Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CptSternn
You talk of 'censoring' our language in private, and equate it to Orwellian measures. Is it not illegal to go into a movie cinema and scream FIRE! Is it not illegal to ring the fire brigade and tell them there is an emergency that does not exist? Does this mean we are living under Orewellian overlords because we have been 'forced' to not say these things?
|
Heh. Yeah, incitement of panic/hindrance of a business and false reporting are equally equatable to calling someone a, "N*gger." Hey, maybe in Europe, but in the United States, it's protected under the first Amendment, just like if you want to call someone a, "F*ggot," "Kite," or "Cracker."
Quote:
|
Society puts limits on speech all the time, for good reason, and people do not complain because they know they are needed. Banning 'hate speech', as it is in this case is no different than the aforementioned examples.
|
So social tolerance should not be taught and encouraged, but strictly policed? Paging Mr. Orwell, you have a call on post #25.
Quote:
|
Words that are intentionally meant to stir up mental images of the past, images of murder, death, and oppression all for the sake of belittling a minority - banning such words and/or phrases when used in such a manner is not Orwellian by any strech, but is no different than the laws which govern the language you can use in the court room. Try calling a judge a bastard or c.unt next time your there and see if you don't get banged up under statues which govern what you can and can't say to court officials and law enforcement officers.
|
AH HAHAHA... so because it's a crime to lie in a courtroom in testimony, i.e. perjury, it should be illegal to lie anywhere on the street? Your logic is astounding, sir. This is the same Orwellian thought pattern that's led to denying the Holocaust a crime in Europe.
Quote:
|
Again with the 'privacy'. First off a few words on privacy. Legally, you can only say there is privacy when you have a legal claim that can establish a reasonable person felt there would be a certain level or expectation of privacy. Screaming into a mobile phone in public by no means constitutes privacy.
|
Ehhh... the conversation was recorded. "Dog" made these remarks in his home on the phone, not in the middle of Walmart. It was a private conversation by all means.
Quote:
|
Does it matter if he says it in private or not?
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
Thats the aqgument you are making. Saying it's ok to use such language in private, but at the same time saying it's ok to limit it in public? The simple fact of the matter is, it's not ok to use anywhere. Not because of 'privacy' or any Orwellian conspiracy, it's what those words mean. They are emotionally charged words, created with one goal - to keep down the people they supposedly embody. The 'N' word - created to describe black slaves, a derogatory statement which is the manifestation of decades of abuse, murder, mistreatment, and abuse. Why would anyone even in private use that word to describe another human being unless they themselves harbour feelings which themselves are racist. If you know what the word means, AND don't use it in public, then obviously you understand the conentation of using such language. It doesn't give you a free pass to be racist behind closed doors. If your using such langauge, then its safe to say you are at least a bit racist and the fact your hiding such language shows you know it's wrong.
|
Let's put the etymological errors of your statements aside for a moment and consider that if indeed this word has such connotations universally, then no one should use it in daily speech, period. If it does conjure up thoughts of violence, death, and oppression, then it doesn't matter who says it, black, white, Arab, or Asian, it's still going to offend people. Therefore, it should be either universally taboo, or left alone from policing.
Quote:
|
Whats even more important in this case is his show. If the president or prime minister of your country came out and used such language, would you not be offended? Do you not think minorities in said countries would not take issue? Do you honestly think a world leader who would use such words could be trusted to represent those minorities equaly while he or she is in power? The same standard exists here. This man 'hunts' suspects - and if you haven't watched the show, it's mostly minorities, a large group of non-whites.
|
Sorry, Dog doesn't set the agenda for American policy and doesn't represent any kind of elected official to head up the Executive Branch of our government. Your comparison is laughably naive and such a stretch you might consider going to the chiropractor to make sure you didn't pull anything. I mean, I'm not a doctor, but I do believe that point did get pulled... out of your ass.
Quote:
|
A man hunting down and in many cases beating or using pepper spray on minorities - which is the basis of his show. If it really is about justice, thats one thing. If you work into the mix that same man has deep rooted issues with minorities to begin with and has made not only a living out of hunting down minorities, but televising the hunting and beating of minorities, well, thats a whole new can of worms.
|
Yeah, when the show comes on and Dog starts it all off by asking, "Is this a n*gger we're hunting? Cause I want n*ggers," then you remain justified in your conspiracy theory.
Quote:
It was best said by my professor years ago who taught us tort law. Morality vs. ethics. Ethics are the practices which you engage in when society is watching. Morals are the same practices, but are displayed in private.
When judging a person in a case like this, some people might argue ethically he was right because his actions were intended to be in private (although as I stated, he really had no expectation of privacy here). Therefore, your arguing ethically, he was in the right. Problem is, society doesn't just judge you on your ethics, especially when your a celeb. Morality also plays a big part. In this case, 'dog' appears to be morally bankrupt, at least when it comes to respecting the rights of minorities.
|
I believe the big beef on this thread is a double standard adopted by society, one which you have obviously pledged your full, illogical support for. Society is also one thing. Whatever the parent company decides to do with Dog on the show is their decision. You, however, have advocated that the Government take the lead as the moral authority and take a step further to punish Dog legally.
Sorry, but as much as I respect Uncle Sam, he can stay the fuck out of my vocabulary and my First Amendment rights.
