Or, why the White Euro Christian Male will join the identity politics game...very soon. White is Beautiful!


Via Pajamas Media

The Drunkard’s Progress (http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/12/19/the-drunkards-progress/?singlepage=true)

December 19, 2010 - by Richard Fernandez

Just what is inappropriate in modern society is a matter of intense debate. Some people say that anything goes. But a cursory glance around shows that moral judgments refuse to go away. In fact, they are more pervasive than ever.

continued...

What is it you wish to discuss?

That both White Pride and Black Pride either be OK, or both not be OK?

So in all likelihood then, while Qatr may beat up the gays anyhow and not have any explaining to do, any European who simply mentions that Qatr might do it is engaging in offensive behavior.

From the article. This really resonates with me. There is this amazing amount of tolerance for other countries' cultures no matter how backwards their beliefs are. However, if you hold those same beliefs in western (Europe or North America), you are labeled a bigot or offensive.

It's moral relativism mixed with supposed tolerance. A far away culture that oppresses women, gays, and other religions is A-OK. If you are within sight, though, you had better have the same tolerant, moral relativist ideals as the next guy.

Indeed zygonn.

Visit some stone age tribe of painted numpties out in the middle of the jungle who live in huts, and lauds about the wisdom of the elders will gush forth. And people from rural Pennsylvania or Sarah Palin's home town in Alaska(unless they are Eskimos) will be sneered at with contempt. This is like Anti-Semitism only toward White European/Christian/Male peoples and culture. Intellectual violence.

From the article. This really resonates with me. There is this amazing amount of tolerance for other countries' cultures no matter how backwards their beliefs are. However, if you hold those same beliefs in western (Europe or North America), you are labeled a bigot or offensive.

It's moral relativism mixed with supposed tolerance. A far away culture that oppresses women, gays, and other religions is A-OK. If you are within sight, though, you had better have the same tolerant, moral relativist ideals as the next guy.


I dated a girl who's roommate was both a feminist and an Arab Studies major. So she constantly talked shit about America for being a Christian wasteland that hated women and Muslims. (I don't get it when people hate on Christians but love other Religions. I mean, I think they're all pretty bad for society and can't think of a reason why Christianity should be singled out)

I once attempted to explain to her that by any rational measure America is the most accepting country (Women's rights, Gay rights, Race relations, etc), but was also sure to mention that we still have a ways to go. I was met with a pretty simple (and firm) "fark off for saying that Arab culture is backwards and ful of hate". (??)


It was pretty funny, and a moment I will cherish forever. Remember kids, college girls are stupid as shit - don't even worry about pretending to respect them.

Just because your a better person then Charlie Manson, doesn't make your a good person..

While I will fully admit Qatr and other middle eastern countries are havens of intolerance. They are not really claiming to be "the most tolerant", "the worlds' morale compass", "the worlds' policeman".

For me, when people make wild claims like

I once attempted to explain to her that by any rational measure America is the most accepting country (Women's rights, Gay rights, Race relations, etc),

Then I gotta call them like I see them. We are barely tolerating women's rights, spit on gay rights, and have made some progress on race relations. I would have less of an issue if you has said something like "America is fairly tolerant", or "We have been moving towards tolerance", but when I read that statement all I see is a 12 year old shouting, "I am better then you, nah nah nah nah"...

That day Qatr claims its the most tolerant country and let's stuff like this happen, then we can revisit the point.

I dated a girl who's roommate was both a feminist and an Arab Studies major. So she constantly talked shit about America for being a Christian wasteland that hated women and Muslims. (I don't get it when people hate on Christians but love other Religions. I mean, I think they're all pretty bad for society and can't think of a reason why Christianity should be singled out)

I once attempted to explain to her that by any rational measure America is the most accepting country (Women's rights, Gay rights, Race relations, etc), but was also sure to mention that we still have a ways to go. I was met with a pretty simple (and firm) "fark off for saying that Arab culture is backwards and ful of hate". (??)


It was pretty funny, and a moment I will cherish forever. Remember kids, college girls are stupid as shit - don't even worry about pretending to respect them.

*Beep Beep Beep* Hyprocracy Alert....

So she constantly talked shit about America for being a Christian wasteland that hated women and Muslims.

I once attempted to explain to her that by any rational measure America is the most accepting country (Women's rights, Gay rights, Race relations, etc)

college girls are stupid as shit - don't even worry about pretending to respect them

*Beep Beep Beep* Hyprocracy Alert....


The word is hypocrisy for starters. Secondly, nothing that you quoted was hypocritical.

We are barely tolerating women's rights...

Can you elaborate on that? Are there some rights that women are missing?

Can you elaborate on that? Are there some rights that women are missing?

Let me rephrase, as that can be taken two ways. I think we have a reasonable tolerance for women's rights, though its hanging in there barely...

Edit: Actually a better way to phrase it would be, "It's less institutional then it is individual"

From the article. This really resonates with me. There is this amazing amount of tolerance for other countries' cultures no matter how backwards their beliefs are. However, if you hold those same beliefs in western (Europe or North America), you are labeled a bigot or offensive....because they are other countries, with other cultures.

A far away culture that oppresses women, gays, and other religions is A-OK. If you are within sight, though, you had better have the same tolerant, moral relativist ideals as the next guy.
Whoa! Now you're mixing up tolerance with support. I'm not sure if you were being purposely hyperbolic or not. The backwards, hateful, and ridiculous things some other cultures do are not "A-OK", but we also aren't the world's police.

...because they are other counties, with other cultures.


Whoa! Now you're mixing up tolerance with support. I'm not sure if you were being purposely hyperbolic or not. The backwards, hateful, and ridiculous things some other cultures do are not A-OK, but we also aren't the world's police.

Then why is it so hard to tolerate particular cultures within the supposedly diverse United States?

That is, often someone will accept, within the USA ,a devout Muslim preaching that women should be stoned to death for adultery.

The same person may not tolerate a devout Christian preaching homosexuality as a sin. I'm not making a particular accusation at anyone on this board, but this can easily be observed.

That is, the first one is just a devout religious person and the second is labeled a bigot.

Let me rephrase, as that can be taken two ways. I think we have a reasonable tolerance for women's rights, though its hanging in there barely...

Edit: Actually a better way to phrase it would be, "It's less institutional then it is individual"
I think you underestimate the progress that has been made.

I also just want to throw something out there. Consider the phrase:

"I can tolerate all types of beliefs, but there is one thing I can't tolerate and that is bigotry"

I'll help with a definition if you don't see the hypocrisy:

big·ot·ry
   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree]
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

This discussion, my friends is the one that will dominate the political landscape in the West for the next 40 years.

If we cannot defend our culture, we are doomed to lose it.

Faux tolerance that is tolerant of any behavior, any culture, and any ideology, excepting those of the majority White European Christians, is not an advance. Its more of the same intolerance. Methinks that the coming resurgent overt cultural assertion and self interest of the White European Christians isnt going to be well loved by the Faux Tolerance crowd....who will no doubt continue to be intolerant of those folks and feel righteously proved correct about the essential evil of those groups.

Welcome to the party pal.

Then why is it so hard to tolerate particular cultures within the supposedly diverse United States?

That is, often someone will accept, within the USA ,a devout Muslim preaching that women should be stoned to death for adultery.

The same person may not tolerate a devout Christian preaching homosexuality as a sin. I'm not making a particular accusation at anyone on this board, but this can easily be observed.

That is, the first one is just a devout religious person and the second is labeled a bigot.
IMO the problem usually occurs when one tries to force their ideas on others. If the preaching remains within the confines in which those being preached to share the same prejudices, no one would be the wiser.

I really don't think it's a matter of intolerance so much as a matter of trying to keep people's beliefs from negatively impacting others who don't share those beliefs.

I really don't think it's a matter of intolerance so much as a matter of trying to keep people's beliefs from negatively impacting others who don't share those beliefs.

Can you show me where White European Christians are being protected in this manner? Is it via very limited immigration in numbers and to people that are easily integrated and congenial with the host population?

big·ot·ry
   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree]
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
I like this one, from M-W.com, better:

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I also just want to throw something out there. Consider the phrase:

"I can tolerate all types of beliefs, but there is one thing I can't tolerate and that is bigotry"

I'll help with a definition if you don't see the hypocrisy:

big·ot·ry
   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree]
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.


That's the wonderful thing about free speech, people can say bigotted statesments, preach that people get stoned for adultry, preach about the evils of homosexuality, if they are willing to accept the consequences of it.

Let me say this on the record.. If you want to be a bigot, go for it, that's your right.
You try to impose your bigotry on others and try to limit their rights, then we got an issues. You try to incite violence on others, we got issues..

Also, just because you have that right, doesn't mean I have to listen to it. You come to my place with hate talk, I will ask you to leave. If I am at your house, then I will leave.

That is, often someone will accept, within the USA ,a devout Muslim preaching that women should be stoned to death for adultery.

If a woman is stoned, then I am sure they will be visited by the police. If they incited others to stone the woman, I am pretty sure that is a crime.

The same person may not tolerate a devout Christian preaching homosexuality as a sin. I'm not making a particular accusation at anyone on this board, but this can easily be observed.

I think this is where the misunderstanding is. I don't have a problem with a devout christian preaching homosexuality is a sin. I don't want to hear it personally, but they are welcome to preach that in their home, in their church or anywhere they are welcome to.

I have an issue with them imposing their beliefs on to others, by trying to stop or limit gay marriage, it has gone beyond speech. A person's right to be a bigot, stops when it impacts others. If they persist, then they should lose that right.

IMO the problem usually occurs when one tries to force their ideas on others. If the preaching remains within the confines in which those being preached to share the same prejudices, no one would be the wiser.

I really don't think it's a matter of intolerance so much as a matter of trying to keep people's beliefs from negatively impacting others who don't share those beliefs.

Exactly! You did a much better job of explaining it.

I once attempted to explain to her that by any rational measure America is the most accepting country (Women's rights, Gay rights, Race relations, etc), ...You think US is most accepting of gays?


Then, you don't know Jack. :)

Can you show me where White European Christians are being protected in this manner? Is it via very limited immigration in numbers and to people that are easily integrated and congenial with the host population?

Can you show where "White European Christians" have been negatively impacted in any way, where they need protection? Have there been laws that say "White European Christians" can't marry, can't worship, can't practice their cultural beliefs (what are they anyway)...?

You try to impose your bigotry on others and try to limit their rights, then we got an issues.

So you are outraged at the discrimination against the Christian Astronomy Professor, correct? Or by discrimination against White Euros and males via Affirmative Action and Diversity Promotion.

Let me tell you a little anecdote. I was listening to the radio the other day, a show called Tell Me More on NPR. So the host is visiting a hospital and the HR department representative proudly pronounces that the hospital is "85% diverse." The host asks the beeming proud HR Rep, "What does that mean?" Arent White Straight Christian Males people too? The HR Rep seemed to be saying that they only had a few more White Straight Christian Males to replace with good diverse people and then they would have reached diversity nirvana.

If you replace White Straight Christian Males with any other group, would people be applauding and receiving diversity hiring bonuses and Federal Funds in the systematic exclusion of them?

I really don't think it's a matter of intolerance so much as a matter of trying to keep people's beliefs from negatively impacting others who don't share those beliefs.


You mean like teaching other peoples kids that Homosexuality is normal successful behavior in the Public School System? Or State sanctioning of Homosexual Relationships via Gay Marriage.

Have there been laws that say "White European Christians" can't marry, can't worship, can't practice their cultural beliefs (what are they anyway)...?

Yes, many. Wouldnt know where to start? The War on Christmas? The legal discrimination against White Euros in employment and higher education admissions? The discrimination against a Christian by a University applying for the position of Professor of Astronomy (in the article I just posted). The denial of a diploma of a Validictorian High School Student who spoke about the importance of her Christian beliefs to her success, and the demand that she apologize and state publicly that the School did not condone her offensive comments. The demands that Christian metaphysics, morality, and ethics are dissallowed from the public sphere and informing legislation. The closing down of Science labs because not enough non whites met the requirements to attend.

One of my favorites the now Judenrein (and White uro-rein, Kahnawake Mohawk territory.)

So you are outraged at the discrimination against the Christian Astronomy Professor, correct? Or by discrimination against White Euros and males via Affirmative Action and Diversity Promotion.

Yes. I have said on several occasions Affirmative Action should be abolished. Though I still think it should be illegal to discriminate against any race.

Let me tell you a little anecdote. I was listening to the radio the other day, a show called Tell Me More on NPR. So the host is visiting a hospital and the HR department representative proudly pronounces that the hospital is "85% diverse." The host asks the beeming proud HR Rep, "What does that mean?" Arent White Straight Christian Males people too? The HR Rep seemed to be saying that they only had a few more White Straight Christian Males to replace with good diverse people and then they would have reached diversity nirvana.

Then hopefully a replace "White Christian Male" that gets replace sues for racial discrimination and throws this quote back in his face.


[/QUOTE]You mean like teaching other peoples kids that Homosexuality is normal successful behavior in the Public School System? Or State sanctioning of Homosexual Relationships via Gay Marriage.[/QUOTE]

If it's a sexual education course and your going to teach that "Heterosexuality is normal", then I don't see a problem teaching that "homosexualty may be uncommon, but it's not unatural or a sin".

-or-

If there is a question about familiar relationships (ie children learning the words "mother", "father"). I don't see a problem talking about 2 mommies or 2 daddies.

The other has been explain to death and is not them imposing their values on you, but giving them the same rights as other adult couples. Two gay people being married has 0 effect on you. You can argue all your want to how it cheapens your definition of marriage, but there is no real tangible effect on you.

Yes, many. Wouldnt know where to start? The War on Christmas?

Wait, Someone has stopped your from celebrating Christmas?? Did they stop you from buying a tree or buying presents. Did someone come in and confiscate all your egg nog?

The legal discrimination against White Euros in employment and higher education admissions?

Probably the only valid claim I have seen.

The discrimination against a Christian by a University applying for the position of Professor of Astronomy (in the article I just posted).

Like I said before, free speech comes with consequences. The university didn't want someone to represent them with such vocal beliefs. If the university didn't want to hire him because he was christian, you might have a point. I don't see that, I see a university doesn't want an evangelical.

See the quote..

“Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical. If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department Web site.”


The denial of a diploma of a Validictorian High School Student who spoke about the importance of her Christian beliefs to her success, and the demand that she apologize and state publicly that the School did not condone her offensive comments.

(if this is the one i remeber) AFAIK she violated a school policy that was stated before hand and suffered the consequences. I am sure if it was a Muslim boy shouting "Death to America" the same thing would happen.

The demands that Christian metaphysics, morality, and ethics are dissallowed from the public sphere and informing legislation.

Christian morality and ethics (as well as Muslim, Jewish, Satanic morality, etc) should not be a part of the public sphere and kept away from legislation.

Christian metaphysics (I don't even know what this means actually), no clue...

Yes, many. Wouldnt know where to start?
Using examples of actual *laws* would be a great place to start.

The War on Christmas? The legal discrimination against White Euros in employment and higher education admissions? The discrimination against a Christian by a University applying for the position of Professor of Astronomy (in the article I just posted). The denial of a diploma of a Validictorian High School Student who spoke about the importance of her Christian beliefs to her success, and the demand that she apologize and state publicly that the School did not condone her offensive comments. The demands that Christian metaphysics, morality, and ethics are dissallowed from the public sphere and informing legislation. The closing down of Science labs because not enough non whites met the requirements to attend.
None of those are *laws* requiring discrimination against straight, white Christian males or any other group of people. :shake:

And most of those are not accurate descriptions of the events in question. The would-be validictorian was not punished for speaking "about the importance of her Christian beliefs to her success". She was punished for blatantly and knowingly violating the rules her school had set forth wrt the level of prostelytizing contained within her speech. Why should a straight white Christian get to break the rules with impunity?

808Lurker, the Courts have ruled that discrimination on the basis of race is legal, against White Europeans and Males. Affirmative Action has been upheld as "Constitutional," that "diversity promotion" trumps the 17th Amendments protection from discrimination.

White European/Male identity politics is just around the corner. As Carol M. Swain has astutely noted, if it is good for everyone else, why not join the party and get the benefits. Look for the rehabilitation of the KKK and the White Citizens Councils in the near future. The NAAWP is on the way.

Christians are already on the march.

Ive heard all the arguments.

Im just letting you know that overt identity politics by these groups is on the way. Enjoy.

Christian morality and ethics (as well as Muslim, Jewish, Satanic morality, etc) should not be a part of the public sphere and kept away from legislation. --- 808Lurker


You just imposed your values onto others and have advocated oppressing them politically. What you claimed you were trying to avoid.

I don't see that, I see a university doesn't want an evangelical.

Do you see a university that doesnt want a vocal feminist?

The Sandbagging of Robert "KC" Johnson

By Ronald Radosh

http://hnn.us/articles/1116.html

I can keep this up all day and all night and into next week and next month. And you can keep on asserting that none of the cases have merit. What is going to happen is that WhiteEuros and Males are going to organize politically.

We are headed to major confrontations in the near future. Society has collapse and is now just a hodge podge of special interest and identity groups all fighting over the Leftovers of the once great European Civilization.

Another principle of this code is the estimation of tolerance above all other virtues. Once defined by the absence of state prohibitions against certain ideas and behaviors, tolerance has come to be conflated with legitimization — as the state itself now actively encourages those ideas and behaviors through legal and material aid.

Delsol’s is certainly not the first baleful assessment of our ambient culture of moral relativism — perhaps quasi-relativism is more apt because, as she rightly notes, its practitioners unquestionably accept moral absolutes (“one must be tolerant”) while insisting that they indignantly reject them.

Yet on the pages of our major news organs we find the faithful described in the most disrespectful terms. Here is novelist Jane Smiley, in Slate, depicting them as “unteachably ignorant,” advising us to “[l]isten to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are — they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence.” Brian Reade of the Mirror calls the faithful “self-righteous, gun-totin’, military-lovin’, sister-marryin’, abortion-hatin’, gay-loathin’, foreigner-despisin’, non-passport ownin’ red-necks.” Maureen Dowd, predictable as sunrise, sees “a vengeful mob — revved up by rectitude — running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.” And Nicolas Kristof echoes his New York Times colleague with his nod to “wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting” Americans. If Delsol’s thesis needs further confirmation, consider this: These critics are exercised about the intolerance of the religious.
No, not much newfound respect for religion on display here —

Is God Still Dead? (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6470)
by Claire Berlinski

Claire Berlinski on The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath and Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World by Chantal Delsol and translated by Robin Dick

808Lurker, the Courts have ruled that discrimination on the basis of race is legal, against White Europeans and Males. Affirmative Action has been upheld as "Constitutional," that "diversity promotion" trumps the 17th Amendments protection from discrimination.

If you had kept this thread and discussion about the wrongness of affirmative action, then I would be onboard.

I know what the courts ruled, but imho it was the wrong choice and should be abolished.

You just imposed your values onto others and have advocated oppressing them politically. What you claimed you were trying to avoid.

I see what you are trying to do there..

All I can say is I am not trying to impose my values, merely stop people from imposing theirs. It's along the lines of self-defense. While, I don't believe in killing, if you try to kill me or my family and there is no way to escape, I won't hesitate in killing you.

Do you see a university that doesnt want a vocal feminist?

Never did much research into it, so couldn't tell you. Let me ask you this..

If you ran a slaughterhouse and a vocal PETA activist applied for a job, would you hire them?

If you ran an accounting firm and Bernie Madoff got out prison and applied for a job, would you hire him?

If you can show the reason why he wasn't hired was because he was a christian and not a vocal evangelist, then you (and he) has a case. Based on the article, the reason he was hired wasn't due to his christian side, but his very vocal behavior. I am sure if he was a vocal Muslim or Satanist, he would not have been hired.

We are headed to major confrontations in the near future. Society has collapse and is now just a hodge podge of special interest and identity groups all fighting over the Leftovers of the once great European Civilization.

Society is going to collapse because a certain "fiscally responsible" party has run up a huge national debt. Though they did have some help from the current administration. That will cause the US to collapse, not because of the "war on christmas"..

Yes. I have said on several occasions Affirmative Action should be abolished. Though I still think it should be illegal to discriminate against any race.Here is the thing: many of the people who did not say a word when blacks were being discriminated for years, are now all of a sudden champions of equality and that is why they are against AA.

I am just not buying this crap.

I can keep this up all day and all night and into next week and next month. And you can keep on asserting that none of the cases have merit. What is going to happen is that WhiteEuros and Males are going to organize politically.

From your own article...

Off the record, it was made clear to me by my department chair that my
outspoken left-wing political views and my constant activism were the
reasons the administration sought to hold back my promotion.

left-wing political views and constant activism are not protected..

And most of those are not accurate descriptions of the events in question. The would-be validictorian was not punished for speaking "about the importance of her Christian beliefs to her success". She was punished for blatantly and knowingly violating the rules her school had set forth wrt the level of prostelytizing contained within her speech. Why should a straight white Christian get to break the rules with impunity?Tradition?

We need to preserve our (Euro-centric Christian) traditions.

I have an issue with them imposing their beliefs on to others, by trying to stop or limit gay marriage, it has gone beyond speech. A person's right to be a bigot, stops when it impacts others. If they persist, then they should lose that right.So someone that says something you strongly disagree with and they say it again means that person should lose their right to free speech? I love it when a liberal expresses how much they hate America. Proves what has been said many times.

Wait, Someone has stopped your from celebrating Christmas?? Did they stop you from buying a tree or buying presents. Did someone come in and confiscate all your egg nog?This year the Staten Island Ferry Terminal removed a Nativity scene after one person complained. A Menorah was not removed.

This year the Staten Island Ferry Terminal removed a Nativity scene after one person complained. A Menorah was not removed.

Just one of 1000s of such incidences. Then there are the people that dont express themselves in public for fear of lawsuits....so they arent even an issue to discuss, pre-emptive censorship.

There was the Federal Bureacrat that told the bank in Oklahoma to remove its Christmas tree.

808Lurker, the Courts have ruled that discrimination on the basis of race is legal, against White Europeans and Males.
Except, of course, that ruling that the *voluntary* use of affirmative action policies is constitutional is not anywhere near the same as implying that "discrimination on the basis of race is legal against white Europeans and males" in general.

Affirmative Action has been upheld as "Constitutional," that "diversity promotion" trumps the 17th Amendments protection from discrimination.
*Some* AA policies or practices have been ruled Constitutional, while some others have been ruled unconstitutional. Trying to speak of it as a single universal action is disingenous.

Christians are already on the march.
For what exactly are they marching? :dontknow:

We are headed to major confrontations in the near future. Society has collapse and is now just a hodge podge of special interest and identity groups all fighting over the Leftovers of the once great European Civilization.
When exactly was this "great European Civilization"? Was it when they were exploiting their colonies of natural resources in order to support their own standards of living? Was it when they exercized the same level of religious intolerance as modern day radical Islamic fundamentalists?
Tradition?

We need to preserve our (Euro-centric Christian) traditions.
All of them? Or just some of them? ;)

Remember the Fire Station that had not one non Christian employee, that was required to remove its Christmas decorations.

Not much tolerance there, for Christians.

You think US is most accepting of gays?


Then, you don't know Jack. :)


Overall, is there a country more accepting? When you consider women's rights, gay rights, racial sensitivity, etc? I can't think of one country with a more diverse makeup.



And to everyone saying that white males are the most discriminated against - totally untrue. Per capita, Asians are by far the most affected by race quotas - especially in relation to college admissions.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/02/08/do_colleges_redline_asian_americans/

Asians benefit from "diversity promotion."

The only folks who it is Politically Correct to villify, demonize, and discriminate against, are WhiteEuro/Christian/Heterosexual/Males. If they are Southerners, so much the better.

When exactly was this "great European Civilization"? Was it when they were exploiting their colonies of natural resources in order to support their own standards of living? Was it when they exercized the same level of religious intolerance as modern day radical Islamic fundamentalists?

Not a big fan of European Civilization, heh? Who knew?

Overall, is there a country more accepting? When you consider women's rights, gay rights, racial sensitivity, etc? I can't think of one country with a more diverse makeup.

Overall, I believe USA is the most accepting of immigrants, especially of the more educated immigrants.

But you agree that USA is not the most gay friendly country. Right?

Overall, I believe USA is the most accepting of immigrants, especially of the more educated immigrants.

But you agree that USA is not the most gay friendly country. Right?


Of course not, there are many countries with nationally recognized gay marriage.

My claim was that when every possible facet of "acceptance" was considered (sexual orientation, race, religion, "culture", the whole shebang) there isn't a country more "progressive" than the US. Namby Pamby Europe? France has a burqa ban and try going to a soccer game in Spain without hearing the N word. Many Americans (especially young Americans) fail to realize this.

I have an issue with them imposing their beliefs on to others, by trying to stop or limit gay marriage, it has gone beyond speech. A person's right to be a bigot, stops when it impacts others. If they persist, then they should lose that right.

How should they lose the 'right' to be a bigot...? Should they not be able to vote ... or not be able to speak or something?


The thing about speech generally, and political speech in particular, is that it has the tendency to go beyond speech. Political speech has as its aim political action. Speech impacts others b/c it can persuade.

I think Dr. Wu, that re-education camps are always popular. We are already seeing people being prosecuted under Hate Speech legislation for criticizing Islam or saying that homosexuality is a sin for example. There is always the Gulags and the ultimate Final Solution, for those who refuse to adopt the mores of the New Left Establishment.

Of course saying things like Evangelical Christians should be denied employment in quasi government institutions in their field of expertise is entirely reasonable and rational. It's not bigotry.

How should they lose the 'right' to be a bigot...? Should they not be able to vote ... or not be able to speak or something?


The thing about speech generally, and political speech in particular, is that it has the tendency to go beyond speech. Political speech has as its aim political action. Speech impacts others b/c it can persuade.


I should clarify a little more, two examples..

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html
Top officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed reports today indicating that they donated more than $180,000 in in-kind contributions to Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.

If the LDS church wants to preach that homosexuality is evil, that fine. If they actively participate in political activism, they lose they non profit status and become subject to the same rules other lobbying organizations do..

Also, while I believe the Westboro church has the right to protest, I feel their right to protest stops at a funeral for a dead gay soldier. If they chose a different day or location, fine, but their right to hate speak stops when it impacts others.

It's not a perfect system and there is no black and write answer. What an adult does in the privacy of their own home, or not affecting anyone in public is not my business. I also understand this is one of the main problems with liberalism, liberalism assumes everyone is a rational adult and can respect boundaries. However, I don't see a better system, so I cling to a flawed one.

Here is the thing: many of the people who did not say a word when blacks were being discriminated for years, are now all of a sudden champions of equality and that is why they are against AA.

I am just not buying this crap.

I have no doubt it's disingenious, but equality is a cause I believe in.

Quote :
This year the Staten Island Ferry Terminal removed a Nativity scene after one person complained. A Menorah was not removed.

Just one of 1000s of such incidences. Then there are the people that dont express themselves in public for fear of lawsuits....so they arent even an issue to discuss, pre-emptive censorship.

There was the Federal Bureacrat that told the bank in Oklahoma to remove its Christmas tree.

Did anyone call to complain about the Menorah and it wasn't removed?

Government is reactionary it responds to complaints and isn't proactive. Growing up we had a pothole on our street for years and everyone one grumbled. Years later, a new neighbor showed up and noticed the pot hole, called public works and a week later is was filled in.

Also how does the removal of a christmas scene on a public location affect your right to celebrate christmas?

I would like you to provide a link of a government official telling a private business to remove a christmas tree, because AFAIK that is wrong.

Asians benefit from "diversity promotion."
Unless an Asian happens to be applying to MIT. ;)

Not a big fan of European Civilization, heh? Who knew?
Not a big fan of substantiating your claims, heh? We all certainly knew that. :coverlaf:
I think Dr. Wu, that re-education camps are always popular. We are already seeing people being prosecuted under Hate Speech legislation for criticizing Islam or saying that homosexuality is a sin for example. There is always the Gulags and the ultimate Final Solution, for those who refuse to adopt the mores of the New Left Establishment.
Just not in America.... :rolleyes:

Invoking Goodwin's law is not really the most credibile debate strategy.

Of course saying things like Evangelical Christians should be denied employment in quasi government institutions in their field of expertise is entirely reasonable and rational. It's not bigotry.
Who said that?

AFAIK, the idea was that it was entirely reasonable and rational to deny employment to one whose Evangelical Christianity interferes with their supposed field of expertise.

Would it be entirely reasonable and rational to deny employment to a radical Muslim in their field of expertise?

Why is the University of Kentucky under some sort of *obligation* to offer this particular invididual employment? Do they not retain the right as a business employer to determine for themselves who is the best "fit" for an open position in their organization?

Should we exclude Orthodox Jews from employment at Universities? After all you cant trust those folks, as everyone knows.

Why is the University of Kentucky under some sort of *obligation* to offer this particular invididual employment? Do they not retain the right as a business employer to determine for themselves who is the best "fit" for an open position in their organization?


last I checked, the Univ of Kentucky is a state run government school. Therefore, they have rules to follow that wouldn't apply to a private employer.

last I checked, the Univ of Kentucky is a state run government school. Therefore, they have rules to follow that wouldn't apply to a private employer.

Anti-discrimination laws apply to everyone with more than (a number) of employees. If you don't hire someone because they are black, pregnant, religious etc. they can sue. That's the laws that have been set up by the liberals work.

If the LDS church wants to preach that homosexuality is evil, that fine. If they actively participate in political activism, they lose they non profit status and become subject to the same rules other lobbying organizations do..And of course you hold the Catholic Church to the same standard right? Like when Pelosi was preaching on capitol hill (separation of church and state....anyone???) telling Catholic Church leaders to instruct their parishioners to support amnesty? Right? How about when Pelosi said bishops had told her they wanted her to pass amnesty? Cause otherwise you're just another liberal hypocrite.

Did anyone call to complain about the Menorah and it wasn't removed? Yep and the reply from the SIFT was the menorah was not a religious symbol. :lol:

Can you elaborate on that? Are there some rights that women are missing?Yep.
Us males are constantly claiming we would give a right nut or left nut for something or other.
Women have no right to make that particular give-away.