Given some recent controversies here, I was hoping my fellow kossacks could give me some advice.  If I've understood things correctly, when someone describes obscene political acts using obscene language, it's the obscene language this is the problem and deserving of condemnation.  Hopefully others can let me know if I'm applying the rules correctly.

If someone says:

Fred Phelps is a Nazi pig.
We're supposed to condemn the person who said this for referring to the Nazi's because such comparisons are obscene.

If someone else says:  

The government is behaving like KGB thugs.
The problem here is the person that compared the American government to the Soviet KGB, right?

The other day I heard a person say:

The banks and Wall Street are behaving like the Vandals.
Here the serious issue lies in comparing upstanding institutions like the banks and Wall Street to barbarian hordes, right?  

Am I following the rules correctly?  I mean, clearly the genuinely important issue is politically offensive language and if we stamp this out we'll solve our problems.  Certainly whether one thinks the issue is obscene or language used to describe the issue is obscene says a lot about a person's politics and commitments.  The person who thinks the issue is obscene is obviously an idiot and a fool.  Our real problem is obscene language used to describe the issue.  After all, what about the kids?  Also, someone might be offended!  I mean, it's not as if the mere discussion of uncomfortable issues, regardless of how they're expressed, doesn't offend people or make them look for ways to change the subject and divert attention.  

Anyway, I just want to make sure that I'm on the right side with these issues, that I understand what's genuinely important to the functioning of our democracy, and that I'm concerned about the right things.  Thanks in advance!

Your Email has been sent.