Nonsensical comments, abuse, baiting, ranting and leftist stupidity will not be tolerated.
I thought you guys were opposed to hate speech laws?
When I pointed out that much of what Tiberius writes is hate speech I was roundly condemned as an enemy of free speech.
No, wait, I get it. It's not the speech you are opposed to but the double standard. Correct?
Mondo Rock, you are magnificent. I was just about the say the same thing.
It's simply that the left should dare open their mouths!
mondo rock and john s., i am a christian ...because i choose a different belief system to you, does that make me a "Christofascist"? and in which ways do i bear a similarity to fascists? wikipedia defines fascism as 'a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation defined in biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty'...as a matter of fact i have much higher loyalties than the biological, cultural and historical definition of my nation ...by defending this woman, you prove your own bigotry towards me personally and that, for me, is hate speech because actually you don't even know me
actually, it could be argued (and it has) that wikipedia's definition is not the closest to the real meaning of fascism...in actuality, fascism bears connotations of totalitarian governments which brook no resistance and (as in south america and germany) put that resistance down with brutal force ...it's just the teeniest, tiniest exaggeration to apply this terminology to christianity as a belief system and its followers just because they voted in the president that you can't stand
and by the way, i do note your pouncing on JR's use of the phrase 'hate speech'...i think it was an ironic throwback at the left, his point being that it's one coined and hashed to death by the left media when, in fact, they are guilty of using so-called 'hate speech' themselves whenever it suits them
C'mon dee
You know the fucking leftist filth are nothing but hypocrites.
All happy to pounce on the right for "hate speech" but look at them whinge and cry when the right returns the charge of "hate speech" back at them.
As is so typical of leftist fuckheads they can dish it out but can't take it.
LOL...hey tibs! how's it going? missed you round here 
so did I. Can't wait to post about his next piece of drivel.
And quite frankly, I don't care what an employee of john edwards' says. But you can't complain it about that and not tiberius's posts, THAT'S hypocritical.
John S.
'randombrainwave'. . .
You should thank dee for taking the time to guide you in the practise of clear thinking: ". . .it was an ironic throwback at the left, his point being that it's one coined and hashed to death by the left media when, in fact, they are guilty of using so-called 'hate speech' themselves whenever it suits them."
They don't teach clear thinking any more, do they?
Sorry John but no matter how much you fantasize about it and vie for my attention, I am not going to let you suck my dick.
And holy shit? Are you really that fucking dense?
And quite frankly, I don't care what an employee of john edwards' says.
So you don't care about that (when a leftist says something) but you care enough about what a right winger says (ie me) to have a big sook and cry that nobody else is complaining about it?
Are you that fucking oblivious? You would be the kind of drunk that slips over in his own vomit and wonders where it came from.
"Do as I say, not as I do" should be the motto of the Left everywhere.
Marcotte has the right to spew all the filth she wants to spew. Other people have the right to criticize her for it and John Edwards' hiring of her all they want.
In the real world (not the "reality based community"), this is known as actions having consequences. Yet Marcotte whines that she is a "victim". And these are the people who want to ru(i)n my country...
Whoa, Dee - I don't think you're a Christiofascist, or whatever term that aid used. I don't necessarily agree with her in the slightest (I say 'necessarily' because I don't actually know what she said).
But I know, from experience here, that most people on this site are advocates for free speech. In particular, regulars here have a specific dislike of the concept of 'hate speech', and really don't like any debate being limited in this way. Certainly Tiberius doesn't!!!
So I assume that most here are, in principle, perfectly happy for John Edward's aids to say whatever they want about Christians. Call the Christians fascists, call them idiots, call them paedophiles - whatever. That's the price of free speech.
The only reason you object in this instance is because of the double standard being applied by the Left - especially in relation to Muslims. I don't think this position is unreasonable.
If, however, you objected to the use of the word 'Christiofascist' but did not object to the word 'Islamofascist' then you would be somewhat hypocritical.
Frightening isn't, Betsy?
The left is the philosophy of hypocrisy.
"The only reason you object in this instance is because of the double standard being applied by the Left. . ."
Essentially correct.
"If, however, you objected to the use of the word 'Christiofascist' but did not object to the word 'Islamofascist' then you would be somewhat hypocritical."
Nope - read Betsy's reply.
Using your example (specifically), the lefties have no problem calling people Christiofascists - and of course one can object to being called same - it works both ways. The difference is, you use the term Islamofascist, and you're up before some kind of religious discrimination inquisition for 'hate speech' faster than you can squash a 'roach.
To the left, it's only 'hate speech' when it's directed at them or some group they sympathise with.
Mondo, I think you will find a lot of people who use the term 'islamofascist' do so because it's more acceptable socially, more pc than 'devout muslim'.
Wherever islam becomes the ruling system in a country, it takes on fascistic (is that a word?) tendencies - repression of speech, subjugation of women and minorities, excessive regulation and mass brainwashing of the youth.
Nowhere in the world do we find countries based on the judeo-christian system of beliefs who operate at the same level of management of the population.
When someone is labelled at 'christofascist' is is a deliberate aspersion, where 'islamofascist' is used to continue the myth of the tiny minority of extremists who have hijacked a peaceful religion.
As for hate speech, sure, there might be examples in the bible, but again, the bible is not considered the be all and end all of God's word.We are to emulate Christ in order to raise ourselves up to God's standards.
The bible (OT and NT)is considered historical record, where the quran is the immutable word of allah and intended that all men should live by that. Or else.
As for what on earth "hate speech" is?
It is a furphy. It is a social construct designed to box people in.
My latest amusement is the pack of hoons living on my street. If you're in Melbournistan you'd have heard about the idiots who, when denied their weekly burst of illegal street racing took to the Noble Park Blockbuster.
Some of those lads live on my street, and they are generally very polite to me. (Hehehe. I got accused of being a lady the other day).
Anyway, you would think that yobs like this - hang around with their cars pumping out loud music while knocking back cans before headin g off to race - wouldn't think twice before spouting off, right?
Wrong.
There have been a lot of africans moving into the area over the past 6 months, and as we were talking about it, I asked one of the blokes what he really thought of it.
He just shrugged and mumbled something non-committal, so I pushed him on it.
I told him not to be so politically correct, and to speak his mind.
All he said was that he didn't like them coming here, there were too many and that trouble followed them.
Nothing offensive there, but he looked quite embarrassed to even say that much.
It's not good when even hoons self-censor themselves.
This is where charges of hate speech and being politically incorrect lead to.
I think I may have wandered a bit off topic here, but you'll get my drift.
'Islamofascist' is now the politically correct alternative?
Did I read that right?
I think I need to get out more.
I agree with you guys on the dangers of political correctness and 'hate speech'. I agree that the Muslim communities have serious issues to overcome if they are ever to be compatible with a Western-style democracy.
I also agree with your complaints at the double standard imposed by too many Lefties whereby they can say things like "I hate Christians" without batting an eyelid whilst immediately criticising anyone who says "I hate Muslims".
However - you simply cannot use the word Islamofascist and then object to someone using the word Chritiofascist on the grounds that it is hateful. The two are exactly the same - you are doi ng exactly what you accuse the Lefties of.
In principle, I agree with your last paragraph Mondo (the rest is given).
In practice, I'm afraid I don't really.
I don't see too many Christians lopping heads off right now, stoning women to death, mutilating their daughters, despising Jews, subjugating their women, crushing their various peoples - you get the drill.
Building nations and liberal democracies, yes - that I see Christians do - every day.
I would apply the term 'fascist' both loosely and yet very deliberately as a direct result (sorry for the paradox). Christians just don't seem to make the grade.
James, I see the word "islamofascist" as referring to those active jihadis and their overt supporters.
That's where the political correctness come in.
The '-fascist' is derogatory, no getting around that, but you can't just call muslims hatemongers or terrorists.
At least with islamofascist there is a clear idea of which practitioners of islam we're talking about.
I hope that makes sense. I really loathe doublespeak, but these days there's no way around it even though we have a perfectly good language already.
mondo, would it be fair to call you a liar? or a thief? no, because i'm assuming you are neither, but if you were caught out in the middle of a lie, wouldn't you expect to be called a liar?
and if a group you associated with were violently forcing people to accept their ideology or be, say, forced into their own bread ovens and roasted to death (the taliban), skinned alive, stoned for being raped (northern african sharia law), mutilating baby girls without anaesthesia, wouldn't you, in all fairness, have to acknowledge that all was not well in wonderland? would it be so surprising that those who were at danger from this group that you associated with would, in the very least, call you for what you were? i just don't see the 'fascist' connection with christianity...yes, some of us may be anal, opinionated, hypocritical, (and that needs to change but we're all too human sometimes) but nobody is out there, violently forcing our beliefs down anybody's throat
Mondo and John S.
Theodore Kaczynski says hello again!
Sorry, Nilk - I understand. Reading 'Islamofascist' as the PC alternative to 'devout Muslim' threw me.
I think the word 'Islamist' fits the bill nicely, though. And we have an awful lot of those running around.
James you can't run around Brackistan talking about devout muslims who blow up buses, planes, people, pizzerias, cars, people and trains.
They can't be devout and pious practitioners. At least al-taqiyya says they can't. That's not good spin.
I'm all for them to be described that way, since the quran enjoins them to slay the infidels, as as we know the quran is allah's word and therefore applicable to all men all time.
Sounds like a bloody television show, doesn't it?
Islamist sounds a bit weaselly to me, and not as brutal as islamofascist, which is why more people find that acceptable, I guess.
". . .not as brutal as islamofascist, which is why more people find that acceptable, I guess."
'Fascist' is basically a term of abuse.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that. . .
Hehehe. And people who advocate sexual assault on children, killing the opposition, blowing themselves up, segregation of the sexes, and pushing buildings onto homosexuals are not deserving of abuse?
Ha!
Oh no, Nilk. We must understand them. . .
that was the point i was trying to make, nilk ...it boils down to seeing things one of two ways:
1) one should never call a spade a spade because using the word 'spade' is hate speech
by using this logic, leftists argue that if we call the islamists for the actions they commit by calling them fascists, then the word 'fascist' is hate speech, therefore we shouldn't be opposed to others calling christians fascists as we ourselves freely use the word 'fascist'
here is my own position:
2) one should call a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel and if you call a spade a shovel it's hate speech
i'm not a liar, murderer or company embezzler and if someone accuses me of it, then the motive of my accuser is suspect (or in other words, he/she's using 'hate speech')
and, contrary to the moral relativists, i believe there are absolutes in life ...if anyone believes that there's anything subjective about derogatory observations about islam, they ought to take a look at the beslan link recommended by nilk on 'muslim reality in britain' below
Commenting by HaloScan
