The Freedom To Not Be Offended

reply to post by Sky watcher


Download Adolf Hitler's masterpiece Mein Kampf

Just want to be sure you know what a Nazi is. Anyone that wants to call someone a Nazi, or claim someone is calling them a Nazi, should know what one is.

Mod Edit: Removed link to racist site.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Apologies for focusing on the first issue in that list too much...

That's ok. We all, due to our personal areas of interest, are drawn more to one 'label' than another. I suppose I put the immigration thing first because I've been wrongly called racist more than any other label due to my concern about immigration. That "R" word stumps any further debate and thus the issue is never properly addressed.

I think you're seeing my point though I wouldn't say the the "R" word really trumps or stumps any further debate until it is used as a highly-polarized, knee-jerk reaction. As a result, those wishing to address the issue of racism fairly are then dismissed immediately as playing the "race card" (another label). Some that make the call may in fact be well meaning but hurt their own position by using it too casually, others may in fact wish to sew confusion. The "race card card" dismisses all experiences on the part of those at the receiving end, perpetuates the same conflict cycle and hurts those with legitimate concerns in relation to the issue. Thow into the mix those that have hateful agendas, wishing to divert attention from the issue of race at all costs and have ensconsed themselves amongst those who want to do something about the problem and a resolution never takes shape as those that are the target of that hidden agenda of hate become overly wary, even if they share similar legit concerns.


[edit on 9/21/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Speak out about immigration?
RACIST

I can say with absolute certainty there is more than a fair share of those who conceal their bigotry with this issue.

Sorry, but unless you can prove this statement - and there is no way you can - it is nothing more than your own biased opinion.

So, bottom line - so what?

Umm, no, not 'so what'. No, not biased. Yes, I have evidence. I don't give a darn about your attempt to diminish what I say other than to assert its falsehood. Wake up. Don't be naiive.

Maybe you aren't and you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue for those that are still blind or defend your preconceived notions. Those that are open can learn to see will see it for themselves. Those that refuse to see will simply never see.

I used to think like that until reality slapped me squarely in the face. I am thankful for the more balanced outlook. The personal revelation transcends political rhetoric and agenda.

Unless you are a mind reader, the only person you can speak for with "absolute certainty" is yourself. Otherwise, all you have are opinions and assumptions.

But wait! Wouldn't taking those opinions and assumptions as "absolute certainty" place a person into the prejudiced or bigoted category, themselves?

[edit on 9/21/2009 by centurion1211]

If you want to argue a point, use logic and reason. Once you resort to labels and start questioning motives, you have lost the argument.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Unless you are a mind reader, the only person you can speak for with "absolute certainty" is yourself. Otherwise, all you have are opinions and assumptions.

Yes, personal experience is a useful ingredient in assessing things and personal realization the essential element. However, little is left to mind reading when a person is pressed and simply admits they really do not care about the issue as a border issue nor the actual status of the person in question but instead the ethnic background of the person in a broad categorical sense. Yes, that has happened.

If I hear people asking that offensive actions be taken and add to that, without regard to specific knowledge of whom they act against, whether it be on the radio, personal interaction or reading a post, little is left for interpretation. When someone out and out admits it, even less is left to interpretation. Our shared human condition and language constrains the possibilities.

Under your conditions, I have to be a mind reader to have this conversation at all. In fact, I am in a way since the constraints enable it with some precision that is less than 100%.

But wait! Wouldn't taking those opinions and assumptions as "absolute certainty" place a person into the prejudiced or bigoted category, themselves?

If the phraseology is too strong for you, that is fine. It's a close enough approximation as I saw it. Put an open point at the 100% tick. I'm certainly certainly not completely closed to being overturned but that would mean ignoring a heapload of personally acquired wisdom and history in the matter, the very things that lead to my earlier adamant dismissal of the issue of racism's role in modern affairs being overturned.

Concern about illegal immigration in itself is not racism but those that are racist will naturally be opposed to immigration (or even in favor of deporation) of those groups they do not like, illegal or legal.

Disapproval of Obama is not racism in itself but I would expect a high likelihood of racists to be disapproving and cover their tracks as political views.

What will occur soon enough and perhaps is already in process is that signs won't have to be read but it will be blatantly and increasingly in the open for everyone to see. And so, that is something you can ultimately reckon for yourself.

S&F from me.

But I'm going to go in a different direction, and keep it short and sweet.
I'll never take a defensive driving course because I don't want to be the one stuck reacting to someone else's decisions. Therefore I practice 'offensive driving'. If I'm on my side of the line, I don't move. If I have the right-of-way, I don't stop.
Take that for what you want.

This really boils down to the nature of man. Our instinct says if your opinion is opposed to mine then you are a fool. It's called an ego. We all have them, we just have to learn to keep them in check.

I'm right your wrong na-na na-na boo-boo!

A2D


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Cythraul

Speak out about immigration?
RACIST

Speak out about 9/11?
NUTJOB

Speak out about the banker bailout?
UNINFORMED

Speak out about mass-surveillance?
CRIMINAL

Speak out about the right-to-bear-arms?
MURDERER

Ever noticed how whenever somebody has something to say which challenges the activities of government, they're brushed off by one carefully-selected word or label? That label is always derogatory - the kind of label none of us want to be attached to, and so we avoid saying what we think. We fear social and professional ostracization, a bad reputation, and sometimes even the force of law. We do everything possible to avoid being labelled negatively and so we shut the hell up.

i honestly don't think this is really that true, at most you could say someone might label you this and say "don't listen to him!"
the thing is you can still say it, even being labeled as a racist or what have you.
the difference is, the label may or may not depending on if people agree with you, may cause people to ignore you.
no one has the right to demand people listen to them, which is pretty much what happens, people aren't "shut-up", they lose audiences.

if you have people who listen or support you, nothing you list ever really happens, if it does its purely because people already made the choices that lead to the things that you list.
this is purely human nature and isn't really new.

eta: people have i will say, started to exploit ignorance of the people to get people to stop listening to certain persons.
they call someone a racist and people think said person is a racist without even learning what this "racist" says or his reasons and never listen to him.

i don't think this is down to labels but the common laziness of people who take negative labels as some sort of byword for character or knowledge of a person.
in the end i picture a person labeled as a nutjob or racist as like street preachers on corners, most people just ignore them, but some people don't.

those that do listen, prove one thing, labels are only so useful, and its all up to each person, no one can force you to think how they want you to, at most they can make you believe that you need them to help you think.




[edit on 22-9-2009 by demongoat]

Originally posted by Sundreez
If you want to argue a point, use logic and reason. Once you resort to labels and start questioning motives, you have lost the argument.

Very well put! Thanks.

Originally posted by demongoat
they call someone a racist and people think said person is a racist without even learning what this "racist" says or his reasons and never listen to him.

That highlights perfectly the downside to these labels. And more often than not, the people who resort to labels don't have any ability to argue or debate beyond that label. But you're right - there is another side to it. As long as we're aware of all this, that's what's liberating.

reply to post by Cythraul


Great OP Cythraul, as usual, and some excellent contributions which reaffirm my beleif that there is still quality here on ATS amidst too much assorted rubbish.

Unfortunately labelling and pigeon holing people is an all too common human trait which TPTB, Government and MSM play upon to further their own aganda.

We have all been both victims and guilty of labelling people.

At one point I got so sick of being considered a knuckle dragging, uneducared racist due to me being a 6ft 2, 19 stone skinhead with nationalistic leanings that I considered changing my appearance and ceasing contributing to certain threads here on ATS.
But I digress.

I try my best not to prejudge anyone or anything as long as it is a thought out and considered opinion.
However, I still get annoyed with dogma and apathy.

Unfortunately there are far too many people here on ATS who are far too opinionated and take offence at any variance from their own viewpoint and are unable to debate the topic rather than the person.
These people seem intent on turning ATS into some PC dominated forum with little or no tolerance for those of differing opinions.

The shame of it that a forum that was once a shining beacon for 'Denying ignorance' is becoming a bastion for the PC brigade in matters religious or political.

[edit on 22/9/09 by Freeborn]

Great post! People are quick to label those that had views of the government other vthan their own. It really drove me nuts during the Bush administration that anytime you questioned the government you were labeled as anti-American or a terrorist sympathizer.

Sadly, a lot of our suspicions of the government came true, but that's a different topic.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Unfortunately there are far too many people here on ATS who are far too opinionated and take offence at any variance from their own viewpoint and are unable to debate the topic rather than the person.

Never a truer word has been spoken.

These people seem intent on turning ATS into some PC dominated forum with little or no tolerance for those of differing opinions.

Again I agree

The shame of it that a forum that was once a shing beacon for 'Denying ignorance' is becoming a bastion for the PC brigade in matters religious or political.

It only becomes a bastion for the PC brigade if such things aren't challenged.

The problem comes when people choose to offend, in order to challenge.

Its entirely possible to challenge concepts and ideas without labelling, or being offensive, or resorting to ridiculous rhetoric and straw man arguments.

Time and time again on ATS and - it has to be said - all over the net, I see people who think that in order for their viewpoint to be heard, they have to be loud, obnoxious and denigrate anyone who happens to ask them a question, or who does not conform to their particular view. Its particularly prevalent in politics, but its also prevalent in things like 9/11, Ufology/Cryptozoology and a number of other subjects. Its counterproductive, it causes people to switch off, and it deadens the subject completely, and legitimate points of interest get lost and swallowed whole in the ensuing ego battle. Subjects stop being conversational, and instead become confrontational.

After that all bets are off.

People condemned ATS for SO's recent post on racism and the announcement that was made. I've taken more than my own share of criticism over my time here for similar things, and so have other staff members, but the concept we're trying to put across is a simple one and its always the same - debate the facts, not the people stating them and never, ever make it personal.

reply to post by Cythraul


Not trying to be confrontational - just providing some balance. My point was that there are many sides to an issue and name calling takes place on all sides.
Good post by the way.

reply to post by Cotechs


I think there are plenty of folks here "looking for attention" - just read these posts! - I am not one of them - just wanted to add to the discussion and show some other sides to this issue. What's truly "sad" is that people in this country resort to name calling instead of having intelligent discussions. I guess when you get most of your civics education by watching TV that's what you get.

Imagine the following HYPOTHETICAL set of laws:

"Immigration should ensure that the number of White Caucasians is slowed down and limited to a certain amount. Religions such as Christianity should not have official holidays. Advertisements with heterosexual themes should be banned. Public signs must not contain anything religious in nature. Organisations that do not permit White Caucasians to enter should receive government funding and priority over Organisations that do."

Now imagine I re-wrote that inserting a certain race, religion or ethnicity. I guess nobody has the "right" to not be offended except for White, Christian, Heterosexuals. Anyone else does not have the right - how unfortunate for them.

ad if you was gonna vote for mcain.
it was same old McBush.

Good stuff. I was thinking the same type of thing in this thread:
Are You Willing?

I agree and sometimes silence speaks louder than words.

Excellent topic. To some of our UK friends, US citizens are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution, which says we have freedom of speech. This has sometimes been argued as not applying to what is termed "Commercial Speech", but never has it been seriously argued to not include political speech. Therefore, as Americans, we have the actual right to offend by speech. My theory on this has been that I can say anything to anyone, no matter how horrible so long as it does not violate "Slander" statutes. Is that a good idea? No. Does it advance my argument? Not usually. However we have raised two generations of Americans who, due to our failing educational system, think that they have the right not to be offended. I tell them, on the off chance that they are, that there is no protection under the Constitution for them and I have a fire-breathing, dogmatic attorney that will suck them dry should they decide to force the issue.

Originally posted by neformore
The problem comes when people choose to offend, in order to challenge.

Sometimes the offense is unavoidable. The challege of the idea or concept itself is seen as an attack on the person's ego because the ego is in fact invested in that concept for it's own persistence.

Originally posted by neformore
Its entirely possible to challenge concepts and ideas without labelling, or being offensive, or resorting to ridiculous rhetoric and straw man arguments.

People like to throw "strawman" out there when they're losing an argument and/or they cannot see/refuse to see the connections.

As to labelling, that is what "those people" do, those filthy labellers that can't make an argument without them.

Originally posted by neformore
After that all bets are off.

Ay, dios mio. No way, ese! It's on. It's on! You just got served homeboy.

Originally posted by neformore
...(D)ebate the facts, not the people stating them and never, ever make it personal.

Sometime the person(s) are in fact the problem and maintaining an impersonal stance only serves their defense mechanisms. However, outright frontal assault isn't always the best way. Sneaking into their heads with pernicious suggestions can be much more effective and entertaining. Facts are stubborn but the unconscious is malleable as all heck, if you possess the right tools.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by EnlightenUp]

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Reminds me of all the antiwar protesters during Bush's administration.

Where are they now? Was stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really their primary motivational factors in their protesting?

Just about everyone has ulterior motives in their actions.

Obama won the war.

He's going to have everyone home.

He said so.

And George Bush said "Mission Accomplished"...

In the end, many people end up saying something other than what they mean. Before you mock though, make sure that the person you're mocking is done before you do it. It's like mocking someone who is power lifting before they get to the apex of their lift.