Haiti gave aid to New Oreleans after Katrina

Personally I find it appalling that Pat Robertson & Rev. Bill Shuler would state publicly that "the plight of the haitian people was the act of a vengeful god for their unholy practice of voodoo"


Then again if they’re right, let god strike me down as well because I too was tempted by the hot voodoo priestess Lisa Bonet in Angel Heart

Hotwater

 

I refuse to capitulate.

 

Exactly!

 

I thought the thread was a joke to be honest.

 

We don't really need help to rebuild the 2 buildings that were destroyed....

 

doesn't matter.

 

it only doesn't matter because some people actually did take it seriously.

if everyone had thought of it as a joke, it would matter.

So it becomes a question of people having a sense of humor, and being ridiculous.

 

not true. a bad joke is still a bad joke. and if someone wants to pound the pulpit, who cares? so long as they're not seriously blaming haitians for their earthquake.

 

Bad jokes can be dangerous Dave, especially if taken seriously by the wrong types of people.

Personally i don't think we should crucify death for the joke, we all have lapses of common sense, but i still think it is in really poor taste, i'm not even going to go into half the shit thats going down in that country.

Also the joke wasn't actually funny or even thoughtful in a non pc type of way, it was just a bad joke, which unfortunatley is probably pretty close to what some people actually may think.

My point in short, is i don't think the negative response was from "lacking a sense of humour".

 

One may use that kind of joke as a means to criticize someone who really does believe such a thing.

racist jokes can be racist jokes, or jokes about racist people. it depends on delivery, context, and audience.

to instantly call any of a certain class of humor wrong is more dangerous than the humor itself could ever be.

xac, you just made a thread about your nanny state, it seems interesting to me that you should express such an opinion about the danger of a certain kind of speech.

 

I'm unsure why all this arguing is going on... I thought Tom addressed the real issue here, nor did he attack anyone...

Anyway ///

Well said =)

Peace

 

I agree entirely with that Dave, but i feel that context was entirely missing, assuming it was even a joke, but i do agree.

Perhaps danger was not the best word. Having said that, i thought this may come up, so i will try to explain this clearly.

I believe death had the right to say what he did and i feel i have the right to say it is a dangerous path, that's how free speech works.

In the same spirit as one making racist jokes to point out the stupidity of racism, it is also good that people express jokes and points of view which are racist (sticking to this example of racism) so they can be spoken about, discussed and dismantled.

The whole idea of free speech is not that i have to accept what everyone says as safe or acceptable, only that i must accept their right to say it.

I'm certainly not advocating death's comment be removed or banned in any sense. In fact this whole site could be racist bullshit and it should not be banned, i would make my own choice just not to visit.

So in short my disagreement with death's comment is an exercise of free speech and not censorship, for although i disagree with his comment, i wholly believe in his right to state it. Further more, i am not advocating that others should be denied access to his comment either just because i disagree with it.

So when i say it is dangerous, I am saying that as mature adult with the right to my own opinion but there is no expectation of that opinion to be forced upon him in a way that he could not express it again.

Despite having the right to say what we want, we are still responsible for what we say.

I'm tired so im not sure if i have expressed myself clearly, but again the difference is, i am not advocating that his comment be removed or censored in anyway, merely disagreeing with it and stating what path i believe it could lead down in the wrong circumstance (and i may well be wrong).

 

But i adressed it first! he just straw manned my statement is all! :willy_nilly::leaving:

 

Dangerous is absolutely the wrong word.

to suggest that speech such as this is dangerous is to actually ascribe power to it.

anyone who is stupid enough for it to have power over them is already fucked, it would be like saying that a single bullet is dangerous in a hail of mini-gun fire, or a single pin in a room raining with shards of glass, and rusty shrapnel

danger is relative, and in this case, the danger, relative to the circumstances that could harbor that danger, mitigate it's danger by their very nature.

 

The whole world is to a large degree dictated by what people believe, speech influences belief and as such, speech does have incredible power to it.

Dave, I do not know of one person for certain, that speech does not have atleast some power over.

I'm not sure i agree with your analogy, I think of dehumanization more of the trigger to the mini gun then one of its bullets.

Dehumanization is dangerous, but this is getting way further then i intended it to, as i concede, "dangerous" was a lapse in my often careful wording.

P.S.
Again, i'm not suggesting that such comments be censored, rather I'm just exercising my free speech in saying what I think of those comments.

 

different kinds of speech have different degrees of power over different kinds of people.

anyone who thinks "YEARH, HAITI SHULDA GIVEN MONEY TER NAWLINS! THEM LAZY VOODOO BASTARDS, TAKIN' OUR JARBS!"

or who is swayed by the argument in the first post, or anything like it

needs to be VERY vulnerable to begin with, and there are FAR more virulent things out there than it, which will already have captured them.

and I'm amazed if you can't see that.

 

I agree, I'm not concerned that Death's comment will influence the vulnerable feeble adults of the world.

But there are jokes, that sometimes people say as jokes but at the same time actually believe, truth said in jest.

I guess i'm not really expressing myself clearly, because i don't disagree with what you have said, and apparantly it appears my argument is at opposite ends with yours, even though i don't intend it to be.

What I am trying to say is that jokes can be a way of dehumanizing people and i'm calling this one how i see it, not as clever satire but rather making fun of a suffering poor group of people (though i accept i may be totally wrong).

So when i say "dangerous" (even though i concede that wasn't the word i should have used), i do not mean because of the influence it will have on others, i respect the ability of mature adults to discern between truth and bullshit.

Rather i am saying the type of attitude that spawns such comments is dangerous, if i am even correct on what his attitude was, i may not be.

Which is, i believe a part of free speech, he has the right to publicly say it and i have the right to publicly say i think it was wrong. And you have the right to say "lighten up, it's just a joke" if you want.

I think disagreeing with each others attitudes, beliefs and ideas is an important part of free speech.

 

I'm making another reply because this topic is important to me but i have shit i have to do today, so rather then wait for your reply i might just say it.

I am using an extreme example here, not to explain my feelings about death's comment but rather to explain my feelings about free speech.

Take Nazism for example, it succeeded partly because of the control of any opposition to their 'philosophies', the control of speech in this example had an effect on belief (as well as many other factors i will admit), this is why i do not believe in government control of speech.

Now to look at Nazism in a society with free speech, one has to concede a Nazi's right to voice what they believe, other wise you start the path of censorship. Having said that, if there is free speech, people who oppose those views have a right to say that Nazism is wrong and the attitude is genuinly dangerous. This in turn severely affects the power behind the speech and attitude compared to if it was illegal to voice such an opposition.

So freedom of speech is not to say that all opinions are safe ideas by themselves but rather the frame work of being able to disagree or agree with all ideas is the most progressive and free path.

So i do agree to ban any type of humour is a dangerous path, but at the same time, i reserve my right to disagree with any joke some one has said with out feeling guilty of censoring them, because disagreement is not censorship.

Another similar example is holocaust denial, i think it is dangerous and the attitude dangerous, but i do not think it should be illegal, i think they should be able to say it if they believe it, but again i reserve my right to say it is a dangerous path with out actually censoring them.

Not that for a second do i think death was on par with either of these two examples, just pointing out idea's by themselves can actually be dangerous but when combined with a frame work that allows for disagreement, quite safe.

And finally, to say an idea or attitude is dangerous is not censorship until you advocate censoring the person's ability to express themselves.

I still feel as if i'm not explaining this right, maybe after i have slept.

 

Ahh well - I must of missed that. In that case, I agree with you both, and kudos to both of you for bringing it to light.

 

Nah that's cool, i was just being silly, a sort of "pay attention to me!" sort of post, i really don't mind