More details at Palingates.
Jesse at the Immoral Minority has an essay up on this, too.
I guess the people who sent or left this stuff won't be confused with the Women of Joy, eh?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Does Sarah Palin Inspire Hate Speech? - Examples Nos. 5,678 and so on...
Calidfornia State Senator Leland Yee has called for close scrutiny of how the University of California Stanislaus is dealing with an upcoming speaking appearance there by Sarah Palin. He is getting a lot of nasty feedback. Here are some samples, from a post today at Palingates:
More details at Palingates.
Jesse at the Immoral Minority has an essay up on this, too.
I guess the people who sent or left this stuff won't be confused with the Women of Joy, eh?
More details at Palingates.
Jesse at the Immoral Minority has an essay up on this, too.
I guess the people who sent or left this stuff won't be confused with the Women of Joy, eh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
That graphic is VERY disturbing. It is important to know this stuff is still out there.
Does Sarah Palin Inspire Hate Speech?
Would that be of the "slut" and "whore" variety, Phil?
Anon 9:24
Slut and Whore is a lot different than what Palin inspires. Remember the rallies??? She knows exactly what she is doing by her code phrases like "unamerican", etc, etc to scare people and incite.
Keep worshipping her, though. If by some chance she ever gets elected, enjoy a life without healthcare, Social Security and Medicare because you will not have any. Plan on working through any major or catastrophic illness
you might have. When you want to claim a retirement you deserve after years of work you won't be able to. You'll have to pull yourself up by those Palin loving bootstraps and go to work even if you are 85 and sick or going through chemotherapy, etc, etc.
Keep loving those Republicans who want to destroy a decent life and world.
Palin DOES NOT care about you. Palin cares about power. It is with concern that people try to reveal Palin to her followers for what she is. It is just too bad you people won't listen.
P. S. Anon 9:24
If you don't believe what I am saying, check out Paul Ryan who she strongly supports and her facebook notes ( I think in Feb) where she says she wants vouchers for Medicare. That would be the beginning of the end of Medicare. I was in insurance for years, and Palin wasn't. I know what I am talking about.
Thanks for documenting the right-wing nutjobs; they are certainly out there. Airing this stuff out is the best way to marginalize it. It is just worth remembering that this offensive speech is bipartisan in nature. Here's some quotes off of photos of signs from rallies in CA:
- "I HEART NY EVEN WITHOUT THE WTC" ("Global Day of Action," March 20, 2004)
- "NAZI KIKES OUT OF LEBANON" (Stop the U.S.-Israeli War," August 12, 2006)
- "PIN THE MOLOTOV ON THE COP CAR" game for kids! (Anarchist Bookfair, March 18, 2006)
- "I SUPPORT FORCED STERILIZATION FOR CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS" (Berkley Marines Protest, 2/12/08)
- "TARGET ALL ZIONIST BUSINESSES - EVERY ZIONAZI IS A LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET" (Gaza War Protest, 2009)
- Folks dressed up as suicide bombers, advocating attacks against US troops and against civilians (multiple protests on a regular basis)
- Burning Pres Bush in effigy, and hanging him, and pairing him with Nazi symbology (Post Election Rallies, November 3, 2004 -- and numerous other times)
I'm no Sarah Palin fan, but I think it is fair to agree that there are offensive, crude, hateful people who choose to express themselves in a manner than condones or encourages physical violence in public on both sides of the aisle.
We don't have selective freedom of speech. If it was...
- Ok for people to protest with signs like those above.
- Ok for sitting US senators to call US soldiers terrorists/Nazis/Khmer Rouge torturers.
- Ok for plays and books and protesters to advocate killing the POTUS during the Bush years.
Then it is...
- Ok for Sarah Palin to prove she's an idiot by opening that flapping thing on the front of her face.
- Ok for hateful, rascist bigots to send anonymous faxes.
I don't agree with the opinions expressed above, but there is a right to express them, even if they are offensive and hurtful and possibly even verging on dangerous. I think these people often hurt their cause and marginalize themselves by doing such things, myself.
Too bad that teacher in Oregon talked about subverting the Tea Party crowd by doing just this sort of stuff just a week ago. If he hadn't, then this sort of incident would be more roundly condemned. Given the timing however at least some will suggest that it was a plant.
There's no monopoly on hateful speech, I'm afraid.
DFTT,
Chris
Leave it to Chris to give us the old tired and fallacious argument, .....'I saw someone else doing something bad, so whatever other bad thing is A-OK and ought to be respected' argument.
In this case, Chris tries and fails to justify protecting this particular hate speech with an unsupportable appeal to the First Amendment.
Never mind that the First Amendment doesn't apply to true threats. Chris wants you to suspend reality in order that you may believe in his fallacious idiocy.
(the Supreme Court, evidently unbeknownst to Chris the arm-chair Constitutional law expert, ruled out First Amendment protections for true threats,)
No, for Chris, he would like you to ignore that hate speech that meets the test of a true threat is and can be the motivation for violent action, and that it isn't protected in the manner Chris imagines.
Even more ludicrous is Chris's contention towards the end of his uninformed burbling.
Chris speaks of a teacher in Oregon 'doing just this sort of stuff'.
Of course, there's absolutely no comparison whatsoever, but that paradox (read lie), is immaterial to Chris's false assertions.
Irrational uninformed dolts are so ludicrous.
And dishonest irrational uninformed dolts are despicable and disgusting.
Freeper,
Chris was not excusing the actions of the few on the right that have stepped over any sort of civil obedience line, but was just merely pointing out that both sides have the same issue. I believe that Chris was trying to point out that this needs to stop on both sides, and it needs to stop now. That kind of redirect is exactly what is making it impossible for the Left and the Right to come together and compromise.
Now, for your statement about the first amendment not applying to true threats? If you recall, or do a simple Google search, you can find more than a few signs held by protestors during the bush years that had President Bush’s head in a bull’s-eye, or even worse, a sign that said, "I'm here To Kill Bush (Shoot Me)". If that is not a direct threat, what is?
I am with Chris on this. This rampant hate speech needs to Stop.
Thank you for caring.
Anonymous,
You've got it. I'm a history major and I know that extremely partisan media and partisan attacks are nothing new. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were slinging barbs at each other in the 18th century.
However, as a younger guy, I came of age during the Bush years. My generation has never seen anything but rancor, openly expressed hatred, and belittling of the other side. How do you expect any sort of consensus to emerge to solve real problems if you can't at least agree to marginalize hateful speech, whatever the source?
I'm not sure what Freeper was ranting about because I stopped when I got to the personal attacks/rude parts (I won't respond to him until he manages to go seven days without a rude, personal attack).
However, while I think it is offensive, I oppose government control of such speech. I may think you're an offensive dolt, but better you express your opinion than for us to start picking and choosing which thoughts the freedom to expression applies to. If it is ok to burn Bush in effigy then any other president can be treated the same way. If it didn't cross the line to call directly for assassination of a sitting US president four years ago, then all of a sudden it isn't shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater just because there's a new guy sitting in the Oval office.
The test is "imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg) which requires intent, imminence, and likelihood. So, it is ok to say "TARGET JEWISH BUSINESSES." However, if that guy specifically cries out to the frenzied crowd dressed as suicide bombers, "Throw bricks at that Kosher deli right there!" then it may be a different story. I don't see much "imminent lawless action" in the hateful fax Phil posted.
But just because you can do it, doesn't mean it is a good idea, doesn't mean that it advances your cause, and doesn't mean that it helps our larger problems as a community.
DFTT,
Chris
anon at 5:30 presupposes a number of assumptions in order to make an argument that's irrelevant to what I said.
Typical rhetorical tactic.
It goes like this.
'If this' is so, then also 'this other unrelated thing' must also be so.
Trouble is the first assumption isn't necessarily so, and in this case, it's not even close.
anon presupposes that I agree or everyone should agree that some iteration of what he/she calls the Left and the Right has to come together and compromise.
Wrong. anon doesn't define who these supposed factions are, and doesn't identify what needs to be the end result, or whether that end result necessarily needs to be accomplished through compromise.
It begs the question to state unequivocally that 'compromise' is either desirable or necessarily what is either wanted or necessary for this undefined 'Left or Right'.
In many cases, compromise is unacceptable. That 'compromise' is the reason we have differing factions or differing opinions of what might be a desired or optimum result.
Too often 'compromise' means nothing like what someone may imagine it to be.
I'm not alone in declaring that in many cases, I'm not at all interested in compromise.
(and don't try to kid me, or yourself, that everyone else wants compromise, that is just plain fantasy and magical thinking)
So no, anon at 5:30 is just rewording Chris's nonsense about 'if an example of someone doing something wrong can be found, then someone else doing something wrong should be given a break.
It matters not a whit if someone somewhere had a sign that purportedly said anything at all. That's not at all relevant to the specific question of whether this specific speech meets the threshold of what a 'true threat' is. Any true threat is unacceptable and each instance, regardless of whether you think it came from some 'right or left' designation, can only be judged on it's own.
And anon, it doesn't matter how many unrelated 'examples' of whatever you might attempt to throw up as comparison or what you may think might comprise something analogous, that won't make a difference in what is or is not protected by free speech.
And true threats aren't protected.
So for all your ambiguous vacillations, and all the pretentious temporizing and all your indignant overblown expressions of mortification, save it.
..
And Chris, if you're still going to try your pantomime of fancying yourself able to act as if you might actually know what you're talking about, you might try citing the actual Supreme Court precedent that established the precedent of true threats.
I'll give you a clue. It wasn't Brandenburg.
For a history major, it appears you let your schooling get in the way of actually becoming educated.
It's not enough to know that a tomato is a fruit.
You've got to be smart enough to know not to put a tomato in a fruit salad.
You can fill your head with any number of unrelated factoids and then run out and attempt to pass yourself off as being 'knowledgeable', but that won't guarantee you've gained any wisdom.
It doesn't follow that you'll be capable of actually being able to order those miscellaneous factoids you might have acquired into any form or semblance of a realistic representation of reality.
All the evidence so far, points the other way.
blaablaablaa (Freeper):
More blaablaablaa.
Why can't you just be concise? You are such a long winded chimney of smoke. Gosh, get a life.
Can't help but display your insecurity in every thread ?
Is that your life ? Running around and crying all the time and screaming look at me ?
You need to have something to offer besides just 'look at me' all the time.
Try addressing the context of the threads sometime. (unless you're sure you're unable )
Your insecurity is infinitesimally irrelevant.
.
Blaablaablaa:
You're infinitesimally irrelevant which is why you don't have anything better to do than launch anonymous personal attacks.
Let's talk about your false assumptions.
Or I should say the lack of any evidence to bolster your false assumptions.
Got anything ?
Has anyone explained what this thread is about to you ?
Bleating doesn't do it.
But I guess bleating is really all you've got.
..
Bleating is the natural cry of a sheep or a goat. You inevitably have no choice but to bleat because you're inbred between the two. Both the sheep and the goat in you bleat in unison, you howler you.
It's evident jim, couldn't find anyone to explain what the thread is about.
From the number of times you've brought up inbreeding, completely out of any context, it appears another of your insecurities centers around some fear apprehension of inbreeding.
Some incident in your recent childhood, or was it manifested during your regression ?
And jim, how do you think your insecurity might be connected to the context of this thread ?
.
..
You're my fear of inbreeding-- Goat Boy, you illustrate its consequences.
You might forget what this thread is about.
You might want to check whether you've already tested the bounds of your own demise.
That would be particularly satisfying, no ?
....
Phil:
I'd encourage you to read the post above. It kind of comes across as a threat. If you agree, I'd encourage you to report it to the authorities.
I don't worry about your threats, though I understand the scrip kiddies can test your firewall.
Got all your ports closed ?
Does 'hoisted on your own petard' need to be another concept you need help with?
...
...this thread spoke of an investigation of hate speech and continued into a discussion of what may or may not meet the test of a true threat.
That's the context jim seems to be unable or incapable of tracking.
Phil:
Actually I'm not very worried about this guy, but I do think it might be prudent to remove him. Sorry if I agitated it; I was just trying to argue against him and I figured he was thoughtful but wrong. I thought I could argue against him. I was wrong. I apologize.
Other comments here indicate this guy has been around and agitating for 3 years.
If you can block him, I'd encourage it.
That's uproariously farcical.
I can believe you were 'agitated', though, I'd be agitated if I could neither articulate what I'm talking about, nor provide any evidence to back up my assertions.
As it is, that's not a problem I have.
Phil:
I should apologize to you and your readers-- it had become clear to me that I wasn't going to be able to make any comments without enduring mean, long winded personal attacks that went far beyond disagreement. I decided to give this guy a taste of his own medicine but that was a bad idea-- it just fueled the flames. Sorry I stooped to that level.
I enjoy your voice here because you raise important issues that are often ignored by the news media. A lot of it is controversial and people disagree, sometimes strongly, but this one person's attacks are poisonous and insulting, and he drives people away from making comments-- it is just too unpleasant an experience. In this sense, this guy has kind of become a gate keeper of your blog's comments-- if he doesn't like someone, he'll drive them away. With his distractions and interference, It has become impossible for me to express my point of view and have a good exchange of views with you and your other readers. That's unfortunate.
Still with the false assertions, and fallacious assumptions.
What became clear to you was that you couldn't make false assertions, and wrong assumptions without being asked to provide evidence to support what you assume and what you assert.
It might be unpleasant for you to be expected to back up what you assert and assume, that I believe.
Drive you away ? Spare me your the 'woe is me' act.
You want an 'exchange of views' ?
How about you explain how a self-described liberal like you can suggest we adopt and follow the economic policies and goals that brought this nation to near ruin ?
Answer the question of how a conservative bastion, known as the Concord Coalition can be judged sane after we know what their history is and what their future goals are ?
They're not sane, they're not and have not ever advanced any liberal idea, policies or goals.
How is it that you promote the opposite of what you claim to represent ?
Have you answered the question of where the support is for your assertion America is becoming a 'theocratic democracy', as you labeled it ?
Impossible for you to express your point of view ?
It's been impossible for you to express your point of view ?
No, instead, you've only continued to make even more false and erroneous assertions and assumptions.
As to that 'taste of my own medicine', you're only creating another fiction for yourself, where you've given yourself a starring role.
What's unfortunate is that you think, instead of actually expressing your point, you think you can make statements that are absolute contradictions, false, and erroneous, without substance and without any quantifiable evidence to support them, and then ignore the paradoxes, the fabrications and the lies you create when you make such statements.
You've been held to account for your actions.
That's what you don't like. You ran into someone who challenged your assumptions and your assertions and asked you to support your own assumptions and assertions.
Unable to do that, unwilling to do that, you now claim you can't express your views, you can't have an exchange of your views.
And now you hope to ignore all that and arouse some pity for poor you, and the terrible position you've been put into.
You're hoping that beginning from a position of false assumptions and fictional narratives, you can extricate yourself from your own assertions without ever addressing the contradictions in your own assertions.
You think you can fabricate an alternative reality within which, and from which, you can say anything at all, without having anyone be expected to ask you to answer to the contradictions and the paradoxes you've created.
I've seen that act before, it's a standard for the Republican Party playbook, GW Bush and his minions do that, Rush Limbaugh has built a career doing that, Hannity, Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Palin.
Acting in a similar manner as that bunch hasn't any recognizable aspect that could, in any way, be construed as expressing an interest in anything civil, let alone a civil debate.
It's dishonest, dishonorable, and rude.
Not to mention ludicrous and insensate.
Behaving in a manner you attempt to claim others must be prevented from doing is the epitome of hypocrisy.
And now you wish to reframe, plead innocence and ask for someone to feel sorry for you. You seek now, protection so that you might again be free to act in an insulting manner without anyone pointing out that insulting manner.
There's something sorry about it, jim, but sorrow for you, such behavior, and the position you put yourself into of your own accord, doesn't rate.
.
First, I didn't read your comments and I won't respond to them. I'm sure they're less than worthless.
Second, from Wikipedia:
"Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum, activist, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers,"
Geesh; why didn't I think to look it up earlier! You're just an ultra right obstructionist who's here to do damage. Too bad you're not here for rational discussion.
Can't believe what a sucker I was. Fell for it hook, line and sinker. I thought you were just a grumpy, really weird liberal! Haa!
This can be found at:
http://regator.com/p/44958419/todays_freeper_prayer/
Today's Freeper Prayer (actually not today's, but earlier):
The Freeper Prayer for Oct. 5th: "Lord, we thank You for answered prayers for Sarah Palin and we now humbly ask You to bless John McCain with a spirit of great courage and fill him with a holy fire to speak boldly in defense of what is right and in defense of America. Protect John McCain, Father, and give him great favor with the people and let them see a strong leader who will serve America and her people with wisdom and stand against the evil that wants to destroy America. Let him speak the truth about Obama and not hold back. Fill John McCain and all of us with a mighty warrior’s spirit to fight the socialist evil that wants to destroy America. Lord, give us all a desire to do Your will. please bless all the prayer warriors who are praying. we humbly ask all these things and thank You in Jesus’ Holy Name....amen."
Freeper:
You must be laughing your head off! You had fun. Awesome. Congratulations, dude. Sorry it is over.
Folks here including myself who fell for you remind me of when Palin thought she was talking with Sarkozy on the phone.
Thank God she'll never hold any significant public office ever again.
Freeper:
By the way, I looked up Moron in the dictionary, and it's definition is remarkably concise:
Palin
One last thing, Freeper:
My prayers were answered:
"Dear God, I Pray that Sarah Palin will never ever hold public office again. (by the way God-- if you must, pay her off; make her rich; do whatever it takes, but please, God, don't ever give her the power to screw the world up like Bush did)."
Sorry your prayers went answered. God listened, but not to you. Good job God.
East Coast Right Wing K-Street Lobbyist Parasite Boy(s) also known as "Freeper":
You out there? Gee all of a sudden you've gone silent. I had been getting remarkably quick feedback but all of a sudden there is an indefinite pause.
Are you praying?
Or just commuting back to your big fat houses in Virginia that you stole from American tax paying citizens?
Suddenly a conspicuous deafening silence. Almost like you have evacuated the hell out of here or something. Give Palin my regards.
Hey K Street Freeper brats:
Taking a while for your 10 thousand dollar an hour think tank to fabricate more bullshit prose? Not so easy anymore?
I sure hope someone tracks you rich boys down. We need to know who you frauds are.
As you know little or nothing about any other of your false assumptions, you demonstrate no clue to the origins of the word freeper.
But that's to be expected, you have demonstrated the inability to use such a basic and simplified tool as a dictionary.
Now that you know you've posited yet another false assertion, or any number of new false assertions, and assumed an incorrect and erroneous assumption, or again, any number of new falsehoods, I'll leave it to you to see if you can extricate yourself and try learning something on your own.
That is, if you ever care to possess a reality based view, ....and there's absolutely no evidence of that shown by you so far.
..
As for the rest of the purely pretentious crap:
You ignore comments because you haven't the capacity to respond.
You can't even speak to your own false assumptions and dishonest, moronic assertions.
As to your 'claim' to not read the comments ?
You read every one....
In fact, you already admitted you go back and spend time reading them over and over.
freeper
.....
As you know little or nothing about any other of your false assumptions, you demonstrate no clue to the origins of the word freeper.
But that's to be expected, you have demonstrated the inability to use such a basic and simplified tool as a dictionary.
Now that you know you've posited yet another false assertion, or any number of new false assertions, and assumed an incorrect and erroneous assumption, or again, any number of new falsehoods, I'll leave it to you to see if you can extricate yourself and try learning something on your own.
That is, if you ever care to possess a reality based view, ....and there's absolutely no evidence of that shown by you so far.
..
As for the rest of the purely pretentious crap:
You ignore comments because you haven't the capacity to respond.
You can't even speak to your own false assumptions and dishonest, moronic assertions.
As to your 'claim' to not read the comments ?
You read every one....
In fact, you already admitted you go back and spend time reading them over and over.
freeper
.....
See if you can offer something besides your childish insecurity...
Freeper:
Nice to not hear from you, you rabid asshole.
I think I hit your funny bone you long winded malicious hypocrite.
You're a big fat loud mouthed fresh stinking scat.
Hell is a sewer. Go there. Be happy.
you've got nothing with which to hit anything....
nothing but your fantasy world.
...
The disturbed nature of that fantasy world is being made much more clear with every succeeding post jim puts up.
..
So why did you choose the name "Freeper?"
Are you Freeper!?
Freeper Girl, Why won't you even identify yourself? After all, close as I can tell, you're:
Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper! Freeper!
Or are you someone else? Are you another entity? Are you high enough up in Freeper's K street bureaucracy to know his contact info?
One should ask why you chose to be so moronic and idiotic, ....
...oh, that's right, you've been asked that before.
You've lost contact with reality, jim.
See if you can find someone to lead you back to sanity.
The thread isn't about your neurosis.
Beware of "Freeper" who has often posted here and is now posting anonymously:
From Wikipedia:
"Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum, activist, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.[1] It presents articles and comments posted pseudonymously by registered members, known as "Freepers"
It's just pathetic, jim is regressed to the point where his insecurity is all encompassing.
It's all he's got.
freeper,
Try addressing the context, jim, ....oh, that's right, you've proven to be incapable....
Jim -- I didn't read the whole back and forth, but I suggest you just ignore him. Pretend he doesn't exist. Freeper is a troll and he feeds on your posts just like an attention-starved child. Nothing will make him happier than for you to sink to his level, but he'll settle for any response that can be provoked. Cut him off until he demonstrates an ability to behave like an adult.
DFTT,
Chris
Chris can't address the context either, he's as incapable as jim is.
He suggests ignoring his own false assertions and assumptions he offered in this thread.
His misconception that Brandenburg was relevant to the Supreme Court precedent setting the standards for true threats.
Ignoring false assumptions allows Chris to fool himself, and by ignoring reality he can remain comfortable with his fantasy.
He'd pay no heed that his fantasy is based on nothing of any substantive truth.
Ignore the reality, while he embraces his delusions.
freeper
..
Thanks Chris; you're right.
Pssst, hey jim,
Chris hasn't been able to provide any evidence of 'being right'.
Your agreeing with him is like agreeing that black is white or up is down.
Oh, that's right, you tried to say up was down and black was white...
I forgot, .....you are as self-deluded as Chris.
Carry on, maybe next time we hear from you two, you'll both be able to type with two hands.
freeper.
Post a Comment