Name calling is hate speech. When you engage in it you lose all credibility and just make your opponents look less bad than they would if you had simply called them out without calling them names. Although, it does feel good sometimes to call someone names, it just isn't productive.
VOTE AGAINST
- Thread starter lbE08
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Name calling is hate speech. When you engage in it you lose all credibility and just make your opponents look less bad than they would if you had simply called them out without calling them names. Although, it does feel good sometimes to call someone names, it just isn't productive.
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 15,244
I disagree
The name calling was "backward ass fuckstick" not bigot. Calling someone a bigot when they are being bigoted is fine. But on this site that is rarely where things stop.
By the way, I'm not sure that most of the people who use the term bigot on this site actually know the definition. Or maybe bigots just like to call other people bigots because it makes them feel better about themselves.
big·ot
[big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
big·ot
[big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
Last edited:
THE DEUCE
Well-known member
There is nothing wrong with hate towards evil......none!
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 15,244
That's not what we are doing. We are tolerant of plenty of different beliefs, just not hateful ones. It is one specific ideology that we are intolerant of, not every single one other than our own
Do you define evil as someone who doesn't share your exact views? I think slavery is evil, I think Hiller and Stalin were evil. I don't think that the NC general assembly is evil. I disagree with them on amendment one but that does not make them evil.
Just so I understand, you get to define hateful. This preacher hateful, the guy calling him a backward ass fuckstick not hateful. I think I am starting to see the problem. Some on here clearly hold the only understandings and views that are acceptable but since anyone who holds other beliefs are either hateful or evil we can treat them anyway we want. You are building a lovely society, open, accepting, understanding just as long as they do what you think is correct. A lovely society, really just lovely.
So in your worldview, anyone who is politically not aligned with you (the NC General Assembly) is evil. It must be nice to live in a world that is so clearly black and white. I have a hard time assigning the term evil to people I simply disagree with.
Last edited:
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 15,244
Again, what is the correct response to this? Would this preacher respond to love, acceptance, and understanding of his hateful views?
Deadbolt
Well-known member
Uh, the guy suggested genocide. Mass murder. That's not politics, or holding a "different view." That's crimes against humanity. He would be put to death for doing something like he suggested. THAT is evil.
Last edited:
No I do not think he will, after hearing him I believe his mind and heart are closed. But when you attack him with hate instead of simply calling him out for his hate you lose any chance you might have had of impacting the people he is trying to reach. Call him out on what he has said, but do it in a civil way so you maintain a chance to reach other who have not closed off their minds.
Not defending him he is clearly wrong. But so is calling him names. My point is around the tone of the discourse, I do not believe you can effectively reach others by spewing hate at other hateful people.
Last edited:
I believe the tone of the discourse in this country is a big part of why we cannot find solutions to our problems. I think both sides are so set in their worldview and think that anyone who is not perfectly aligned to their views are either evil, hateful, or stupid that we have very little chance to improve things until we improve the civility of the discourse. Yes, I am feeling very much like Don Quixote today wanting to talk about civil discourse on an internet message board.
Deadbolt
Well-known member
I don't disagree. However, in this one particular case, when he's not just saying he hates gays, but wants them to die...I'm okay with calling him a backwards ass fuckstick.
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 15,244
I agree. But it's not like gays got together and elected shoo to be the spokesperson fire marriage equality. He's just a dude responding on a message board. And the fact that you and Shorty focused on his response rather than the pastor's hate speech is another example of the tacit approval that many in this country give to this kind of hate.
By tacit approval, I don't mean you agree with him, but that shifting the focus to someone else rather than the one showing the hate allows the hate speech to continue unabated
Did not intend to imply any type of approval for the preacher. Just my disagreement over how to attack the problem, I feel strongly that the anger from people with opposing views on almost every issue these days just makes the problems worse and keeps us from building a concensus around solutions. Rational discussions are needed to find solutions.
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,656
- Reaction score
- 15,244
When someone wants to commit genocide and mass murder against a group, or even just wants to deny equal rights to that group, I think it's right to get angry about that