Is it hate speech to express hatred for a hateful person?

[pampango]

Falwell certainly qualifies as a "hateful person", but who gets to decide who meets the definition? If I dump on Falwell, while calling him a RW Christian fundie, is that hate speech? Can I defend myself against accusation of "hate speech" by saying that I was talking about a really hateful person?

[CBGLuthier]

1. no it is not acceptable, hate speech is hate speech

There are polite ways to state that someone was wrong, that you disagreed with them and that their actions hurt you and then there are just mean and nasty comments.

Yesterday and today DU is mostly awash in the latter.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Hate is hate. You're the one who has to live with it.

[TwilightGardener]

3. I allow myself to feel hate freely, for whomever I choose. As long

as I don't act on it, it's just my little happy secret, inside my brain.

edit to add: just be careful to whom you express it to.

[ATK]

4. Can't you be a bigger person and ignore his passing?

His beliefs weren't yours, and you weren't forced to believe in his.

let it go and watch the fundies scramble for a new icon

[Tyler Durden]

9. No.

I rejoice when my enemies are brought low, and when the monsters that walk the earth are put beneath it.

It's time we stopped turning the other cheek to our enemies: when we do that, they merely look on it as another chance for a fresh target.

I'm not Gandhi, and I'm tired of being a target.

[ATK]

12. then pick up a gun and go slaughter some fundies

its ridiculous to hate a person you've never had a single interaction with in your life.

you're no different than the clinton haters of the 90's...you just vote a different way

[Tyler Durden]

17. Bullshit.

I have lost friends to AIDS and IRAQ. I have seen my friends and associates diminished by the philosophies espoused by this man.

The "Clinton Haters" would have hated "Felix the Cat" if he was a Democrat and President. I hate no groups; THAT is bigotry, but and individual like Falwell? He is truly worthy of hatred.

I have said this before, and I repeat it NOW:

It is about time WE came to the realization that WE HAVE ENEMIES, and their failures and their deaths are NOT a cause for our remorse.

Falwell helped kill every single gay person who has died of a hate crime since 1980.
Falwell helped kill every single soldier who has died in Iraq.
Falwell helped kill every single Iraqi civilian who has died since 2003.
Falwell's legacy will kill Women who die for the lack of health care or a safe and legal abortion.

I don't believe in Hell, but if I did, I would believe he is there, now.


When you have enemies and you are in, to repeat a phrase coined by William James in 1906 and repeated by President Carter in 1977, "THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF WAR," I strongly suggest that our enemies are NOT to be mourned when they fortuitously die and are incapable of further mischief.

[ATK]

20. Falwell did all that huh? Not the people or groups that agreed with him

just big fat jerry falwell?

how is your life going to change from his death? Are your friends coming back? is AIDs going to stop killing people? is abortion and homosexuality no longer controversial? Will gays suddenly be embraced by the world?

perhaps you should read Mein Kampf..


hating a dead man is neither productive nor healthy.

[Tyler Durden]

23. It's time folks like you recognized your enemies.

When one of your descendants DIES from a back alley abortion thanks to the rabble rousing of monsters like Falwell, then perhaps you will realize the POWER of such "people."

As to Mein Kampf, I've read it. Obviously so had Falwell, or someone had paraphrased it for him.

I no longer "hate" him: I REJOICE that we have one fewer enemies to torment us and those we care for, and if there were LESS of these influential monsters on earth, fewer people would believe lies and evil.

Then AIDS would get the attention it needs to prevent and cure it.
Then Abortion and Homosexuality would no longer be issues to breed intolerance and bigotry.

Our enemies are loud and have a highly visible pulpit. When one falls, it is cause for celebration, and celebration is healthy.

[ATK]

38. I didn't realize Roe was overturned or that if it was the states wouldn't

be able to regulate abortion, like they did before 1972.

if you've read mein kampf, then you should see the similarities in what you're saying

and DO you have fewer enemies? only ONE man died....not what he believed.

it's what he BELIEVED and STOOD FOR that is the enemy, not the man

[Tyler Durden]

65. Watch "Triumph of the Will" and you will see....

...that these philosophies THRIVE on the Cult of the Personality.

No Hitler, no Nazis.

No Falwell, no "Moral Majority."


As to abortion:

"…each state should be able to make its own decision, and allow those states that are strongly pro-life to make laws that fulfill the will of their own citizens."

Governor Mitt Romney, Interview with Hugh Hewitt (July 2005)

If you can't read the writing on the wall, I have nothing to say to you about it. I just hope there are not too many more like you who will not FIGHT the monsters when they rear their heads to rally their troops.

[ATK]

82. wonder where all the christians came from in the last 2000 years

hitler's dead, there's still nazis.

walk the walk....start killing freepers. Afterall, why let your enemy live and grow in strength

[Tyler Durden]

85. You are a master of non-sequiter.

Normally, I'd dissect your posts line and item pointing out the logical fallacies, but as you cannot seem to even grasp the concept of the "Cult of Personality" (See Chairman Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc) I fear this is a waste of time.

Welcome to DU by the way; if ignorance is bliss, you must be in a state of abject JOY.

[ATK]

90. well, it would be nice if you could do so rationally

then again, if you were rational, the majority of your posts wouldn't exist on this topic


you made a statment, I countered that statment with an example to the contrary. to which you make my point for me while talking to me about logical fallacies? and you think I'm the one who is ignorant?

I suggest you take a long hard look at what I'm saying here before you respond. You diminish yourself when you take joy in the sorrow of others. and you look like a ghoul when you take joy in someone's death.

[Tyler Durden]

113. You asked for it.

"then pick up a gun and go slaughter some fundies"

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Includes: Wishful Thinking
Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief:

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

I cite the first example: X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

Your argument is that if it is true that I believe Falwell to be a bad person, then I must believe all fundamentalists are bad persons.


NEXT...

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

Your argument follows from the first that since I detest Falwell I must detest fundamentalists and therefore it is within my belief system to commit mass murder of them because I don't like them.


NEXT...

"Falwell did all that huh? Not the people or groups that agreed with him just big fat jerry falwell?"

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

You have also presented in none of your arguments any understanding of the "Cult of Personality." \
SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality for information.


NEXT...

"how is your life going to change from his death? Are your friends coming back? is AIDs going to stop killing people? is abortion and homosexuality no longer controversial? Will gays suddenly be embraced by the world?"

Fallacy: Personal Attack

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

In this case, the abusive remarks are in the form of comments disparaging my judgment.


"perhaps you should read Mein Kampf.."


Fallacy: Non-sequitur

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.

Here are two types of non sequitur of traditional noteworthiness:

1) Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur:

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is stated to be true.
3. Therefore, A must be true.

You actually have made assumptions you state to be true, then implied that these implications are in "Mein Kampf" and that therefore I should accept them.


I can keep going.

Why don't you keep your "opinions" of ethical behavior within your own ethos, and leave mine alone. I really have no idea why I'm defending them to you in the first place. I guess you just pissed me off.

[ATK]

118. it would be nice if you put the statment in context

you look foolish

[Tyler Durden]

123. Contrary to your statement, fallacies in situ have little to do with context.

Also, if you use my statement as a context to support your argument:

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.


As to your "you look foolish"...

Fallacy: Personal Attack

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.
Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Twice for that one, too.

[ATK]

126. ohhhh...so it was logical for freepers to take the statements of john kerry

or harry reid out of context then attack them as being unpatriotic.

well, thanks for clearing that up.


by all means, go hate a dead man

[Tyler Durden]

127. Good God, you've dropped to the NEENER NEENER level.

PLEASE give it up. I'm starting to feel bad for you.

This is really going nowhere.

[ATK]

131. once again, in the face of evidence contrary to your statement

you resort to a personal attack.

and you think you can teach me about logic.

[Tyler Durden]

137. You present no "evidence"

and you have gone so far afield I can't even drag you back to the original point, which was:

This is a monster.
He was personally responsible for an organization ("The Moral Majority") which bred bigotry and discrimination.
He constantly made statements of hate.

I'm Happy He's Dead, and I do not accept that it is required that I should have a different opinion.

PERIOD.

NOW can you stop?

[ATK]

140. you mean the attacks on john kerry and harry reid never happened?

my god, man, you can't be serious.

[MADem]

143. Wow, you really don't read for comprehension. Saying that you are resorting to lame

constructs to back up your poorly thought out assertions is NOT a personal attack. A personal attack, just as an example, mind you, would be "You are a fucking idiot." Not that I'd say such a thing....

[ATK]

144. you've shown your inability to reason, run along

pioxf

[MADem]

29. You really DON'T read, do you?

What part of "helped"--as the poster plainly stated--did you extrapolate to mean that the guy did it all by himself?

Perhaps you ought to do some reading, yourself. Start with Dick and Jane, and try reading for COMPREHENSION, because it is becoming plain that you just like to transmit, and don't bother to READ what people write before you shoot off your keyboard.

And if you woke up and smelled the coffee, you'd realize that gays ARE being "embraced by the world." Just because you're perhaps still having an 'issue' with them doesn't mean that most of us are. Those people are rapidly becoming the EXCEPTION, not the rule. Get with the program....

Hell, in my state, gays marry. Civil union laws are busting out all over, too. When Falwell first started out, they had NO rights whatsoever. Things aren't equal yet, but they're substantially better for just the gay community, as one example, than they were back in the Flynt-Mother-Outhouse days. But no thanks to Falwell--he'd have preferred that gays stay in the closet, or get struck by lightning...of course, if that had happened, he'd have probably lost a big chunk of his frightened, closeted flock.

[ATK]

35. ohhhh, helped. So you hate a man you've never met for what OTHER people did

would that be like hating blacks or jews because of what some blacks or some jews did at some point?

you want to rationalize hate, be my guest.

and if gays are being embraced by the world, how effective was the man you hate in the grand scheme of things?

[MADem]

44. My GOD, you really DO need a logic course!!!! That's the stupidest post yet, not the other one!!!

We're not talking about the actions of an anonymous individual being translated to a group, we're talking about the actions, the words, the exhortations, of an individual who was well known, who had a platform in the media and a voice on the public stage, who preached hatred towards people for who and what they were. An individual who preached that people were going to hell for something as unchangeable in their being as their height or eye color. Who incited others to join the torch and pitchfork brigade.

Try to keep up.

And "effectiveness" isn't the barometer. You tell someone who was hurt by that guy that he wasn't as effective as he might have been, see if that makes them "feel better." That's like saying, well, Hitler wasn't as effective as he might have been, either.

Imagine how much further along the world would be if it weren't for that guy sowing excoriation like appleseeds? And even in death, DEFENDED by folks like you, who mitigate what he said and what he did?

Look, you apparently don't read the posts people make for any comprehension at all, but simply respond with some revised, halfassed version of "You shouldn't hate, naughty, naughty, I am better than you."

It's becoming a pointless and tiresome excercise. I disagree with you, and I think you're behaving in a fashion that is a bit full of yourself and holier than thou -- so best to just leave it at that. We DISAGREE.

[ATK]

94. you're not? then logically the death of falwell will end all persecution of gays

the iraq war and all the ills you want to blame on falwell.

don't talk to me about logic when you can't even follow yours to its logical end.


oh and someone HURT by falwell is different from what your position is....you've never been hurt by falwell, directly, so your hatred of the man would be irrational

[MADem]

98. You're the only one making that absurd leap... nt

[ATK]

101. read your statement and follow it to the logical conclusion.

there is no absurd leap if your statment were truly based in logic there is only a progression to a conclusion

[MADem]

110. No, I'm done with you lecturing everyone about how you want them to feel or behave.

Who do you think you are, Net Nanny? You don't read what people write, you just keep pounding your foolish drum.

[ATK]

116. I asked you to THINK about your behavior and feelings

you're free to act like a child all you like.

feelings aren't rational....and behavior based on feelings is even less rational.


but you go on, hating a dead man.....if that's what suits your precious feelings.

[Tyler Durden]

119. Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

[ATK]

122. you've missed the concept entirely. you should read your own posts

fdio

[Tyler Durden]

125. The concept is entirely your own.

YOU have put forward that it is your belief that "hating a dead man" is not a "good thing."

YOU have ignored the original issue, which is whether or not he is hated after death is irrelevant: I stated I was glad he was dead, which has nothing to do with whether or not I hate him and when that takes place.

You then proceeded to make snarky little comments about being hateful or foolish, which has nothing to do with the original argument.

Hey, I'm not the one that started this, and you could have let it go any time you wanted, but now your "argument" if ever there was one beyond your personal feelings, has degenerated to personal attack.

I don't care whether or not you concede: you just aren't making any points we can discuss, and you aren't raising logical points: you're doing emotions, feelings and ethics which are not part of the argument.

[ATK]

132. I said nothign about it being "good" or "bad". I said it was unproductive

and petty, it did nothing to elevate you as a person.

you obviously can't comprehend what I'm saying here

[Tyler Durden]

139. No, you made your opinion and belief to be the superior one.

You compared people who did not believe in your way as Hateful and Nazis.

Your entire volume is full of personal attack and sarcasm directed at persons you point out as foolish, hateful and other epithets.

Others have felt free to respond in kind as far as your insults, but I have purposely avoided this tactic as much as possible.

My patience however is exhausted, and I am tempted for the first time on this board to use "Ignore." I will not respond further.

[ATK]

141. where did I do that? either you didn't understand what I said or you're trying to lie about it

there was no personal attacks, I asked you to think about what you were saying.

I asked you how hating a man made you look better than that man. I asked you if hating the man accompished anything.

if you feel insulted its got to be the limitations of your ability to reason

[MADem]

25. What a profoundly IDIOTIC suggestion.

Ooops, there's a cockroach in the sink...honey, hand me my .45.

That's gotta be one of the stupidest posts I've read this week. You either need a course in logic or some help with your emotions, if you think that the acceptable 'escalation' of dislike is slaughter.

:eyes:

[ATK]

40. hitler died, his beliefs didn't

if you're going to kill a single cockroach, have you really solved the cockroach problem?

[MADem]

48. Oh yeah, there are ovens running round the world.

You're always gonna have a few idiots. They aren't running Germany and Europe, though, are they? They don't have a TV station, a college, and a law school, do they?

Good grief. You've no sense of proportion, either.

[ATK]

53. hitler didn't come to power promising an oven for every jew

you've got to think BEYOND THE MAN.

the man is dead. hating the man accomplishes NOTHING.

[MADem]

83. ....

Sorry. That's a bridge too far.

Any time you toss HITLER into an argument, you lose.

Didn't anyone tell you that?

[ATK]

108. you mean historical examples that are contrary to your statments don't count?

that's an odd position to take.

[MADem]

112. Give it up.

You can't debate to save your life. You just want to lecture. Sorry there, professor, the bell just rung.

[ATK]

120. there was a rebuttal to your assertion to which you can't reply

I wouldn't be making any claims about who can debate when faced with that reality.

[MADem]

128. Bullshit. You sashay in here and lecture people on how they "should" feel.

Fuck that. You have a poorly articulated OPINION, backed up by nuthin'.

And we know what that's like.

I know what you're like, too. I've seen your type before.

[ATK]

134. where did I say anything about how people should feel?

if you can't even be honest about what I've said, here, how can you be taken seriously

[Tyler Durden]

129. I feel like we're fighting the armless legless "black knight. "

You really should switch to another thread. I might suggest the lounge.

[ATK]

135. of course you do...because you're into "FEELINGS"

so what you "feel" is all that matters to you.


5 years olds act on feelings

[MADem]

142. I find the fellow rather droll

Or at least something that rhymes with that.

[mondo joe]

39. Here's a lesson for you: hating your persector is not the same as hating someone

just because you don't like their politics.

[ATK]

43. Larry Flynt disagrees with that view

dfpi

[mondo joe]

49. WTF do I care what Larry Flynt thinks?

Why do you think I should care what he thinks?

[ATK]

55. because he understood that THE MAN wasn't the problem

he wasn't fighting Falwell, he was fighting Falwell's IDEAS.

Falwell is dead, his ideas live on.

[mondo joe]

56. If you want to take your cues on how to live from Larry Flynt, be my guest.

I'll take a different approach.

But there's NOTHING about rejoicing in Falwell's death that diminishes the understanding that his ideas live on. DUH.

[ATK]

57. there's a forrest beyond that tree you're looking at

but, if you like to look at that tree, be my guest.

[mondo joe]

59. I'm quite able to see both, thanks. I suggest you try the same.

Falwell's ideas are abominable and still exist. That fight continues.

Falwell was an able spokesperson for those ideas, and was an instrument of them. The instrument is now gone. Hurray!

We can celebrate his demise while continuing the fight.

[ATK]

72. that'd be great, if the topic were about that. the topic was HATE of FALWELL

not joy in his death

[mondo joe]

73. But you brought up the other point - his ideas. Hate of Falwell doesn't diminish

the fight against his ideas in the least.

You have no (logical) argument.

[ATK]

78. hate of falwell diminishes you as a person

that's the point of my posts.

hating a person you've never met is a waste of time and it accomplishes nothing but making you look hateful.

hate of the ideas, however, it productive as long as you can counter them.

[Tyler Durden]

86. Well, Bunnies and Kitties to YOU TOO.

You are in no position to judge anyone or anything beyond your own skin; this is demonstrated liberally in how you feel free to peddle your "feel good" philosophy of Hateful People.

Go stick a flower in their rifles. Didn't work the last time either; what DID was the virtual occupation of Chicago and Washington with protesters.

[ATK]

92. and you are? look at your posts, then take your own words to heart

gj

[Tyler Durden]

95. I judged NO ONE.

I merely reserved the right to dislike to the death a leader of a personality cult that has caused harm to me and my friends on a distinctly personal level.

YOU, on the other hand, appear to have the key to "good people/bad people" through your perceptions of them, and your inability to make a logical connection.

I you want to play "logic fallacy/fallacy" with me, I'll gladly provide you with the web sites for you to cite, but really, I wouldn't advise it.

[ATK]

99. he caused you harm? personally? came to your house and condemned you

personally?

you hate the ideas the man espoused....but you couldn't LOGICALLY hate a person you've never met.

that's the point.

you can't even follow your own statements to their logical conclusion, perhaps you should go read those websites

[Tyler Durden]

114. No. Sorry. I don't choose to play your game any further.

Your lack of logic in argument is .... no. I'm not going there either.

Leave it to say that you are not following the rules of debate, and that your evidence is personal opinion taken from your own ethos. This does not apply to anyone but you.

[ATK]

124. you hate a man that had done nothing to you personally and you want to talk about logic?

enjoy your view of the tree

[Tyler Durden]

133. You really have stopped paying attention to the original premise.

Stop. Really. You have become circular.

[ATK]

136. read your own posts.

dfi

[mondo joe]

89. One's personhood is their business. You're just the flip side of Bush talking about people having

"good hearts".

Your heart is your business. Your actions, in so much as they help or harm others, is more appropriate subject matter.

Your lack of logic diminishes you as a person, IMO, but that's your problem not mine.

[ATK]

91. my lack of logic? you can't even stay on topic and you want to talk

about my lack of logic?

logic should tell you that attacking the individual doesn't address what the individual is saying.

[mondo joe]

93. You mean your "family values" post was on topic? Or that your posts HAVEN'T been

attacks?

:crazy:

:rofl:

[ATK]

96. why not look at what you said about HATE, then carry your thought

to its logical conclusion.

[mondo joe]

100. The logical conclusion is that how you FEEL is a personal matter. The logical conclusion

plainly escapes you.

Only an illogical conclusion would be that hate is advocated as a family value.

[ATK]

103. Feelings aren't logic, they are emotions. emotions have no basis in logic

g

[mondo joe]

105. The logical conclusion is based on the principle stated, not the feeling. I'm sorry this is so

confusing for you.

[ATK]

107. my god you're one confused puppy.

cgop

[Tyler Durden]

115. Fallacy: Personal Attack

Fallacy: Personal Attack

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.

OOPS! Sorry, this should respond to the post directly above it.

[mondo joe]

37. Why? We didn't cause his passing. He caused much suffering. Why ignore it?

[unpossibles]

46. why should I ignore the passing of someone who was not only a bigot

but given a platform to express his bigotry?

"tolerance" does not mean I have to accept him or his bigotry, and the same free speech he uses to be a hateful person allows me to express my contempt for him and his followers.

The idea that tolerance means we cannot ever speak against anyone is a right wing meme, and I refuse to accept it. To tolerate the like of Falwell, Phelps, etc. is to imply that it is OK to hate, to give silent assent.

To not speak out against people like that is what is truly hateful. I will not apologize for saying I am glad he died. While I don't wish death on anyone, once it happens, I can say I'm glad he's gone.

[SmokingJacket]

5. Specific criticism directed at a single person, even if it's over the top,

is not hate speech.

Expressed hatred toward a whole category of person -- say Christians or Mormons or Muslims -- that is not specific criticism but plain old bile, is hate speech.

It's one thing to loathe Jerry Falwell, but a whole other thing to despise all Christians.

[MADem]

7. You win the prize!

The distinction is key.

[pampango]

10. What if the hate is directed at a specific person largely because

he is a high profile member of a category of people (RW Christian fundamentalists, in this case)?

[mudesi]

19. That is a strawman, and I think you know it

People are expressing anger (not hate) and relief and joy at Jerry Falwell's passing, because of the things he said and consequently the things others did, not because he is a member of a category of people.

[Tyler Durden]

21. EXTREMELY well said, but I have a bit of hate for the monster.

When you have friends who have suffered due to the actions of monsters like Falwell, hate is perfectly logical and reasonable.

Enemies are to be hated: I am not Gandhi nor Jesus.

[MADem]

24. Hey, what was that emotion that Jesus was expressing vis a vis those moneychangers?

You can call it anger if you want, but from even a short distance, I'll bet it looked like HATE to the bystanders!

No one's perfect, except on the internet, of course!

[Tyler Durden]

28. And I'm getting a little sick to my stomache with the "holier than thou" attitude.

I'm not a Christian: I have no "moral imperative" to turn my back to be stabbed by my enemies.

to quote Benjamin Franklin:

"The nearest I can make it out, "Love your Enemies" means, "Hate your Friends.""

[pampango]

30. Similarly there are some of us who do not relish the

"meaner than thou" attitude that is quite common here. It seems to be a lot more prevalent than the "holier than thou" sentiment (from my unscientific survey of the Fallwell posts). ;)

It takes all kinds but being meaner than thou is not one of my core beliefs as a progressive. To each his (or her) own.

[MADem]

34. That's why that hide thread option is useful... NT

[Tyler Durden]

47. It's taken me 50 years to figure this out.

Josie Wales was RIGHT.

"Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."

We've been losing for YEARS. So much we had won is in jeopardy.

It's time, past time, to get PLUMB, MAD-DOG MEAN.

[pampango]

52. If Clint Eastwood slogans is what you live your life by,

more power to you.

If the "holier than thou" posts bother you as much as the "meaner than thou" posts bother me, then I feel your pain. ;)

[Tyler Durden]

62. I applaud your self-sacrifice....

Personally, when the Neocons do the philosophical equivalent of the "Nazis storming the Warsaw Ghetto," I'll be in the "sewers" with a "sub machine gun."

Have a lovely time in their version of "America." I choose to oppose them, VIGOROUSLY, even if it comes down to failure in the end; and in that cosmology, you can go with "God is Love" if you want. I don't love them. ANY of them, ESPECIALLY their leaders.

[pampango]

66. I applaud your self-sacrifice, as well.

Sounds like I may end up in the "sewers" with you. We may differ on how close we are to that point and how to act in the meantime, but we are in this together. I share your commitment to "vigorous" opposition, though I may not adopt all of your tactics and attitudes in achieving your goal.

[Tyler Durden]

68. No Hitler, no Nazis. No Falwell, no "Moral Majority."

When a leader of a "Personality Cult" thinks up a new way of evil, then the proper response is to oppose the monster.

If the head is cut off the serpent, it doesn't regenerate a new one. I don't propose PHYSICALLY cutting off his head, but one must vigorously and ANGRILY oppose the monster.

[MADem]

32. Well, when people preach loudly AGAINST something

You have to wonder why it's such an issue with them, doncha, now? Paging Doctor Freud, Doctor Freud!!! Please pick up the Longer-than-it-is-Wide Courtesy Phone!!!!

I always thought that people who preached FOR something--like helping the poor, peace, understanding, harmony, community, love thy neighbor, that kind of stuff--were more persuasive than scolds who tell you what you cannot or should not do.

[pampango]

26. I would argue that some are expressing hate, though you may be

expressing anger, instead. Many posters would probably be proud to state that they are expressing hate for a hateful person.

His notoriety is based on the things he said, as a RW Christian fundamentalist, and what others, largely Christian fundamentalists, did in response. You can make a case that the anger expressed towards him is based on his statements, and consequent actions by others, not on his membership in a group, but the two are linked.

[MADem]

6. If you hate a person, that's different from "hate speech." Hate speech is a civil rights matter.

If you express hatred towards someone because of their ethnicity, degree of melanin, nation origin, orientation, or things of that nature, that's hate speech.

If you just hate an INDIVIDUAL, that's because you think they're an asshole. That's usually a result of the actions of the person you hate, unless you're a bit odd.

They're two different things, at least in the realm of public discourse. Anyone who is telling you that you can't HATE someone or something, from George Bush to beets or dogshit on your shoe, is tooting out their ass. Everyone hates someone or something. They just do.

[ATK]

11. Larry Flynt didn't hate the man. Why should you?

I can't understand the need to HATE people you don't even know.
you can disagree with their views, hate what they say...but how can you hate a person you've never even met or talked to?

furthermore, why would you waste the time out of your day to even do so?

[MADem]

22. First of all, you are making a shitload of amazing assumptions there.

You're assuming I 'hate the man.' You're assuming, too, that I don't know him, haven't met him, or talked to him. For all you actually know, I could be 'his' evil twin.

You're also assuming that the object of this hate, that I haven't even personally expressed, is the recently deceased Falwell.

You need to go BACK, read what I actually wrote, and then read what YOU wrote.

It's not a question of the reactions of me, myself, and I at any rate. I was discussing the topic generally. In fact, my 'human' example was the Monkeyking, not Falwell.

What you're doing with your little lecture directed my way is playing the "I'm better than YOU" card--(the "You" being a generic you, mind you) by scolding people for expressing feelings that might be deep seated, genuine, and be a reaction to real insults that strike at the heart of their being.

I imagine if you were in one of the groups that Falwell excoriated, quite viciously, too, you might find a touch of hate in your heart. I certainly wouldn't second-guess the reasoning of anyone , or blame or scold them, who had to listen to that hateful shit he spouted for returning the emotional favor. I think of people whose families listened to Falwell and disowned their loved ones for being different, because they listened to that guy. His message was "Toe the line, or go to hell." He didn't preach that love, suffer the little children, feed the poor, care for the sick stuff that the Jesus fellow he claimed to follow did.

If someone came into your home and beat the shit out of your family, maybe torched the house, would you then hate them? Or would you be still turning the other cheek? How about if they killed your family in brutal fashion? Still got forgiveness working in that case?

How about if someone killed your dog? Shit on your carseat? Spread lies about you in the workplace and got you fired? Told you you were never gonna git to Heaven because of something intrinsic to your nature, like say, your eye color or your height? And made everyone around you believe that, too, so they pointed and laughed at you? Would you hate them then?

Are you saying you NEVER hate anyone, for any reason? Or are you simply reserving it to the "Names will never hurt me" arena? Well, names DO hurt people--ask anyone who's been a victim of discrimination.

I can understand how people who have been the victims of some of that Fundie Hate can return the favor. I can understand it completely. And I'm not gonna sit in 'better than thou' judgment of someone for feeling that way.

But hey, whatever--am I to assume that you're apparently perfect in every way, is that it?

[ATK]

33. you're rationalizing hate, whether you want to admit it or not

that makes you no different than the people you complain about.
you've never even met the man and he's never done anything PERSONALLY to you.


it's just food for thought.

[MADem]

36. That's not 'food for thought', that's bullshit. Flat out bullshit.

You didn't even read what I wrote...again.

Because you didn't respond to a single point I made.

[ATK]

42. I read what you wrote...it just shows that HATE isn't limited to fundies

et

[unpossibles]

50. bullshit

I have never met quite a few evil people, but that doesn't mean I have to love them or the things they do.

Why are you so concerned anyway? What's it to you? I only ask because it seems every post I've seen by you is an attwmpt to argue with someone. I'm not calling you a troll, and I won't even flag your posts, but I seriously want to know at what point would you find yourself expressing distaste or anger toward someone who you never met? Falwell, Robertson, Phelps and others are people who I have never met, yet I cannot stand the things they say. Do I hate them? Not necessarily, but I do hate the things they say, and once they die I can be glad they won't say those things any more.

If you believe that speech cannot be dangerous, tell that to Matt Shepard or any of the other thousands of people who have died, lost jobs, or otherwise been violently attacked because it is acceptable to hate "fags" but not to hate someone like Falwell.

To use your own bad example, did Hitler personally kill those people, or did his speeches and actions allow and encourage others to kill millions? I never met Hitler either, but he cause millions to die, including relatives of mine, and I don't think it's wrong to hate him.

[mondo joe]

51. I don't share your bizarre obsession with hate. Hate doesn't break your bones or take

food off your table. Hate is just a feeling.

Who care about feelings more than they do about actual harm caused to real people?

[ATK]

58. it doesn't? well, that's good to know the next time I read a story about another Mathew Shepherd

that it wasn't HATE that killed him...the kid just must have been an asshole who deserved it.

[mondo joe]

60. It wasn't hate that killed Matthew Shepherd - it was the actions of his murderers.

Hate can't kill anyone. If it did, Bill Clinton would have died a long time ago.

It's quite possible to hate without causing any harm with actions.

Learn the difference.

[pampango]

61. But it was a hate crime.

There have to be both hate and a crime to have a hate crime. Hate certainly played a key role in Shepherd's death, though the actions of his murderers were the ultimate cause.

[mondo joe]

63. Irrelevant. There is plenty of hate that causes no harm because it does not

accompany an action. Indeed, the supermajority of hate causes no direct harm because it is unaccompanied by action.

As a gay man, I can tell you I don't give a fuck who hates me -- I care about rights. (And to beat you to a likely punch, rights do not depend on hate. I fully support equal rights even for those I hate.)

[ATK]

84. then hate can be a family value in your world, huh?

pitiful

[mondo joe]

88. "Family values"? You've mistaken me for a Republican candidate circa 1996.

Your family's values are your business.

I suggest you stop applying bumper sticker slogans to real world situations.

[ATK]

106. good to see you support racism...just as long as no one gets hurt

here's the real world for you:

falwell is dead. expressing hatred for a dead man makes you look like a fool. Ignore it, move on


and my family value reference is to the bumper sticker.

[mondo joe]

109. Now supporting freedom of speech is supporting racism? What a shame.

Expressing fallacious reasoning makes you a fool.

My condolences.

[ATK]

130. were you out defending Imus, Mr Freedom of Speech? Rush Limbaugh?

you'd better think about things before you make a statement that clearly shows a lack of forethought?

[mondo joe]

151. Irrelevant. Imus' issue was not free speech, but his contract. I have no defense of Limbaugh

either. There is one exception: I support their right to free speech. It does not fall from there that I support what they say, or corporate sponsorship of it.

[Tyler Durden]

117. Fallacy: Straw Man

Fallacy: Straw Man

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[ATK]

79. was it more of a crime because of the word hate? would it have been less of a crime

had the men not hated gays but just hated mathew shepherd?

hate is hate, it breeds violence......see the Klan for more information on this topic

[ATK]

104. good to see you support racism...just as long as no one gets hurt

gh

[mondo joe]

111. What I support is freedom of speech and thought. I am a card carrying member of the ACLU,

as they say.

You (and Bush) may wish to intrude on the sanctity of individual freedom. I do not.

[ATK]

138. your posts indicate otherwise

dfpio

[Quantess]

145. excuse me, do you mind explaining

the lower case letters you put in the body of your posts? Is there a point to that?

[ATK]

146. habit

some places require text in the body of the post. they're meaningless


or are they?

[Quantess]

153. Well, that's what I was asking you.

I'm just going to assume they are meaningless doodles.
But, now you know, you don't have to type anything into the text box at DU.

[mondo joe]

147. Your failure to comprehend basic principles is not my responsibility. NT

[ATK]

149. that's funny, coming from someone who hid behind the ACLU

dfi

[mondo joe]

152. I uphold and support the ACLU and its principles: freedom of speech, freedom of thought.

Of course by your "reasoning" the ACLU supports racism.

Enjoy your fantasy of Thoughtcrimes.

[Tyler Durden]

121. Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Twice for this one.

[Moochy]

75. Junk food for thought n/t

[MADem]

87. I'm not advocating death or hellfire for groups of people who aren't like me.

I am not exhorting anyone to believe those things, either. I am not using money collected from suckers, or my personal fame, to spread falsehoods about people or attempt to marginalize them in society.

And I sure as hell don't have ANYTHING good to say about anyone who would do that to their fellow humans. I find your defense of this hideous, shameless slug rather curious, frankly.

If you can't divine the difference between not putting up with shit from a hatemonger, if you can't parse it at all, I can't help you.

I can feel sympathy for your inability to develop a logical rebuttal, but that's about as far as I'll go.

We're done here--you're just looking to fight with people over the death of a fucking asshole. I'm not gonna feed your perverse little desire anymore.

[devilgrrl]

8. Wait until Jane Fonda dies....

and see how the other side reacts.

[pampango]

14. Fonda is a great example.

I only wonder how I will relate to the vitriol that freepers will spew forth upon Fonda's death. I hope that my take will be that it shows the classlessness and gutter mentality of the freepers to express such hatred upon the death of a famous anti-war leftist. If we are lucky this will not happen for a long time and I will have forgotten about the DU reaction to Falwell's death, so that I won't feel too hypocritical.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beyurslf]

13. I don't think it is hateful to say Falwell was a nasty, rotten, hateful person

and I am not sad at all that he died. In fact, I am quite happy he is dead.

[indepat]

16. Didn't hate Jerry, only despised him. Often expressed wonder on DU board if Jerry et al were

the embodiment of the anti-Christ.

[MADem]

27. I'd say it's pretty accurate. By his very own words we know him. NT

[dave_p]

18. Hate speech is incitement to harm the inncocent

He's dead, and nobody killed him. And he wasn't innocent. He abused his pulpit, so he deserves his knocks.

[zbdent]

31. If you're a Dem, yes ...

at least, according to the "liberal media" ...

[Balbus]

41. If a person convicted of rape is raped in prison,

is that considered rape? Of course not :eyes:

[pampango]

45. Is it considered rape? By me it is. By others? They'll have to speak

for themselves.

If someone convicted of murder is murdered in prison, is that considered murder? How about assault and assaulted? (As a progressive I am not here to condone "extra punishment" meted out to those convicted of crimes by the justice system. If a convicts sentence is say "5 years in prison and daily rape or assault, it should be spelled out by the court.)

If your question is "How often are these crimes committed in prison actually prosecuted?", I would have to admit that it does not happen very often.

[mondo joe]

54. Fallacious conflation of rape and speech. Is killing in self defense murder?

Taking joy in someone's death - even hating the deceased - causes no harm whatsoever to the deceased, nor is it a violation of any rights.

[Balbus]

67. I guess I just have to figure out when hate is good and when hate is bad.

And since there's a lot of hate on this board to learn from it probably won't take me long to figure it out.

on edit: So I guess what you're saying is that our hate is in defense of a dead guy's hate? And since he's dead and can't be harmed then it's okay? So on that course of logic, if I say hateful things about one of your dead relatives, friends, spouse or whatever, because that person is dead and can't be harmed by my hateful words, then it's okay? I'm just trying to figure out the rules of hate....

[pampango]

69. Ain't that the truth.

Let me know what conclusions you draw from your study of good and bad hate and how it is embraced by liberals versus conservatives.

You do indeed have plenty of material to work with here at DU, but I would suggest that you visit Freeperland to get a balanced view of the hate spectrum. It will be interesting to see how much difference there is in the posts there other than the name of the deceased (I'm assuming it would be a liberal).

[Balbus]

71. Eh, don't worry. I know they can hate with the best of them also.

One thing I have learned - hate is bipartisan.

[mondo joe]

70. Suggestion: Hate alone is a non-issue. Actions that help or hurt others matter.

I know a lot of people on DU care a whole lot about hate. I don't. If it's unaccompanied by an action that causes harm, hate just doesn't matter.

I'm a democrat because I care about civil rights - not because I'm awake at night fretting about who hates who.

[Quantess]

155. Well of course it is still considered rape if it happened in prison.

But there are obstacles to officially labeling it "rape".

Are you just being cynical? Or maybe a reference I don't know about?

[Beelzebud]

64. "hate speech" is a bogus term invented to limit Free Speech.

[murloc]

74. Yes. Two wrongs do not make one right

Thats the way I was raised.

[sheerjoy]

76. Depends, I suppose

on how ya feel about the Golden Rule.

[mondo joe]

77. Why does it matter if it's "hate speech" or not? It's constitutionally protected speech.

Why does it matter if it conveys your hate or not?

[treestar]

80. Use the fundies very meme

You don't hate Falwell, you just hate his ideas. You don't hate the sinner, just the sin.

Nobody on DU is really pissing on Falwell's grave so much as they are pissing on his ideas in life.

[iverglas]

81. "hate speech" is not just saying nasty things

"Hate speech" means something. Generally, it means saying things in public that are intended to incite, or will foreseeably incite, hatred of individuals or groups of people based on more or less inherent characteristics -- race/colour/ethncity, religion, sex, sexual orientation ... -- because of the quite foreseeable consequences when hatred of people for those reasons becomes widespread or acceptable.

The *reason* for identifying such speech, and possibly taking action to combat it, is that the targets in question are vulnerable to the things that happen when people hate them: exclusion from the opportunities and benefits that membership in a society ordinarily provides, and physical insecurity.

It is not "hate speech" to say that Jo Blo is an asshole. It is not "hate speech" to say that the religious teachings that Jo Blo allegedly relies on to incite hatred of other people are ugly, when s/he expressly advances those alleged teachings to justify his/her political speech.

If someone were to say "It is wonderful that Jo Blo is dead and I wish that all Christians were dead", that might approach hate speech.

Whether Jo Blo was "hateful" or not isn't really relevant. What is relevant is whether what one says is intended to incite hatred, or will foreseeably incite hatred, of people who belong to a particular group.

"Right-wing Christian fundies" really aren't one of the groups deserving of protection. "Fundamentalist Christians" might well be, since they are being identified by their religion. And people's religion is really just none of anyone else's business.

"Right-wing Christian fundies" are not entitled to this kind of protection, because they are being identified by their political choices, and political choice is not generally regarded as a category deserving of special protection.

Like all anti-discrimination measures, the aim is really to protect people from ill-treatment because of a characteristic that is usually inherent (e.g. race/colour/ethnicity), or at least is something that is so deeply a part of their very self that to expect them to abandon it is unreasonable and unfair. The characteristics for which protection is granted are also generally things that are simply none of anyone else's business.

Religion falls into those categories; political opinion does not. It is generally agreed that people should not be persecuted because of political opinion -- killed, tortured, imprisoned, expelled -- but not that they should be protected from public vilification based on their political opinion, as long as "political opinion" is not a code being used to refer to religion or such.

And that's what underlies contempt for Jerry Falwell -- not his religion, which no one need ever have known anything about. He could have been just as completely horrible if he'd never mentioned his religion. To allow him to hide behind his religion in order to avoid denunciation for what are essentially political opinions would be to stifle other people's political speech (whether formally, where hate speech laws exist, or informally, by pressure not to be "hateful").

[izzybeans]

97. I'm with Mr. T in times like these. I pity the fool.

[BoneDaddy]

102. The opposite of love is not hate it is indifference

I don't care about the death of Falwell. I am glad in the sense that it might be a blow to right wing fundamentalist rhetoric in America but I do not hate him. If I hate Falwell he has won. I have given him tremendous power over me and have allowed him to bring me to a base, lower human level of consciousness. I choose to not allow him that so I personally don't care about his death because someone just like him will pick up the mantle.

The orgy of death celebration of a bad man by people who call themselves liberals is what concerns me. It is reminiscent of older, darker times when the crowd gathered in the town square to witness the execution of a murderer. They felt justified because the person was "evil", yet they stood there transfixed, with their own bloodlust, eager to watch the execution. That is what it looks like in here.

Disturbing.

[uppityperson]

148. "I hate someone" is not hate speech. "Rip X's ears off because is a something" is

There is a difference between expressing hate about someone and calling for any sort of violence or expressing bigoted statements against someone. The second is hate speech.

[BlooInBloo]

150. Only to unthinking idiots who merely pretend to be against the hateful person.

[LWolf]

154. Hate is hate.

There is no acceptable version of hate, from my personal perspective.

There is nothing good to be gained through hate, so I'll choose to leave it behind, even when I'm tempted.

Just in case that sounded a little too self-righteous for you, I'll share this:

I don't come by that perspective easily. I confront an overwhelming urge to hate on a daily basis, and continue to struggle to stay on higher ground. It's easy for me to stay "above" hate of those outside my personal circle. It's much more difficult to do so when it comes to individuals who have damaged those I love. I'm still trying to find my way through that. <shrug>

I think it's appropriate to leave you to ponder the larger concept of "hate," the piece of that concept that makes up "hate speech," and come to your own conclusions.

That's called respect.