In Reply: Retarded Faggots who Throw Like Girls

In reply to the following comment at the post, "INSTAPUTZ: Functionally retarded Donald Douglas semi-refutes one of my 4 rebuttals, declares victory."

why use the word retarded when he clearly isn't. you shouldn't have to be a family member of someone with a disability to get how demeaning your title is. shameful.

I think it's supposed to be demeaning... particularly to the subject of the post. (Though I could see where being compared to Dr. Douglas would likely be insulting to the retarded, as well. Maybe you do have a point...)

Bottom line though, that queen of PC, Sarah Palin, kinda ruined this line of argument for me... No matter how right you may be--and yeah, you may be, in a more perfect world--her self-serving use of it for partisan gain (and in fact, her use and of her Downs Syndrome son as a prop, for that matter) left me suspicious of the motives of anyone who brings it up, these days...

Perhaps using "retarded" as a slur ought to be tossed on the same rhetorical dust heap as "faggot" or "throws like a girl," (along with "nigger" as a term of affection or talking with an urban dialect when you clearly aren't black, yo) but I still can't help thinkin' you're kinda losing the forest for the trees, here...

I suppose I'd feel differently if I were more personally affected by any of these slurs--and I suppose I ought to be able to sympathize, better, and I vow to work on that--but...

No, no but...

You're right. Two demerits to Blue Texan, who wrote the post title, and one to me, for trying to justify/defend it. We should be better people.

(and still...)

The world deserves better than Donald Douglas, and that's the truth.

In reply to: INSTAPUTZ: Functionally retarded Donald Douglas semi-refutes one of my 4 rebuttals, declares victory.
---

It's comedy gold, it is... The guy can't help himself... He's convinced himself of his own infallibility, and nothing will dissuade him, no matter how many point and laugh at his unintentional antics.

The fact remains though that he's a heartless bastard, and everyone knows it (though admittedly, some in his tiny Con circle don't care, being heartless bastards themselves.) Among them, there is no shame in attacking the dead (and indirectly their families and friends) on the very day a man passes, as long as there's some imagined political benefit to doing so... Their partisanship has sucked the human decency right out of 'em, and sadly, even some who should care don't, because sticking to the "no enemies on the Right" philosophy is more important than any sense of decency.

I feel bad for everyone who has no choice but to be in their miserable little lives... The world deserves better than the likes of Donald Douglas and those who share his screwed up ideas about their fellow men.

And that's the truth...
---

Posted 7/1/10, 4:13:05 PM EDT

In reply: Unitarian Tolerance (if I do say so myself)

In reply to the following comment from Charles Giacometti, which appeared at INSTAPUTZ: In which Ann Althouse makes sense. on 4/26/10, at 8:35:16 AM EDT (No links to individual comments via ECHO):
---

You could have entitled this entry, "Wherein even an angry old drunk realizes Glenn Reynolds is a rube...."

But I also agree with the angry old drunk, and will go even further. The "draw Mohammed day" is clearly anti-Muslim. As Respac notes, visual depictions of Mohammed are indeed offensive to many Muslims. I have friends who were raised Muslim but no longer practice it, and they were upset about the Danish cartoon (though they would never go so far as to even protest it). Still, they were offended, and at least in one instance, I could tell profoundly so.

Moreover, for a million reasons, Americans shouldn't be in the business of mocking religions.

For the record, I am a religious person, Unitarian Universalist specifically, and I am taken aback by some of the comments in this thread ("coddle the fucking morons who believe this stupid shit.") These commenters seem to assume that all religious people are stupid, childish, and more. When I sit in the pews on Sunday, I look around at MIT and Harvard professors, musicians from the Boston Symphony, doctors, lawyers, therapists. I can say with all confidence that none of them are morons.

As for keeping religious beliefs private and out of the public square, I need only point to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, both of which derived a great deal of energy, power, and moral authority from religious leaders and lay religious people.

Just to be clear, the extremists who would threaten to kill someone over a drawing should indeed be mocked (not to mention prosecuted). So too should the transparently fake "religious" leaders of the right, and the deeply flawed people like KLo who attach all their failings and inadequacy to a religion they claim to understand but clearly don't. But let's understand that there are indeed intelligent, reasonable, and principled people of faith in our midst and around the world.

--

My reply, posted 5:43:11 AM, EDT (same link):

It says something that we're both UU's, and both offering a message of tolerance for the innocent muslims that'll get caught up in this. Taking a stand against censorship and violence in the name of political and religious intolerance is a worthwhile goal--and like I said, a huge, united front in the face of those who're threatening violence really does appeal to me--but the more I see of the people who're supporting it, the more I realize what a bad idea it is.

Picturing Muhammad - Is it ethical to potentially offend innocent people to make a point about guilty ones?

In reply to: INSTAPUTZ: In which Ann Althouse makes sense.
---

I have to agree with you and Althouse (Did I really just write that?)

The distinction between "the right to do a thing" vs "the morality (or in some cases, intelligence) of doing it" gets lost on some people... (The recent gun protests come to mind... Sure, you have the right... But is it wise?)

I just hope that at least some of the folks who're signing on to this thing are ignorant of the fact that visual depictions of Muhammad are offensive to a whole lotta Muslims (and not just fundamentalist/extremist Muslims, but moderate ones, as well), and that they care enough to rethink their participation on those grounds, once they become aware of that. (I don't blame anyone for not knowing... Until very recently, I didn't, either...)

It's not that one can't be intentionally provocative or even offensive in protesting/making one's point... (I'm currently in hot water (well, room-temperature, anyway) for using Rush Limbaugh's term "halfrican" to needle a certain biracial neocon blowhard in the wingnuttysphere, and, while he did react pretty much exactly as I suspected--repeatedly denouncing me as a racist while simultaneously excusing Rush for the very same offense--I don't feel good about sinking to that level of discourse just to make that rhetorical point.)

The question (which I think each person needs to answer for him/herself) is whether or not it's ethically worth potentially offending innocent people to make a point about the actions of the guilty. Sometimes I believe it is, but I don't think this is one of those times... ...though I confess that the idea did appeal to me at first glance.

Roundup and Commentary - 3/25/09

Comments:
Blue Texan at Instaputz is a damned dirty nihilist (He may be an ape, too... A distant relative of the famed purple "Grape Ape.")