Skip to main content

View Diary: Wisconsin Recall Results - Republican Primary Winners Are a Joke, Right? (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is a POV that all civil rights legislation (6+ / 0-)

    is "redundant." Those who hold such "points of view" are racist, sexist, homophobic. Those who bring up such POVs in DK comments without qualification, as if such POVs had some shred of validity or respectability, are fellow travellers.
    Please note before you reply: I haven't HRd your original comment (yet) because I'm not yet sure of your intent. If, in replying, you remove all my uncertainty about your intentions here, I will revise my decision.
    If that sounds like I'm trying to stifle your ability to freely represent such points of view on a Democratic blog, you 'heard me' correctly. Hate speech is hate speech, and is sometimes more vicious when pretending to be reasonable.
    I will defend to the death your right to make hateful comments on your own blog, as well as my right to come to your blog and rip you a new one, but such support for wingnuttery is specifically banned here.

    Mr. President, if you've kept all your commitments to my civil rights, then you never made enough commitments in the first place.

    by davidincleveland on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:57:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That is uncalled for (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, jconn, MKSinSA

      You may disagree with the comment (more specifically with the POV that the comment describes), but that doesn't make it trollish.

      I once had a conversation with a fellow I know to be progressive, but who didn't support hate crimes legislation. He would not, or could not, accept the idea that a crime against a member of a particular group (say, gays) could be shown, in court, to be intended to intimidate all members of that group. If a gay couple were assaulted in his neighborhood, it would make all people in the neighborhood more fearful; hence it would represent to him an attack on all people living in the neighborhood, gay or straight. Even if the attack were intended only to intimidate the gays, it would usually be impossible to meet the burden of proof (that he thinks should be) required in court to show that it was a "hate crime": For example, the prosecution should have to prove that the attackers have not attacked, and would not attack, anyone except gays or other protected groups. (If they had already attacked a straight white couple, for instance, that shows that they're equal-opportunity thugs.)

      My point  is not to support that point of view; I strongly disagree with it (though I have to admit that there is a certain logic to it.) My point is to suggest that you're a little too quick here to dismiss what the original commenter had to say.

      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

      by Nowhere Man on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:19:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps your browser ate this part (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, 3goldens, JVolvo
        Those who bring up such POVs in DK comments without qualification, as if such POVs had some shred of validity or respectability, are fellow travellers. [emphasis altered by me, specifically for your edification]
         
        of my comment.
        Had the original poster qualified his/her statement, as you did yours,
        My point  is not to support that point of view; I strongly disagree with it...
        I would have simply ignored it. But you are mistaken when you state
        that is uncalled for
        because the site rules ask and expect TUs to do exactly what I did.

        Mr. President, if you've kept all your commitments to my civil rights, then you never made enough commitments in the first place.

        by davidincleveland on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:15:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The point is that being against hate-crime laws (0+ / 0-)

          is a legitimate position, albeit unusual among progressives. Simply mentioning opposition to hate-crime laws is not prima facie evidence of bigotry or trollhood, whether or not the person embraces that point of view personally.

          Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

          by Nowhere Man on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:20:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clarification (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, MKSinSA

            It can be a legitimate position. Opposition to hate-crime laws can certainly be motivated by one's own bigotry, but it can also be arrived at with legitimacy and integrity.

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:23:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think so (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MKSinSA

              I believe the arguments are born in bigoty just like "intelligent design" was born to promore a relegious point of view by hiding it.

              In other words I think it a way for someone to claim being "progressive" and actually be a bigot under the sheet.

              America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

              by cacamp on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:11:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Believe what you want. (0+ / 0-)

                But you may yourself be guilty of some prejudice here.

                People who are bigots will give themselves away with far more "tells" than their position on hate crimes. This fellow is not a bigot. You'll have to take my word for that, of course; and while I don't know him well, I do know many of his friends. I'm quite sure he's not a bigot.

                Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                by Nowhere Man on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:47:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Like the Equal Rights Amendment................... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      davidincleveland, elwior

      Phyliss Schlafley argued that the ERA would hurt women because they would lose privileges like SS dependent benefits, forced to single sex public bathrooms and exemption from the draft.  Why worry equal pay when you'd have to go through all that?

      I can kind of see the public bathroom argument.  I have, on occassion, sneaked into the ladies' room because of some bio-disaster in the mens' bathroom.  ;7)

      I'll need some room for this...

      by duckhunter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:39:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Schlafly never attended a figure skating event in (5+ / 0-)

        a hockey venue. Sneaking into the men's bathroom is often the ONLY practical answer to the insanely long lines that form outside the women's bathrooms. "Unisexing" all of them for the duration of the event would be a saner policy, but I haven't ever seen that done.

        You can't scare me with "unisex" bathrooms. :-P'''

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:00:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I used to work at a "man's job"* (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davidincleveland, duckhunter, elwior

        starting back in the early 1980's; guess what?

        Single washroom.  Not unisex.  A guy's washroom.

        Didn't bother me.

        (* man's job = job anybody could do but only men were traditionally hired to do it; now considered a "job" and both men and women are hired to do it).

        Bothered the managers at the phone company at the time, though.

        "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it" Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, part time vampire

        by marigold on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:08:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site