Friday, February 09, 2007

Assmonkey Language Control Part II

As several commentators stated, yes, language does matter. It's a tool for communication and one I frequently use as a deliberate verbal stick in the groin. It's my weapon of choice.

Wizard commented:
If we defend the right to free speech of Marcotte & McEwan, we must also defend the rights of Coulter & Limbaugh.

I do. They have an absolute right to spout any views they want to. Just as I have the same right to make fun of those views and play verbal kickball with them. I've never advocated for forcibly silencing them.

I did read the post in question. I'd also have to call the Christian conservative movement "Christofascist" because plain and simple, it is. Check the definition of facism.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Calling the movement "fascist" isn't "hate speech". It's the truth. No one, Marcotte included, ever advocated to encourage violence against them or any loss of civil rights, including the right to believe what they believe as objectionable as it may be to some of us.

Some of us do strenuously object to their attempt to enact their particular beliefs into laws. It's incredibly simple: if you believe birth control is a sin, DON'T USE IT. If you believe same-sex marriage is a sin: don't marry a person of the same gender as yourself. Trying to control everyone else's choices and beliefs in these and other matters IS fascism.

Wizard also brought up the Mel Gibson and Michael Richards incidents.

There are some very clear differences that ought to be apparent to most sane people. Much as I detest Fundies I do NOT have any right to verbally or in any other way, harass them in their homes, their workplaces, or anywhere in the public domain. I cannot imagine approaching a group of door-to-door evangelists and screaming obscenities and insults at them. I do have every right to attack their views here, my blog, my rules.

If the argument was, and I sense it really was, a rant at Edwards for hiring them in the first place, there is merit to that argument. Certainly if he is attempting to appeal to the center they are a poor choice.

I don't have a problem with people changing their minds, I do it fairly often as more information becomes available but this was a case of the information was already there, flip-flopping all over the board at the first jab was over the top.

Did you know that Marcotte has consistently referred to Jesus as "Jeebus" in all her writings (one blogger counted 114 such references). Can you imagine Edwards rage if she have used a similar derogatory reference for Mohammad? Can you image the Muslim rage?

I sometimes refer to him as Jay-sus, more a play on Southern pronunciation than an attempt on my part to insult a being I do not believe in as a "divine saviour". I cannot insult that which I do not believe exists. I'm sure Muslims would be outraged if I did the same to their deity, we've all seen the violence that has ensued after some well-publicized incidents. Are you trying to say the Christian right might behave in the same fashion? If they do then I'd advocate for having them jailed, the same as I would for Muslims who behave in this manner.

Yes, jailed. People who cannot keep their hands and feet to themselves forfeit the right to live with the rest of us.

The current president of this country publicly declared he did not view me, an Atheist, as a citizen. Imagine my outrage. I did not even contemplate assaulting him. So does that make Atheists more civilized than religious people?

Donohue was never going to vote for Edwards, neither were his followers so exactly why is his opinion of any importance? It isn't. For that matter neither is mine or yours either as we were never going to vote for him either.

In short, it pisses us off that someone like Edwards represents our party. Fine. Attacking the bloggers is your right, you are free to do that all day long but you have to expect your logic and rationales are going to come under scrutiny when you do.


Women on the Verge said...

Logic and rationale????? You can't have those in politics!!!!!!
My goodness... that's like expecting the media to be fair and balanced...


Anonymous said...

Your blog does rule. You are coyote smart!

Not Your Mama said...

WOTV: I hear ya but we'd better at least start trying to insert a little logic because if we continue running on diehard ideology we are going to gain nothing but the destruction of everything we hold dear.

NV Mojo: Good to hear from you! I've missed yours as well, was hoping you were still around.

the WIZARD, fkap said...

Not Your Mama, I am now doubly honored to be have become the focus of a second of your blog entries.

I find nothing major in your latest entry with which to disagree. I do have one very small point which I'll cover below.

You have worked through this topic logically, as you seem to do in all your writing. As a side note I want to add that I, also, am not a Christian. I am one of the much hated (by conservative Christians and Bill O'Reilly) "secular humanists."

I'll quibble over only one very small observation you made. Why in the world would you think your blog (or any blog) is NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN?

And, does your opinion about blogs mean that if Mel Gibson or Michael Richards repeated their diatribes against blacks or Jews in a blog it would all be OK?

And, conversely, if ANY candidate (let's leave Edwards out of this since he really was not the point of my original essay) hired Richards or Gibson would you not be appalled? Even outraged?

I've bookmarked your blog and I'll be a regular reader. Hopefully you'll continue to read my journal as well. You're going to quickly find out I'm not a "snobbish, vanilla-puddin' eatin' idiot."

the Wizard.......

Not Your Mama said...

It is "in the public domain" in the sense of being available to anyone. It is not "public" in the sense of being a public venue or even a place where a reasonable person would say that any and everyone would expect to "hang out". I do not have a captive audience.

Can Richards or Gibson express hatred of certain groups in writing? Yes, as long as it does not involve any advocacy to commit any acts against them or infringe upon their civil rights. There are gazillion right wing blogs calling people like me everything from unpatriotic and a traitor to the root of all evil. They can do that, they can also expect people like me to have great fun at their expense for it.

There are always going to be people who hate some other group of people. We can't outlaw prejudice with any hope of success. I certainly cannot stop some people from hating gays, or Black people, or Mexican people, Jewish, Muslim or any other. I CAN help do something about allowing them to be elected, hold positions of power, or act against them.

As for a candidate hiring Gibson or Richards, I'd think they were stupid. Would I advocate for them to be fired? Highly unlikely. Candidates are free to choose their employees...and lose my vote.

Not Your Mama said...

PS: ok, ok, I apologize for the "snobbish, vanilla puddin" comment. Perhaps you aren't and I am a cranky, short-tempered woman with a caustic tongue. The post came across that way to me and apparently to at least some others. Apparently was not your intent.

Robin Edgar said...

"The current president of this country publicly declared he did not view me, an Atheist, as a citizen. Imagine my outrage. I did not even contemplate assaulting him. So does that make Atheists more civilized than religious people?"

Nope. It just makes you a bit more civilized than some other people, including no shortage of less civilized atheists. . . Does the name Stalin ring a bell? How about Pol Pot?

Robin Edgar said...

"There are gazillion right wing blogs calling people like me everything from unpatriotic and a traitor to the root of all evil. They can do that, they can also expect people like me to have great fun at their expense for it."

As you may have noticed I tend to follow that philosophy myself. . . ;-)

Women on the Verge said...


As it stands, I'm afraid that it's all been just about destroyed now... Austrailia's starting to look pretty good... unless anyone has a deserted island they'd like to get rid of??


Not Your Mama said...

Oh noooo, I can't go to Aussieland, they have their own ultra-right wing wars going on. It's too much like the US, if I go I want real change not just different window dressing.

Women on the Verge said...

Agreed... it seems we're fighting a worldwide battle against right-wing extremism. Maybe I'll have to consider Switzerland??? I just hate the thought of more cold... ugh


Vigilante said...

I'm glad y'all have met the Wizard. I find him to be a respectable fellow with whom to disagree respectably.