acts against peaceful citizens of any country anywhere or against any living souls.

It is my sincere hope, that the United States, NATO, the United Nations, all free countries, all countries in this world will declare a clear and official state of war against any and all sub humans who would conduct terrorism. An official state of war would allow all nations to open wage war against "soldiers" on a battlefield also known as terrorist and treat them as enemy soldiers on a battle front. It is also my hope that decisive, direct and final actions will be taken to rid the world of these sub human forms, their collegues and associates. While courts are the judcial system for a civil society, battlefields are also a decisive and final method of dealing with these sub human forms who occupy space upon the world, breath air better used by peaceful people who seek to live and let live in a peaceful world.

May God bless us all and hold all in the palms of his hands.

[doitagain1]

Originally posted by CamKing:
<STRONG>How does a word violate someones rights?</STRONG>

Haven't you heard? The pen is mightier than the sword. How does anyone learn these things? They are learned, cultural adaptations.


<STRONG>I always do. Where do you think I learned some of these words.</STRONG>

What you say among friends and brothers-in-law is oine thing, what we say in the presence of mixed company on a public forum is another. An understanding exists between you and another in private speech- that assumption cannot be made here. I don't speak the same way to my mom that I do to my golf buddies. Hypocritical? Perhaps. I would hope that you wouldn't use certain words in a mosque, temple, church, or other public gathering, that you might use in private.

Furthermore, referring to the "Gomer" thing- a person from Indiana doesn't or hasn't necessarily suffered the same history or abuse that might be true of a group based on the color of their skin or the religion in their heart. In this country, we accept that these things are sacred and protected. Therefore, using words that can be construed by the recipient as cruel or discriminatory is, as you know, actionable in court in many circumstances.

By moderating our speech appropriately, we can convey our thoughts effectively, and yet still honor and respect the differences among us. I much prefer a proactive, mutually respectable usage and atmosphere to one that ends up costing our kids the right to enjoy Mark Twain, don't you?

Not only that, but whether you realize it or not, whether you meant it that way or not, some terms can hurt people's feelings- that's not their fault, really- sometimes they're just little kids.

There's nothing about "towel" or "rag" heads that specifies only the terrorists or other "bad" people on TV. You and I both know that these are general slurs that have a traditional, historical usage to impugne and / ot denigrate an entire culture and or/religion. In many cases, the user is often confused or even unclear on the many different cultures and religions to whom the term might apply, but we both know it's not charitable.

If you read all this, thanks. I sincerely believe in it, and I don't feel I give up one bitter blood drop of rage, disgust, and desire to be rid of evil and terror in the world. I fight and destroy it wherever I am, with whatever I've got.

[debdrake]

Originally posted by MrIndy:
<STRONG>I too saw the videos of the Palestinians dancing and celebrating in the streets. I also saw Yassar Arafat almost in tears. If you want to throw stereotype lables, lets use "sub human forms" to descirbe them.

</STRONG>

I have a word for those folks - one that has nothing to do with their political, ethnic or religious background. Unfortunately, I don't think the word I would use would make it past the board's automatic censors.

BTW, I do want to commend Arafat for his response - if he was faking that, he's one heck of an actor...

[KnockOff]

Too bad Arafat's transfusion won't be usable.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Too diluted by crocodile tears.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: KnockOff ]

[RevLimiter.com]

Originally posted by KnockOff:
<STRONG>Too bad Arafat's transfusion won't be usable.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Too diluted by crocodile tears.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: KnockOff ]</STRONG>

Do you think?

[CamKing]

Originally posted by doitagain:

I would hope that you wouldn't use certain words in a mosque, temple, church, or other public gathering, that you might use in private. The words I use have the same meaning in public as they do in private. People can interpret what I say however they like, that is up to them.

Furthermore, referring to the "Gomer" thing- a person from Indiana doesn't or hasn't necessarily suffered the same history or abuse that might be true of a group based on the color of their skin or the religion in their heart. In this country, we accept that these things are sacred and protected. there is nothing in the constitution that states this, in fact it states the exact opposite. I don't see why one person would have special rights over another, just because of that persons skin color or religion.

Therefore, using words that can be construed by the recipient as cruel or discriminatory is, as you know, actionable in court in many circumstances. There is no word that is illagal in the united states. You have to be proven cruel or discriminitory, not just say something that the recipient believes is cruel or discriminitory.

I much prefer a proactive, mutually respectable usage and atmosphere to one that ends up costing our kids the right to enjoy Mark Twain, don't you? it is your kind of thinking that will get books banned.
after-all we can't have people reading books that have words that might hurt peoples feelings.

Not only that, but whether you realize it or not, whether you meant it that way or not, some terms can hurt people's feelings- that's not their fault, really- sometimes they're just little kids. If I say something that hurts someones feelings, they can contact me, and I will apoligize and tell them why I said it. I don't need the PC police to do it for me.

There's nothing about "towel" or "rag" heads that specifies only the terrorists or other "bad" people on TV. I dissagree. If I say, "I saw those towelheads dancing in the streets as americans were dieing" That refers to only those people I saw dancing in the streets.

You and I both know that these are general slurs that have a traditional, historical usage to impugne and / ot denigrate an entire culture and or/religion. I don't know what is in the mind of everybody that uses these words. I do know what is in my mind. I do know that I use these words when refering to a person based on thier actions.

If you read all this, thanks. I sincerely believe in it, and I don't feel I give up one bitter blood drop of rage, disgust, and desire to be rid of evil and terror in the world. I fight and destroy it wherever I am, with whatever I've got. I know you believe this way strongly, and I respect that. I also believe that your line of thinking is a big problem in this country, and we need to change. If you have read Ferenhiet451 by Ray Bradbury, you will understand where I think this country is headed, if we keep telling people how they should talk and think.

[ September 12, 2001: Message edited by: CamKing ]