Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (346481)	1/23/2003 11:00:41 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>I think it is fine to call people racists... I personally would not appreciate being called a racist if it wasn't true...

To: epicure who wrote (346481)	1/23/2003 11:08:22 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Wow. re:"I think it is fine to call people racists and misogynists. Sometimes it isn't true, but there's no harm in using the word. I've no idea where you got the idea I wouldn't think that was ok."

To: epicure who wrote (346481)	1/23/2003 11:15:58 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

..on this we agree. people like louis farrahkan and robert byrd (though now reformed) come to mind... i am sure we could come up a list of avowed racists. but if some one expresses the opinion that a person is a racist or homophobe without any supporting evidence...then it is simply a smear tactic. you may not consider that to be "hate speech"...and that is your opinion....i have mine.....but i quite frankly do not use the term "hate speech" except in derision. i see a lot of hateful speech written and hateful words spoken and that's too bad... i'm still waiting for the list of unspeakable hate speech words, btw...i think it would simplify things if SI would just post them so that everyone here knows what one can and cannot say without the revocation of their posting privileges. yes....i did say privilege....no one has the right to post here. upon that too, we agree. i am going out for a bit and i have no further interest in belaboring this .

To: epicure who wrote (346481)	1/23/2003 12:42:10 PM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The word que.. has much stronger connotation than gay. The latter has become part of common language.

To: epicure who wrote (346481)	1/23/2003 1:46:35 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I think it is fine to call people racists and misogynists. And I think it is fine to call people queer and homosexuals, especially because if that is what they are then that is what they are. (grin) Sometimes it isn't true, but there's no harm in using the word. Very well then. Sometimes it may not be true that someone is queer or a homosexual, but to me there is no more harm done by using these terms as there is in using the terms "racist" and "woman hater." All of these groups are defined by behavior - NOT by any innate characteristic. And people can be found in all these groups who falsely claim there is a genetic basis for their behavior. Your actions are clearly based only upon your own personal hangups, and the only reason you've gotten away with it is because you've exploited SI gods who obviously are not smart enough to think the matter through. All of it lacks integrity. Homosexuals are indeed queer to the majority of people on earth because what they do is contrary to human identity everywhere. It is by a cojoining of sexual bipolarism that humans come into being. Put another way, sexual intercourse reflects, more than any other human relationship, what we are at our most fundamental biological nature. We are comprised of female-male biological contributions. When a man has anal sex with another man and sets forth that queer relationship as a valid human identity, he presents a gross corruption of human nature and expects us to accept this falsehood. He is queer. When whole groups of such people do as this man has done, they are all queer. My calling them queer here is to do nothing more than reveal biological fact. Homosexuals are "strange" or "queer" because their chronic behavior is foreign to what humans are. Is that offensive? Too dang bad. I didn't mean it to be, but sometimes the dang truth will be offensive to us. If you take issue with it, fight it with contrary ideas. But it is quite invalid (though it may work) to whine to gods who are so friggin' dumb even mortals can outhink them.