PDA

View Full Version : Politically incorrect?



THE Slayer
09-29-2001, 09:52 PM
Has PI turned up missing from your viewing area? It's still on the scheduale but is always preempted with a "news special" I know that a few markets have stopped broadcasting the show temp. But does anyone have an idea when it will be back??

Fulit
09-29-2001, 09:55 PM
I don't know when it will be back, but, presumably, you know the reason for its absence, don't you?

stillakid
09-30-2001, 12:02 AM
Because advertisers are too afraid to hear actual opinions expressed. They'd rather have everybody on air follow the safe line down the middle to protect their investment.

bigbarada
09-30-2001, 12:07 AM
No, it's just that an arrogant blowhard needs to be humbled every once in a while. Sure this is America, you're free to say what you want, but ill-time your words and you better be prepared for the backlash.

vulcantouch
09-30-2001, 01:38 AM
. . .and any violations of it will be regarded as yelling fire in a crowded theater.
it sounds to me like the terrorists may've already won, by provoking us into reverting to our most fearful instincts- namely, our fear of straight talk.

bigbarada
09-30-2001, 01:55 AM
Ever hear of the saying "Don't rock the boat you're riding in"?

What he said was simply tactless and poorly timed. It has nothing to do with having his freedom of speech revoked. He mouthed off about the wrong thing at the wrong time and angered too many people. Sure, it isn't fair; but democracy isn't about fairness, it's about majority rule.

Freedom of speach allows you to cuss out your boss; but you're still most likely going to get fired. You can walk up to a woman at a club and say anything you want; but it might get you slapped. You can tell a co-worker his wife is a dirty *****; but don't be surprised if he breaks your nose.

It's not about freedom of speech, it's about cause and effect.

bigbarada
09-30-2001, 03:30 AM
For those who don't know exactly what happened: Bill Mauer made some comments, on his first show after Sept. 11, about a US military retaliation being "cowardly." Thus, his sponsors, Sears and another company I don't remember, pulled their support of the show. I'm not sure if they recieved phone calls requesting them to pull sponsorship or if they decided to do it on their own, the news report I read didn't say.

No sponsors=no money; no money=no TV show

The real question here is the motive behind pulling sponsorship. Did these companies just not want to be associated with Mauer after these comments? Were they truly offended by the comments? Were they pressured by TV viewers? I don't know. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this question. (Although I already know what the cynics are going to say)

Personally, I've never liked Bill Mauer. I totally disagree with about 95% percent of the crap he spouts off, so I don't watch his show anymore.

JediTricks
09-30-2001, 11:56 AM
Actually, what happened was Maher said that to fly a plane into a building knowing you'll die and stay in the plane is not cowardly, to fire a missile from thousands of miles away is. It has nothing to do with honor or soldiers, it has to do with the definition of the word "cowardly", the stigma it wields, and the politicians who give deadly orders from the safety of their desks. Read AICN's latter 2 stories on this to learn (warning, reading of AICN Talkback will result in your brain turning to mush, avoid the Talkback until after you've read BOTH stories at least):
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=10344
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=10349

I think it's pretty interesting that ABC chose to air the show without sponsors rather than give into the censorship and fascism that was gripped our country since the terrorist acts on Sept 11th.


BTW, before any of you ask, my position is that Maher is both right and wrong, both types of acts are cowardly and non-cowardly in different ways. There's no question that the terrorist actions are unspeakably despicable, but that's a different discussion altogether. Perhaps it's not cowardly to knowingly take your own life in the chasing of something you believe in, but to kill thousands of innocent civilians instead of facing military forces, that is cowardly. Yes, to order your fellow countrymen to kill and die to advance your agenda while you stay at home, push papers and give press conferences instead of looking into the eyes of the people you're having killed is a bit cowardly in a way, but anybody with a conscience will have a lot of personal demons to face when they give the order to kill, as well as facing opposition of fellow countrymen and those who speak for the people you had killed, and that is often NOT cowardly. I think the dichotomy of the issue is far too complicated for any simple debate or a quick sound bite, and people opposed to this type of free speech and those who would like to lynch Bill Maher for his opinions need to take a good strong look at Senator Joseph McCarthy (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0830834.html) first.

vulcantouch
09-30-2001, 01:51 PM
-indeed i have; it refers to not endangering one's own group. so if you're implying that maher's remarks even come Close to constituting an endangering of america, i'd say the speciousness of your analogy speaks for itself :(

"What he said was simply tactless and poorly timed. It has nothing to do with having his freedom of speech revoked"
-i didn't say nuthin about freedom of speech cuz, as you correctly point out, this is more about commerce and majority rule (i.e., the adult version of peer pressure) than rights. that said, anyone tuning in to a show called Politically Incorrect in a time of crisis have only themselves to blame if they don't like what they hear.
meanwhile, it's "tactlessness and poor timing" that don't have nuthin to do with nuthin. "tactlessness and poor timing" are part of the risk run by a society that Claims to value freedom of thought and speech. if they don't Really value them, i'd again say their actions speak for themselves :(

"He mouthed off about the wrong thing at the wrong time and angered too many people"
-if only "wrong thing", "wrong time" and "too many people" were the black-and-white issues you imply. but of course they ain't.

"democracy isn't about fairness, it's about majority rule"
-indeed; which is one reason that our view of democracy as the world's best possible option should not be exempt from questioning. personally i think a meritocracy's much preferable which, for practical reasons, we already have to some extent. and thank goodness for that: the notion that the voice of an ignoramus should carry the same weight as that of an expert is, as the history of democracy has repeatedly shown, a recipe for disaster.
as for maher's remarks: our so-called leaders were practically begging for his kind of rebuttal with their repeated, self-serving and jingoistic contentions that the terrorists were "cowards". as per the case i've already made (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=805&pagenumber=1), they most certainly were not. maher was throwing light on our leaders' hypocritical spin, nothing more. tact shouldn't enter into such critiques, now or ever. if our country's now so fearful that it can't handle such a "tactless, poorly-timed" critique, then not only have the terrorists scored a true victory, it will be a victory we Deserve to have scored against us.
personally i find some of maher's sensibility self-servingly skewed to favor his own hefner-wannabe lifestyle, and think his PETA affiliation is completely off the wall (why embrace clarity in so many other areas but get all fuzzy when it comes to animals? to fool starlets in the back of your limo into thinking that deep down you're a sweetie? :rolleyes: ). but agreeing with him across the board's hardly the point- i admire his often-exhilirating ability to stay on-target and puncture his guests' attempts to obscure issues :)

btw bb, i'm still on the lookout for your vintage accessory wants for our binocs trade; no luck yet, but i'll keep you informed :)

jt: "anybody with a conscience will have a lot of personal demons to face when they give the order to kill. . ."
-alas, offhand i can't think of a single leader of ours to whom this description would apply :(

". . . as well as facing opposition of fellow countrymen and those who speak for the people you had killed"
-alas, the social circles of those in power are so self-servingly circumscribed as to all but eliminate the possibility of any such encounters. it ain't like we'll ever see bush senior at a local bar, for example; instead he'll be sticking to his country clubs, where members know they'll face expulsion if they even Try to confront him thusly-
vt

THE Slayer
09-30-2001, 05:16 PM
Yes. But, does the show still air in your viewing area?

Bill wasn't the one who brought up the whole conversation of being cowardly one of his guests did,, I think the dad from 7th heaven, I can't remember. But anyways Bill just agreed. I understood what and whom he was referring to, but apparently a lot of people did not.
The discision to pull advertisments from the show was "ill-timed."
The countrys based on freedom (ideally.)

I personally watched the show the night it returned to see someone elses pov that wouldn't be "pollitically correct" on cnn.
Then people speak their mind and it's all downhill from there.

bigbarada
09-30-2001, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
I think it's pretty interesting that ABC chose to air the show without sponsors rather than give into the censorship and fascism that was gripped our country since the terrorist acts on Sept 11th.

:rolleyes:


Anyways, I was misinformed as to the exact nature of Maher's (I spelled it right this time!) comments. Given what you said JT then I agree with him to the extent that sitting comfortably thousands of miles away while bombing a country with little regard to who we actually hit is cowardly. It's like a slap on the wrist to the people who actually commit these acts against the US. While I am shocked that I actually agree with Maher on something, I still think his comments were ill-timed.

As for the supposed squashing of our rights of free speech: Why didn't anyone side with that golfer who made the comments about Tiger Woods' race after winning the PGA a couple years back? He was perfectly within his rights to say it. Why did everyone get so angry about Jerry Falwell's comments after the attacks? He was just exercising his freedom of speech also.

THE Slayer
09-30-2001, 05:38 PM
Yes it's free speech, But I don't think Maher's comments were detrimental or hurtful to anyone while the others were. Calling a body of people cowardly is not the same thing as blaming a certian sexually oriented group to blame for the death of thousands.
See there's that really small invisible line that people keep crossing. But it's their right, But just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.

Obi-Dan Kenobi
10-01-2001, 02:13 AM
This was actually something I first started thinking about when Bush made his first comments on the attacks, calling the terrorists cowards.

I read an aricle a few months ago in USA Today about Palestinians who have performed terrorist bombings and their families who show pride in what they did. It convinced me that I am almost totally incapable of understanding their radical beliefs. To them, killing in the name of God is about the bravest thing a person can do. And they believe they'll be rewarded with unlimited sex with virgins in heaven..:confused:

I was watching the night that episode aired. There was an Arab guest (whose name I can't recall) who said that one shouldn't think of these people as cowardly, because to think that way of them is to underestimate him. Yes, we as Americans think it is cowardly to kill innocent, unarmed people, but can we really call someone a coward if they work that hard to sacrifice their life for their beliefs? I agreed completely with this assessment of the mindset of these terrorists.

Maher had been trying to make a point that our way of responding to things has to change. He had been criticising the tactics of our leaders like Clinton and Bush, Sr. He was saying that things like air strikes and missile attacks didn't get the job done. So when this point was brought up, he responded by saying that lobbing missiles from hundreds of miles away was cowardly.

I think he made a fair judgement of the situation. The show has continued airing here, in Cincinnati, and I have caught it a few times since then. Many of his guests, even the ones who really fight with him, have supported his statements.

And Slayer, it has often been delayed due to Nightline being extended, but it's still on.

I think it's a great show. I'd say I agree with Maher about 50% of the time, but the fact that he so often brings differing viewpoints together, and never kisses his guests' butts, is beautiful. And very American.

Obi-Don
10-01-2001, 09:26 AM
In this country we have the right of free speach but that does not give you the right to cause harm by it. Many people losted family in NEW YORK or loved ones.They should be concidered first before you run your mouth.It was very poor timing in deed.

stillakid
10-01-2001, 10:58 AM
What exactly is the statute of limitations on offering a dissenting opinion? 2 days...a week...ten years...50? Maher's comments were directed at a potentially imminent event and were therefore timely and necessary.

The very nature of an opinion includes the likelihood that a measurable percentage of listeners won't agree, but that in no way should ever be a reason to discourage the expression of such. The "democracy" that many of us are so fond of also includes an off button on the television set. You're free to use it whenever your delicate sensiblities get threatened.

For many more open-minded individuals, we frequently find it an enlightening experience to not just seek out the opinions of those who agree with us to justify and reinforce our own beliefs, but to take the time to listen to the other side of things. More often than not, there are ideas that you otherwise wouldn't have thought of that make perfect sense. It is exactly this kind of exclusionary mentality that fuels regimes like the Taliban and gives them the power to oppress people and ideas.

Yes, suicide attacks are cowardly. Those who destroy themselves attack and then remove themselves from the situation to escape the ramifications. Those who order the attacks hide out like cockroaches, both afraid to stand up and take responsibility and to answer for the injustice.

Would a US missle attack be cowardly? In this situation, I wouldn't characterize it that way, but it all seems to be moot. Wisely the US is taking the wise path this time instead of shooting from the hip as we probably would have done in the past.

vulcantouch
10-01-2001, 12:24 PM
"I don't think Maher's comments were detrimental or hurtful to anyone while the others were"
-i don't think we should be attaching such qualifiers when deciding what opinions should be allowed, as "detrimental" and "hurtful" are nearly always eel-slippery issues in contexts such as this.

bb: "Why didn't anyone side with. . ."
-"siding with" kinda sounds like "agreeing with", which i may not do, but i certainly Tolerate, and defend the right of, foolwell & ignant golfers to say whatever they like. in fact, i Encourage them to shoot their mouths off: after all, what's a circus without a few clowns? :D

stillakid: "suicide attacks are cowardly. Those who destroy themselves attack and then remove themselves from the situation to escape the ramifications"
-oh i dunno about that; i'd say knowing for sure you're gonna have to pay with your life is a purty big "ramification" to face up to in itself. don't agree? try it sometime :eek:

o-dan: "they believe they'll be rewarded with unlimited sex with virgins in heaven"
-meanwhile, over here lotsa people believe that if you simply acknowledge jayzuss as yer lord & savior your slate'll be wiped clean & you'll get into jedi heaven too :rolleyes:
personally, i think i like the sound of that there islamic heaven ;)

o-don: "we have the right of free speach but that does not give you the right to cause harm by it. Many people losted family in NEW YORK or loved ones.They should be concidered first before you run your mouth"
-stillakid's right: the phrase "life goes on" would seem to apply here. the grieving are not suddenly children who don't know any better than to keep away from forums where these issues get vigorously debated until their emotions aren't so raw. nor should such debates get neutered in case one of them might happen to see it. meanwhile, who are you to decide on behalf of all those grieving families What might cause harm or hurt?
vt
np (now playing): beatles, "o-bla-dan, o-bla-don" ;)

preacher
10-01-2001, 05:00 PM
The whole Bill Maher debacle is one symptom of a much bigger problem. That being people tend to mistake their freedom of speech as being able to totally wipe their hands clean of any responsibility for what they say. There have been occassions on these forums where debates of a controversial nature have exploded into huge discussions. One that immediately comes to mind was a thread titled “California Crisis” that in a matter of hours spurred the input of some 25 members. Basically there were arguments for and against the construction new power plants and breaching alaska’s woodlands to find natural gas. I think all that were a part of that discussions came out much wiser. I know I did.

Enter the celebrity. Where Bill Maher can be faulted is that he vastly underestimated his own power. Just because he can spout out some Dennis-Miller like quips concerning politics people reverred him (so he thought) as a god. I saw the infamous Politically Incorrect episode described and was absolutely appalled that he had the audacity to describe our actions as cowardly. Once he started down that road I immediately shut him off and vowed never to watch him again. I apparently wasn’t alone in that sentiment. He was given an opportunity to explain his view. Nobody found it exceptable. The president’s approval ratings are higher than any other in american history and Maher decided to call him a coward?! Bad timing is an understatement. Word dumb ***comes to mind. Rest in peace Mauer. I sure as heck won’t miss you. Even SNL had enough sense to leave it alone and they are brutal when it comes to parodying the Bush administration. Still funny though.

I did the same with Rosie O’Donnel when she ambushed Tom Selleck concerning his membership with the NRA. I wasn’t alone. Most recently I caught CNNs installment with Mic Jagger’s wife where she was saying that we needed to be more sensitive to the culture of Afghanistan. I peed myself I was laughing so hard. She obviously hadn’t seen “Beneath the Veil” which is a documentary that studied how the Taliban regime governed. Women have absolutely no rights there: they cannot read, they cannot write, they cannot speak. They are not entitled to medical assistance. At the drop of a hat anyone in the Taliban army can kill without repercussion. It reminded me of “1984”. I couldn’t help but wonder what Jagger’s opinion would have been had she lived as these women have lived, if only for a day. We have celebrities that give there “expert” advice daily. Yet it occurs to me that they don’t have the facts.

Now here is what really chaps me. Media Mogul Ted Turner made it corporate policy that no journalist could have the american flag on their desk as it would “cause bias in the news”. Say what? Here his employees wish to honor those that had thousands of tons of concrete and rebar crush them into powder, and those brave passengers that successfully stopped the fourth plane from hitting its target and Turner is more concerned with image? Then a nosepick who thinks he is king turd when it comes to his credentials comes out and chastises the soldiers of Desert Storm and applauds the terrorists??? Even if he did mean politicians that still, in my mind is no excuse. I didn’t see him coming up with any other solutions. In a time when Americans have purchased train tickets to travel to New York and help, Maher gets on his high horse and says THAT. Unexceptable. Our leaders need our support more than ever. They are running like gangbusters trying to decide the best means to combat this threat, and still keep our markets from tumbling hard. We still face bio-terrorism from anthrax, small pox, plague, and a host of other agents as possible means of attacking us. All 385 dams in the country were targeted. I know, my father works at one and there are now armed security gaurds patrolling the dam he works at. Not to mention fences have were erected in scant hours. Crop dusters last I heard have been grounded for fear of them being used to deploy germs and anthrax spores. One kilogram of which costs $50 to culture and has the potential to kill 1 million people. We have special forces in afghanistan making maps and identifying targets so that civilian casualties will be minimized. We are sending humanitarian aid to Pakistan to be used for the Afghanistan refugees so that Pakistan will be more willing to help out. Our politicians have chosen to bed with some of our worst enemies. Germany, Britain, France, and whole host of other countries held candle-light vigils. Even Sudan (remember the aspirin factory), has joined the manhunt to find members of Ladens al Quaida believed to be hiding in the Sudan.

So just so I’m clear here…it is not okay to stand the flag proudly because it might tarnish the image of objective reporting, but it is okay for Maher to flap his trap about our craven politicians and the bravery of the terrorists and then cry foul when he loses his backing?

Give me a break. I think I'm going to puke.

stillakid
10-01-2001, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by vulcantouch


stillakid: "suicide attacks are cowardly. Those who destroy themselves attack and then remove themselves from the situation to escape the ramifications"
-oh i dunno about that; i'd say knowing for sure you're gonna have to pay with your life is a purty big "ramification" to face up to all by itself. don't agree? try it sometime :eek:




Sometimes it doesn't pay to not beat people over the head with the obvious. Of course the outcome of suicide is death. What the "cowards" managed to escape from was the subsequent investigation, hunt for them, trial, and ultimate punishment from those whom they attacked. Death, while a ramification, in this case proved to be a much simplier means of escape than somehow surviving the incident and getting away. Of course they also managed to miss out on the praise that would otherwise be awarded to them by their equally sick and twisted compatriates. If any good has come out of this, that is that those weak-minded automatons are dead and can't hurt anyone else. Now we just have to dig the rest of them out of their rat holes and send them to Allah where they apparently all wish to be anyway with their 37 (?) virgins.

JediTricks
10-02-2001, 10:40 AM
I've decided to remove myself from this discussion, but I STRONGLY recommend that this debate remain civil and level-headed or it's going to be closed.

vulcantouch
10-02-2001, 12:31 PM
kiddo: "What the 'cowards' managed to escape from was the subsequent investigation, hunt for them, trial, and ultimate punishment. Death, while a ramification, in this case proved to be a much simplier means of escape "
-so their "simpler" choice- in Only sacrificing their lives- means they're cowards cuz they evaded those other consequences?
i say again, if you think it doesn't take guts to face certain death, try it yourself. i don't care how convinced you are that you're gonna end up in paradise with 67 virgins. you're still gonna experience fear coursing thru you that you'll have to beat down with nothing but a big stick of courage. i oughta know: just a couple days after 9-11, for example, i had to stand in the path of a van to dissuade the driver who was hell-bent on running over someone :cool: and obviously, cuz i'm here typing this now, that wasn't Even certain death.

preachy: "Mic Jagger’s wife. . . was saying that we needed to be more sensitive to the culture of Afghanistan. I peed myself I was laughing so hard. She obviously hadn’t seen 'Beneath the Veil'"
-not sure whether you mean the gorgeous bianca jagger or that trailer-cow jerry hall, but either way i'm willing to bet you $10,000 the wife Has seen BTV; femme celebs are well-versed in all that stuff. they have to be; it's the law ;) it occurs to me that YOU don't have the facts, in that you seem pathologically incapable of distinguishing between the Culture of afghanistan, which is thousands of years old, and taliban rule, which is about a decade old :p
btw, what took you so long to stop watching rosie? i knew her show sucked way Before the selleck fiasco :p damn shame; she used to be a funny stand-up :(

"people tend to mistake their freedom of speech as being able to totally wipe their hands clean of any responsibility"
-and who among us gets to decide exactly what "taking responsibility" should mean in this case? you? mob rule?
i guess some people need to be reminded that this is still america :p

"I saw the infamous Politically Incorrect episode described and was absolutely appalled"
-with all due respect, there's a million more important things in this world than whether or not You were appalled at something you heard someone say on a tv show. free thought and free expression, to name but two of them.

"I apparently wasn’t alone in that sentiment"
-which means what exactly? that 100 million ****ed-off, judge-first&ask-questions later americans can't be wrong? give ME a break.

"He was given an opportunity to explain his view. Nobody found it exceptable"
-yeah, just a bunch of "nobodies" like dennis prager, jay leno (whose wife has been involved with BTV), rush limbaugh, maureen dowd, arianna huffington and about a zillion others, all of whom have expressed support for maher re this controversy :p

"The president’s approval ratings are higher than any other in american history and Maher decided to call him a coward?!"
-your distortion of maher's remarks notwithstanding, it sounds like maher's got guts to me :cool:

"Ted Turner made it corporate policy that no journalist could have the american flag on their desk as it would 'cause bias in the news'. Say what?"
-ok: WHAT :p your political leanings are clear, so lemme put it this way: since when would a conservative such as yourself begrudge a private employer the right to set rules of conduct at his place of business?
i don't believe for a second that you'd have a problem with a private employer who Mandated that his employees display the flag at their desks. so guess what: You Can't Have It Both Ways :p

"Even if he did mean politicians that still, in my mind is no excuse"
-even if excuses were needed here (which they aren't), your refusal to acknowledge the significance of such distinctions speaks for itself.

"I didn’t see him coming up with any other solutions"
-is that to be the new qualifier for being allowed to express oneself? if so, i guess you shoulda shut up about ten paragraphs ago, cuz you haven't offered any solutions either; and no, "follow the leader and don't ask questions" does Not count as a solution :eek:

"Our leaders need our support more than ever. They are running like gangbusters trying to decide the best means to combat this threat"
-oh, on the contrary: they are running like gangbusters to do everything But the best (and Only) means to combat this threat (see jonathan moriarty's letter (http://salon.com/news/letters/2001/09/14/klare/print.html)). and why? cuz there ain't enough Profit in it. instead, they are running like gangbusters to crank up their military-industrial complex and reap an unprecedented windfall from this climate of fear. as maher himself pointed out about people pulling their $$$ out of the stock market in the wake of 9-11, these people care Nothing about red white & blue; all they care about is Green.
our leaders stand posed to plunge us into the darkest chapter human history has ever faced. they need our Questioning more than ever.

"just so I’m clear here…it is not okay to stand the flag proudly because it might tarnish the image of objective reporting, but it is okay for Maher to flap his trap about our craven politicians and the bravery of the terrorists"
-that about sums it up ;) it's called america- like it or lump it ;)
vt
"what if i told you there are only Four of us on your planet? i assure you, four's more than enough; because in the end, it's your fear of us which will destroy you"
-changeling terrorist to sisko, ds9's "paradise lost"

Jedi Clint
10-02-2001, 05:26 PM
I believe the President was referring more to those that organized/funded/encouraged the suicide bombers to do what they did, than the hijackers themselves. There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity, and the hijackers were no where close to the brave side of that line.

preacher
10-02-2001, 06:19 PM
I never said that Maher should have been silenced by some mob, I did say that he should have realized that such comments would cause dischord. Say what you will about the 1,000,000 or so people that voiced their displeasure, but it was those voices that saw to it Bill Maher would learn. He was given the opportunity to redeem his place but wasn't. As far as responsibility, no I don't believe that their should be a thought police. I never said Bill Maher, you, or others on this thread didn't have a right to speak his mind (ironic you would say I should have shut up ten paragraphs previous though). I would hope that the individual would be responsible and accept the fact that some opinions concerning matters will cause a backlash. As I knew I would be in for when I made my last post. I find no shame in it and will continue to post what I think.

I don't have a problem with Ted Turner making it policy that there will be no "American Flags" provided he also tells his reporters to be objective. None of the "Whether you voted for him or not he's still your president." remarks. Those type of slanted remarks have no place in journalism. Those belong in forums. I don't need to be reminded of civil liberties at all. What you clearly misread was I was/am merely illustrating the bias that prevails.

For Maher it wasn't guttsy for him to make that remark it was just stupid. He should have understood the spirit of patriotism. Our allies did, but he along with the terrorists did not.

Thank you for reminding me... Bianca Jagger. See I told you there is a lot to be learned if you keep an open mind. Cheers.

THE Slayer
10-02-2001, 06:22 PM
Has anyone ever asked a simply question that spawned a heated debate?

I know I haven't. Oh wait.

Fulit
10-02-2001, 06:31 PM
To be fair, I actually should share the blame in this, too, THE Slayer. You only asked if anyone knew when PI would be back on, and I had to go and say "You know why they took it off, don't you"? Oh, well, the subject probably wouldv'e turned to it anyway.

El Chuxter
10-02-2001, 07:24 PM
The way I look at it, Americans live in a democratic nation where freedom of speech is one of our societal ideals. Maher had every right to voice his opinion.

At the same time, though, we live in a capitalist nation where cash is king, so to speak. The sponsors and local affiliates had every right to judge that his comments could offend their target customers and pull ads or pre-empt the show.

The Constitution guarantees the right to voice an opinion, even--or, given the climate in which our founding fathers lived, should I say especially?--if it's against the government or popular opinion. But it doesn't guarantee that anyone has to provide the method of transmitting that opinion.

stillakid
10-02-2001, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by El Chuxter
The way I look at it, Americans live in a democratic nation where freedom of speech is one of our societal ideals. Maher had every right to voice his opinion.

At the same time, though, we live in a capitalist nation where cash is king, so to speak. The sponsors and local affiliates had every right to judge that his comments could offend their target customers and pull ads or pre-empt the show.

The Constitution guarantees the right to voice an opinion, even--or, given the climate in which our founding fathers lived, should I say especially?--if it's against the government or popular opinion. But it doesn't guarantee that anyone has to provide the method of transmitting that opinion.


You are completely correct! I wish I had had the presence of mind to formulate that response.

Concerning the sponsors and affiliates, though, we could hope for a better world where corporations weren't such weenies and would actually back up the Constitutional rights of people instead of just running their businesses based on fear.

bigbarada
10-03-2001, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by vulcantouch
meanwhile, over here lotsa people believe that if you simply acknowledge jayzuss as yer lord & savior your slate'll be wiped clean & you'll get into jedi heaven too :rolleyes:
personally, i think i like the sound of that there islamic heaven ;)


It'd be much appreciated if you didn't trivialize other peoples' beliefs in this discussion. I happen to believe in Jesus and that He died on the cross for our sins, just because you don't doesn't give you the right to mock Him. I haven't said a word to slander the Muslim faith, but I know, unfortunately, others here have. However, I still don't appreciate you throwing out predujicial insults about a group of people based on their faith. Christian or Muslim. I know you have the right to speak your mind, but so do I; and I will not continue in a debate with someone who obviously has closed off his mind to other peoples' opinions.

JediTricks
10-03-2001, 07:51 AM
I'm going to close this thread now, let's just say it's become too personal. I would like to repost VT's link to Jonathan Moriarty's letter though, it's got some food for thought: http://salon.com/news/letters/2001/09/14/klare/print.html

vulcantouch
10-04-2001, 12:12 AM
cantcha have a lil faith in us, & let us work out our own issues before jumpin in and hosin us down like tusslin' dogs (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1085&pagenumber=1)?? :(
believe it or not, here is the post i was, ironically, gonna make Before you decided to lock that thred:

as one who never claimed civility to be one of his strong suits, i gotta say y'all're one of the most civil groups i've had the pleasure of crossin swords with :) you don't take my surgical, provocative rebuttals anywhere near as personal as some other forums to which i've contributed. generally speaking, you people actually Listen, and then respond to what's Actually been said, rather than what might be inaccurately Imagined has been said. good for you :) you also seem to understand there's no point in taking Offense at another's Opinion, much less exhibiting that offense :) or at least, if i Do tick ya off, you got sense enough to not Bother exhibiting it, which is just as good ;)

preachy: "ironic you would say I should have shut up ten paragraphs previous"
-what i Actually said, in response to your remark "I didn’t see (ted turner) coming up with any other solutions" was:
"is that to be the new qualifier for being allowed to express oneself? if so, i guess you shoulda shut up about ten paragraphs ago, cuz you haven't offered any solutions either"
as you can see, the "if" makes my reply quite a different thing from simply saying you should shut up :)

ec: "sponsors and local affiliates had every right to judge that his comments could offend their target customers"
-indeed; only a fool'd question their Rights in this situation. but like kiddo, i do question their panicky spinelessness in contributing to an unproductive snowball effect- just like the investors who pulled their $$$ outta wall street- only adding fuel to a fire which has no rational basis for growing so large. once word spread of sponsors pulling out, many in america just assumed maher said something they wouldn't like, and piled on. but if & when they'd later heard the specifics of what he said, their reaction was considerably less rabid. bb's modified pov during the course of this discussion is a perfect example :)

bb: "It'd be much appreciated if you didn't trivialize other peoples' beliefs. . . I still don't appreciate you throwing out predujicial insults about a group of people based on their faith"
-i must admit, i've never understood when people Bother to take personal affront when someone says something in jest at the expense of their beliefs, Especially religious beliefs. i mean, if I were religiously inclined, i don't think i'd give a damn What the rest of the world thought about my beliefs, much less any opinions about it they expressed. i would remain unmoved; the core of my faith would remain unshaken.
as a pluralist, i would recognize that it's not the job of the rest of the world to reinforce my personal beliefs for me. so the Last thing i would do is run myself ragged trying to discourage others from saying anything the slightest bit irreverent about my beliefs. (and let's face it: in your threat to boycott this discussion, you Are trying to discourage me.) i must admit, i can't imagine anyone's motives for doing so could be based on anything other than insecurity about those beliefs. but i suppose it's possible that i just have a limited imagination. if so, please feel free to give me another explanation for why someone would be moved to react thusly.
i do not seek to be respectful Or disrespectful. i seek first and foremost to express myself clearly, wittily and freely. i should think that'd be abundantly self-evident from my postings. i should also think it quite clear that any resultant "trivializations", "prejudicial insults" and "mockings" of religion you attribute to me are quite beside the point of my posts. it's not like antireligion's a monotonous note i'm constantly striking. to the contrary: within the context of my response to another's remarks about islam, anyone can see that single "offending" sentence of mine was pertinent, succinct, measured and, dare i say, wise :)
if i were to take such personal offense at all the things in My life that warrant nothing more than my annoyance (if even that), i'd never have time for anything else. i guess i just got better things to do. so i confess i just don't understand the need you feel to express indignance. geez, you'd think christians'd be satisfied with the fact that they account for over 80% of the american population without threatening to boycott a discussion that contains a single sentence that pushes their nose even a weensy bit outta joint :rolleyes: whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? :(

"I happen to believe in Jesus and that He died on the cross for our sins, just because you don't doesn't give you the right to mock Him"
-it is not a right that Needs to be Given to me. as an american, it is my Birthright to, as you put it, "mock" him :) "offense is a democratic right" (camille paglia), one that must go hand-in-hand with freedom of thought and expression. where there is no risk of offense there is no freedom.
95% of offense is usually in the eye of the beholder anyway, as per the case here-
vt
np: mazzy star, "look on down from the bridge"

bigbarada
10-04-2001, 12:38 AM
I must admit I was having a bad day when I made that post, so I CHOSE to be offended by it. In retrospect I regret going on so. I needed to vent some anger and unfortunately your post sparked it. (I should have realized something was wrong with my rant when the first time I read your comments it sparked no reaction whatsoever) I apologize for giving the death blow to the 'politically incorrect' thread.

In fact these discussions keep me thinking long after I get offline and I've really begun to analyze my own personal definition of freedom of speech. To my distress I realized I'm not as open to it as I would like to be. So you have given me cause for self-reflection. It just takes a little bit of aggravation to break through the hard surface of ignorance.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, vt!:cool:

np: thin lizzy, "whiskey in the jar"

vulcantouch
10-04-2001, 12:44 AM
see, i guess i Do have a limited imagination ;)
np: the potion, "no regrets"

bigbarada
10-04-2001, 01:01 AM
You are definitely right about the civility of these forums. I went to the forums at a Legend of Zelda fan site and couldn't believe some of the things being posted. No discussions, no arguments even; just lewd insult after lewd insult being thrown around.

Oh well, give people 15 minutes of fame and you can guarantee they'll spend at least 10 minutes making a total fool of themselves.

np: Gigi D'Agostino, "I'll fly with you"

JediTricks
10-04-2001, 08:14 AM
First: Since the person who made it appears to have a change of mind about the complaint that I closed this thread over originally, I've decided to reopen the thread and merge the 2nd thread into this one.

Second: This thread is somewhat close to the edge of being a problem, so please keep all replies civil and try to remember that everybody has a right to their opinions, so please respect their opinions as you would wish them to respect yours. In fact, even if you don't care about having your opinion respected, please don't trash others for their opinions. Flame wars are not acceptable.

Third: I worry the right amount, I assure you all. Just because you don't see the other issues, that doesn't mean they're not at hand. Unfortunately, SSG's forums may face a state similar to Politically Incorrect's, with certain groups watching our content to see if they find anything of offense since they see us as a "kids' site". If these groups feel that SSG had up things they find offensive (that's not limited to just smut, they have a lot of different criteria), they have enough leverage to have networks and ISPs ban the site, which would be bad. So we have to keep certain things at calm, cool levels because we don't have as powerful an advocate as Disney/ABC has been for Politically Incorrect.

vulcantouch
10-04-2001, 05:36 PM
-hey, that merge thing's a neat trick! :cool:

jt: "certain groups watching our content to see if they find anything of offense since they see us as a 'kids' site'"
-who are these busybodies?? LEMME AT EM!!! :mad: someone oughta pound a lil sense in them, as it's quite obvious that very few ssg forum participants are under 18, or 16, or 14, or whatever the hell age them nitwits are overly concerned with "protecting" :p someone oughta tell them buttinskys that it makes more sense to wear shoes than to carpet the world- and yes, i AM VolunTeering for that job :cool:

"Just because you don't see the other issues, that doesn't mean they're not at hand"
-well like i sez here (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1111), feel free to share them other issues with us. after all, we're all in this 2gether :)
vt
np: Vic Tauntaine, "come fly wid me" ;)

JediTricks
10-05-2001, 12:22 PM
Merge is a neat trick, one of my favorite features. This way, if 2 folks start a very similar thread at the same time, neither has to lose their comments while the site gets streamlined.


I'm afraid these watchdog groups are quite influential on the web, I spent the first year of my online life asking them things like "why do you rate violent acts as being equally offensive as sexual ones?" and "how do you measure the amount of hatred is in a comment that falls under the term 'hate speech'?", but it's like trying to push jell-o uphill with a thimble. If you are so inclined, I can try to gather some URLs, but it's been a while for me so it'd take a little while.


As for other issues, they're not ones that my position allows me to discuss freely since I'm not the boss. Granted, those issues are always in a state of flux, like the morning of Sept 11th when the forum administration staff discussed how to deal with hate-speech that isn't directed solely at the actual terrorists responsible for those actions. Basically, it was deemed that it would be impossible and unreasonable to try to stop hate-speech against the terrorists who actually had a direct hand in the acts (that is, the terrorists, perhaps any gov't that helped them, but obviously not all Muslims).

vulcantouch
10-05-2001, 01:48 PM
-unfortunate? no sir, nuthin unfortunate about that :) i'm a world-class-lightnin rod, feel free to shoot a few cathartic bolts my way, you can trust i'll absorb, redirect & effectively neutralize em, & have a fun time doin it too :D

jt: "hate speech", like "hate crime", is in itself a fascist designation (WHY some bigot assaults someone shouldn't impact his sentencing; the simple fact of his action is reason enough to prosecute).
in case ss ain't already keeping up with these discussions, feel free to bring em to his attention, that he may grant you more discretion re discussing the secret issues with us so we can assist. meanwhile, like i sez, anytime lmk where to direct my efforts at combating the buttinskys & i'll do it :cool:
vt
np: donald ***en, "i.g.y. (what a beautiful world)"

stillakid
10-05-2001, 02:16 PM
Not to be negative or anything, but my head hurts trying to read some of these posts. Whatever happened to using full sentences, proper spelling, and decent grammar? Ouch.

vulcantouch
10-05-2001, 02:25 PM
are you kidding? my posts'd be Twice as long if i restricted myself to "full sentences, proper spelling, and decent grammar". after plowign thru That much text, your head'd Really hurt :p
np: abba, "sos"

JediTricks
10-06-2001, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by vulcantouch
jt: "hate speech", like "hate crime", is in itself a fascist designation (WHY some bigot assaults someone shouldn't impact his sentencing; the simple fact of his action is reason enough to prosecute).IMO, that's ridiculous in this context, not all speech is "hate speech". "Hate Speech" refers to speech that propels the ideals of hatred, specifically attacking a person or group on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race.

2-1B
10-06-2001, 03:54 PM
You wanna know how I feel about this?
I'm so glad to live in an America where everyone in these forums can get riled up and debate these ideas (as long as it's decent, like JediTricks noted).

I agree with Maher in the sense that distant attacks can be cowardly. Preacher referenced Clinton's involvement with the aspirin factory in Sudan, which I find very cowardly. I'm glad Bush has not made any indiscriminate retaliatory strikes.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-06-2001, 11:17 PM
Here's my two cents on the whole Politically Incorrect situation:

Maher made some controversial comments at a very wrong time. If he had said them 2 weeks earlier, those statments have been overlooked. But since it is akin to wartime here, any comment that is perceived as anti-american or praising the enemy will immediately be scrutinized.

I can see his point in his comments, as Caeser said. I can't see any objective in firing guided missles at a pharmaceutical factory in Africa, from hundreds of miles away. But during this time of patriotic ferver in America, people will immediately seize on comments like Maher, even though he made valid and accurate statements, and gang up on him. A lot of corporations (who Maher seems to attack on a nightly basis) are unjustifiably pulling their ads off the air, because they believe they will be hurt by being associated with his show. I'd recommend, if they believe in free speech and the right to have an open debate, to stick with him.

vulcantouch
10-07-2001, 12:14 AM
-on the contrary: one person's "hate speech" is another person's truth-telling. for example, i Hate yanni ( :mad: ). it therefore follows that my proclamation of hatred for yanni Could be considered "hate speech".
disqualifying my "i hate yanni" remark from being called "hate speech" by circumscribing the definition of "hate speech" to only mean "specifically attacking a person or group on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race" is in itself fascist discrimination. it is in effect saying that only hatred towards race, gender, religion or orientation Counts as hate, while other hate is somehow lesser. That is a specious distinction promoted by groups that stand to gain politically from doing so (rainbow coalition, queer nation, now, anti-defamation league et al). hate is hate.
if one means to refer to racist, sexist, homophobic or antireligious speech, then one should Say racist, sexist, homophobic or antireligious speech. overgeneralizations like "hate speech" and "hate crimes" are nothing more than disingenuous attempts to corner the market on victimization :p
vt
np: brothers johnson, "brother man"

preacher
10-08-2001, 02:59 PM
It just occured to be that Yanni bears a resemblance to Osama Bin Laden! Slap on a camoflage jacket, a turbine, and conservative amounts of gray hair dye to Yanni and Voila!

I thought I would add a couple more cents to the discussion sense the tone on the thread has changed (otherwise it wouldn't have been re-opened now would it). Though this is somewhat off the topic my statements have an indirect tie-in to the whole Maher debate. Just to re-iterate my stance in case some new readers don't wish to wade through thirty posts on this thread my view is: Maher vastly underestimated the power of patriotism and should not have been as surprised as he seemed to be when his plug was pulled. Its a prevailing attitude with celebrities where they mistake the manner in which we find value in them. They believe we will hang on every word they say when in fact I think its safe to say the majority of us find value only in their entertainment. At least if I want expert opinion I will consult expert testimony, or if I want to know what people think I will consult forums such as these. Or if I want to here a conservative view I listen to Limbuagh, Hennedy, Snow, Hamblin, Reagan, or Medved. I certainly don't watch entertainment tonite to hear what Sharron Stone, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, or Jason Alexander have to offer.

That being said Vulcantouch challenged me to offer a solution to the terrorist problem that would not be something our leaders are already doing. Unfortuneately I cannot find much to correct. A day or two after the attack on the WTC I stated in another thread that those who committed this atrocity should be punished. That covert ops should hunt down those with ties to the Al Quaida and shove some bamboo under their fingernails. Within hours of my post the FBI and CIA had done just that and consulted the interpol of Germany, Italy, France, Sudan...and a host of others. In less than a week we had a list of (if I'm not mistaken) a couple hundred potential terrorist agents. In the meantime the administration contacted Paksistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt - and a host of other countries - to find out who was on whose side. While over in our country federal aid was given to airports to beef up security so that our infrastructure wouldn't collapse. l already mentioned dams have erected fencing and called up national gaurdsman to patrol the immediate area. Cropdusters were grounded.

Our first attack upon the terrorists came in the form of freezing their bank accounts and other assets. Now here is where I find fault in our government and the United Nations. If it were me I would have pushed for the assets of the Al Quaida to be seized instead of frozen. Then use that money from the seizure to pay for the damage to the Pentagon, the trade towers, food aid to the Afghan refugees, and maybe pay for a program to mass produce small pox and anthrax vaccines. I believe that the concerns brought up in Moriarty letter(sp) have been addressed. We've made it abundantly clear that our attacks are directed to the terrorists and the Taliban regime not the Afghan people. I had even read that Pakistan has granted us the use of their radio waves to broadcast Bush's public address 24 hrs every 2 hours so that the message may be repeated. The refugee aid packages we send are vegetarian so that we will not offend the Afghan culture.

The best solution admittedly would have been to slowly perculate our beliefs into the muslim and islamic faiths without violence. But in light of the fact that these faiths consider abortion a perversion this would have taken time that we do not have. There have been two cases of Anthrax in Florida in the vicinity of where the terrorists learned to fly. Cooincidence? Perhaps...but it takes only two weeks for a dispersal of spores to reduce the country's population by 1/3. Should we have sent missionaries to spread the word of christianity in muslim lands where they would have stood a greater than average chance of being killed. Or consolidate our forces, build up our defenses and try to sever the main artery of terrorism?

vulcantouch
10-10-2001, 12:38 AM
you know how some people are wearin osama-in-crosshairs t-shirts these days? the hilarious music snob jack black wears a Yanni shirt for probably the exact same reason ;)

"Maher vastly underestimated the power of patriotism"
-and i maintain it wasn't Patriotism under whose fire he came, but mere patrioteering (a dumber, showier, less sincere, less brave version of patriotism).

"(celebrities) believe we will hang on every word they say"
-true of many (heston, yoko, bono, oprah) i agree, but not neccessarily of maher.

"the majority of us find value only in their entertainment"
-you & i can only Hope we're in the majority; imo there's been plenty of indications we ain't :eek:

"I cannot find much to correct"
-like i sed, "follow the leader" doesn't count as "coming up with a solution" ;)

"the best solution admittedly would have been to slowly perculate our beliefs into the muslim and islamic faiths without violence. But in light of the fact that these faiths consider abortion a perversion this would have taken time that we do not have"
-oh, but we Do have time to wage a military war that our leaders continually remind us is gonna go on for a long time?
also, percolating our beliefs into the muslim world missionary-style Is part of the problem. we've been doing that for decades, rather than respecting their cultures.

"sever the main artery of terrorism"
-i'm afriad your metaphor does not hold, cuz where exactly would this main artery be anyway? :confused:
and now a quote from me gal maureen dowd:
"Sept. 11 was a day of crystalline certainty. We had to find the murderers and unleash hell. But after that things got weirdly muddied. We would have been prepared for a conventional war outside our borders. But we were not prepared for the terrorists' unconventional war inside our heads"
-all of us except the likes of Vours Truly, that is; in times like this, a honed philosophy's as handy as the right tool for the right job ;)
vt

bigbarada
10-10-2001, 01:18 AM
For now, it seems "follow the leader" is the only option we have. Anyone who disagrees with George Bush (not saying I do in the least) has no choice but to voice their opinion and have it continually ignored by the current administration. Even if Bush's approval rating drops significantly and his handling of the situation deteriorates there is nothing his critics can do but complain for the next three years.

Personally, I think this administration is doing an excellent job and I have no problem "following the leader" as you put it, vt.

As for "coming up with my own solution," well, you probably don't want to know what my ideas for resolving this quickly would be. I believe quickly and definitively is the only way to deal with it, since another attack is not a matter of "if" but "when." These terrorists don't need to be reasoned with or understood, they need to be wiped off the face of the planet.

BTW, "terrorist" is not synonymous with Muslim or Arab.

THE Slayer
10-10-2001, 03:30 PM
These terrorists don't need to be reasoned with or understood, they need to be wiped off the face of the planet.

unfortunatly that will never happen.

El Chuxter
10-10-2001, 03:38 PM
The way Bush is handling this mess is the first, and probably only, decision he's made that I agree with. I see people protesting the war on the news, and I wonder if they're honestly against what's going on or if they're the type that has to protest something (simply because it was cool in the 60s). This is a situation in which we were given no choice. Violence is, unfortunately, necessary. I don't favor a war, but by no means does that not mean I don't support it.

What irritates me is the snail's pace at which security is being beefed up where it needs to be strengthened, as opposed to the incredibly unnecessary security around sites that are in no danger. Why did some crazy guy storm a cockpit a few days ago? That, I think, is far less important a question than the one that begs to be asked: why, after 6,000 people died (I know we're hearing that an awful lot, so please think about that number again and let it once again horrify you, as it should) from planes being taken over, was the cockpit not secured? And why, every day, do we hear of news crews successfully sneaking weapons on board planes just to see if it can be done?

At the same time, why did Hollywood cancel the Emmys? And why do minor local governments have barricades, armored cars, and legions of cops surrounding them? We've already seen that Al-Qaeda thinks on a much larger scale of terrorism than we're used to. In fact, I believe their primary weakness may be their inability to "think small." While it's good to know that copycat attacks may be averted by such security buildups, what is so incredibly difficult about averting the primary threat.

vulcantouch
10-11-2001, 12:53 AM
-why not? we could all use a laugh, seeing as how there ain't No way to "quickly" resolve this :D

ec: i too am no pacifist, and sense a distinct, self-aggrandizing self-indulgence within most (but not all) who claim to be. i agree that the Violence Tool is like any other: it has its uses :eek:

bb: "it seems 'follow the leader' is the only option we have"
-either that or impotently "oppose the leader", eh? i'm happy to say i've got a personal alternative to this biValenT choice: do neither- at least, not intentionally.
my Taoist side recognizes that in only the most improbable circumstances would my choices have any effect on the course of history, and that any such finite efforts i might make would generally contribute to an effect opposite of what i'd intended anyway.
my Genius side ("genius, like insanity, is the ability to grasp opposing concepts simultaneously" ;) ) recognizes that this issue's a billion times more subtle than "choosing sides" allows for. the fact is i like some of dubya's moves, and loathe others. i deplore some of the results of our primarily self-serving foreign policy, while knowingly (and unapologetically) revelling in the splendor that could only result at least partly from same. in other words, i recognize that "good" and "bad" -in both the outer world and within myself- are always inseparable, and often even become indistinguishable, and that it's dishonest to pretend otherwise. that clarity would be bulldozed were i to "pick sides".
my Cynical side recognizes that the democracy we live under provides us only a mirage of self-determination, esp. in regards to tidal shifts such as these, and that any such picking of sides on my part would merely be playing into the mirage.
and my Decisive side long ago made up its mind re my strengths and weaknesses, and therefore also the motto i live by: Clarity, Style and Results. i am self-mandated to be acheiving at least one of those three ends at any given time. (it's rare to be able to achieve two simultaneously, let alone all three; but it's nice when it happens :cool: )
while the first two are more or less self-explanatory, the third is defined by context, and its acheivement depends first and foremost on picking one's battles. changing the course of history is not a battle i'm about to pick, cuz in doing so i would all but forsake what i've long since decided is the best possible use of my talents (see motto ;) ).
so instead, i'm content to get the Result of continuing my life as i have before, and occasionally sharing my Clarity re this issue in a Stylin' way with anyone who wants to partake.
and while i do not Require reaction, i always Welcome it :)
vt
np: ew&f, "that's the way of the world"

bigbarada
10-11-2001, 01:22 AM
While I don't pretend to agree with everything being done, I'm sworn to "follow the leader" regardless of my own opinions. It's part of my military contract. I would love to see a clear desicive end to all this mainly due to the fact that my time in the military was scheduled to end in March of next year, and I had plans to get on with what I really want to do with my life. Unfortunately, all those plans have now been put on hold due to a small group of fanatics' warmongering.

However, my minor inconveniences are small consequence when compared to the price thousands of people paid on Sep 11th. And I must constantly remind myself of that and be prepared to be sent off to fight a war I neither expected nor wanted. So you see, I can't take on a detached view of all this, because it's around me everyday. The level of patriotism being criticized in these forums is the most heartening aspect of all this to me. As long as we maintain the support of the American people while we are over there, then we will never lose hope.

I just heard from a friend of mine over 'there' right now and it put everything into a new perspective for me. This guy is an incredibly talented and intelligent individual who also just happens to perform one of the most dangerous wartime jobs. His combat life expectancy is barely more than a few minutes. I don't see how I can take this any other way but personally.

I dunno, maybe I'm just a shallow boob, but this is the way I see things right now. When things calm down and the world moves on then maybe I can sit back and reflect on the chaos that is my life right now. Maybe then I'll have a more intelligent, poignant response, vt.

np: Big Country "Fields of Fire (400 Miles)"

preacher
10-11-2001, 02:47 PM
Bigbarda we've had our disagreements from time to time, but I wanted you to know that I for one am in your corner man. Thank you for serving the country.

The liberal rhetoric displayed during all this craziness is exactly what initially triggered my response. I find it totally dispicable that in a recent bout to gain favor with the media a politician shared vital military secrets and put at risk you, the friend you mentioned, and others like the two of you. Once again you've seen democrats cry foul, accepting no accountability for their actions. I can't help but wonder what Maher would have said.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it were a certain NY senator that was the source of the leak of classified information? As I understand treason is a capital offense punishable by death. At least we would not have to worry about her running for the oval office come 2004. Now if only Tom Daschle would screw up equally. He's got egg all over his face as it is what with his opposition to missile defense system.

Anyways, Bigbarda, if you do get sent over to Afghanistan I will be praying for you. Look on the bright side at least Al Gore is not the commnder in chief.

Vulcantouch...are you sure you aren't Rush Limbaugh? :p

bigbarada
10-11-2001, 10:32 PM
Thanks, preacher, I appreciate the support. I don't hold any grudges for disagreements I have with people in these forums. The downside to talking on the internet like this is not having that face to face contact which is so important in understanding other people. Sometimes things on this forum sound harsher than intended and occasionally I read over one of my own posts and wonder what the hell I was thinking.

For now, I believe I am too close to this issue to address it logically so I think I will have to withdraw from these discussions until I am not so emotionally involved. I appreciate the chance to challenge myself and my way of thinking but I have found myself posting stuff I really don't believe one too many times, in this thread especially. So I feel I need to step back and take some time to gather my thoughts in order to decide how I really feel about these issues.

np: the verve "lucky man"

vulcantouch
10-12-2001, 12:29 AM
you guys friggin ROCK :cool:

preachy: "you sure you aren't Rush Limbaugh?"
-i assume you mean the resemblance i bear to his confidence/arrogance about his own infallibility, rather than specific povs he may hold; if so, guilty as charged ;)

"(Daschle)'s got egg all over his face as it is what with his opposition to missile defense system"
-yeah, i guess i see what you mean; after all, sdi woulda been Just the ticket to prevent somethin like 9-11 :rolleyes:
btw, needn't worry bout lady macbeth, i mean hillary- she'll self-destruct well before '04 :)

bb: "I'm sworn to "follow the leader" regardless of my own opinions. It's part of my military contract"
-indeed.

"I had plans to get on with what I really want to do with my life"
-feel free to elaborate; inquirin minds wanna know :)

"I can't take on a detached view of all this. . . I don't see how I can take this any other way but personally. . . maybe I'm just a shallow boob. . . When things calm down. . . Maybe then I'll have a more intelligent, poignant response"
-i'd say you already do :) in fact, i'd say you have the makin's of that most noble of creatures, the warrior-philosopher (samurai etc), regardless how reluctant your warrior calling be.
indeed, given your circumstance, you Can't take a detached or impersonal view. but you needn't anyway: cuz while a certain Dispassionate view of things is often useful, it isn't "detachment" which informs one's perspective as much as a grasp of irony, of paradox. imo, you're exemplifying ironic Engagement (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/09/25/irony_lives/print.html), rather than ironic detachment :)
and if you're "shallow", then i guess that old oscar wilde quote applies: "only the shallow know themselves". cuz you, bb, clearly possess enviably rigorous self-knowledge; very little bs coverin Your visor, i'd say ;)
ok by me if you wanna stop discussin this stuff, but: i still wanna say you've surpassed any expectations of clarity i'd have towards someone in your position, and it'd be an honor to share a friggin' foxhole with you, BigBaradaVoodooDaddy :D
vt
np: temptations, "papa was a rollin stone"

bigbarada
10-12-2001, 08:03 PM
Wow, thanks VT. I really don't know what to say, except that maybe you give me too much credit, no offense. I just wrote what I honestly thought and not what I feel I am supposed to think, given my situation. I think that was the major flaw of some of my previous posts.

As for what I planned to do after getting out of the Army, well I want to go into publishing. Most likely comic books of some kind, not necessarily super-heroes. Fantasy interests me the most. If you go to http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/loth/n/m/nmros/nmros.html then you can see some of the artwork I do and the kind of stuff that interest me.

I would also really enjoy writing children's books. It's been a dream of mine since I was a kid myself. I really respect people who dedicate themselves to creating worlds were kids can go to feel safe and learn something about the real world at the same time.

Interesting essay on irony (the link you provided), VT. I guess irony has kind of gotten a bum rap recently. It's actually one of our main defenses during trying times.

np: Tori Amos, "Pretty Good Year"

vulcantouch
10-13-2001, 07:19 PM
-yeah, my praise Does tend to have that effect on people ;)

"Sometimes things on this forum sound harsher than intended"
-that's one reason i overuse emoticons: to soften the blow. i'm sure i woulda been banned by now otherwise :o

"maybe you give me too much credit"
-if you say so; ok then, i'll take any that's left over ;) i'm always finishing other people's meals anyway :D speaking of which:

"The downside to talking on the internet like this is not having that face to face contact"
-in that case, maybe this'll do for now (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13586#post13586) ;)
comix eh? happen to be familiar w/moebius, or winsor mccay (little nemo)? i friggin LOVE them :cool:
vt
np: fifth dimension, "age of aquarius"

bigbarada
10-13-2001, 09:04 PM
Stumbled across this from theonion.com and thought it was kind of worth pointing out.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3736/freedoms_curtailed.html

For those of you who've never heard of theonion.com they are a satirical news site. I found what they had to say in this article very relevant to some of the recent paradoxical definitions of the "American Way of Life."

I should warn that there are many articles on theonion site that have some instances of bad language so don't go there if this kind of thing offends you.

vulcantouch
10-15-2001, 12:47 AM
check out the final sentence in this story (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/27/spin/index1.html) :(
vt
np: vt, "that lowlife tool ari fleischer can stick it where the moon don't shine" :mad:

bigbarada
10-15-2001, 01:00 AM
Very sad. So what's worse? Living with the possibility of several more Sep. 11th's or losing all of our freedoms in order to create a completely safe, risk free society?

np: tori amos "I'm on fire"

JediTricks
10-15-2001, 10:00 AM
I've been avoiding responding to this thread like the plague for a while now, though I'm still reading it from time to time, but I just thought I'd mention that the newly-created government office of "homeland defense" scares the crap out of me based on its name and what it may represent if perverted into Joeseph McCarthy/Fascist qualities. The first time I heard the phrase "the office of homeland defense", it made me think of pre-WW2 Nazi Germany. That article on The Onion, though some of you may require a sarcasm roadmap to figure out what it's saying, puts a little fear into me when combined with the above-mentioned "office of homeland defense".

I remember watching live when Ari Fleischer was asked to clarify his meaning behind his statements about Maher and how everybody should watch what they say and while he tried to tiptoe around the fact of what he was saying, ultimately he backed his statement, and this is a representative of the US government's highest office... that's the type of thing that sends a chill through your bones, when you realize you're watching a different kind of history - the kind that most folks will probably never be able/allowed to look back upon in the future.

I'm not gonna lie, I've been getting more and more nervous of speaking my mind over the phone or online in the past few weeks, it seems like between our (US) government's position on freedom of speech and a large portion of the public's reactions to anything that isn't straight down the party line being called "treasonous" and "anti-American", exercising my freedom of speech feels more like a giant target on my back now than ever before for me. It's really sad because I think of myself as patriotic to the country, but to even suggest that killing innocent people is wrong - no matter if they're Americans or Afghanis - can somehow turn folks whom I thought of friends and/or smart, reasonable folks, into calling others a traitor and even turning some folks into pariahs over that type of vocal opinion.

stillakid
10-15-2001, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by vulcantouch
check out the final sentence in this story (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/27/spin/index1.html) :(
vt
np: vt, "that lowlife tool ari fleischer can stick it where the moon don't shine" :mad:


As is normal government policy, the spin doctors caught that statement right away and worked quickly to express what he really meant to say. I don't believe that he intended to imply any type of Nazi-like censorship, rather his statement was more of a suggestion that emotional charged comments should be curtailed in a moment of turmoil.

As far as homeland defense, I'm all for it. Face it, unless we want to let criminals like this run rampant across the face of the Earth, we have to use every means necessary to track them.

For those that are afraid that their "personal liberties" will be curtailed, my only comment would be to ask whether they are behaving themselves in the first place. If you're not a bad guy, what's the big deal with having someone occassionally screen a phone call? What are you up to that is so secretive that you think the government will give a damn? If you're behaving yourself, then chances are, government agents will ignore you because they've got bigger problems to worry about than spying on you.

Despite recent comments, your freedom of speech won't be curtailed anytime soon. This is wartime footing, so some "misinformation" and propaganda will come from our own government, but it's all in the attempt to maintain our way of life. Many injustices across the world have been carried out in our name in an effort to "protect" our way of life. Now that the battle has been brought to our doorstep, some adjustments will have to be made for awhile here where we live to rid our land of the scourge.

The whole concept of racial profiling was an issue before all this started. The point of it, though, is that a few bad apples who have a specific "appearance" tend to cause more trouble than others that don't have that "look." In the case of these fundamentalists, they have a specific "look." It would stand to reason that some red-headed freckle face Irish woman named O'Malley would not be a prime Muslim suspect, however a middle-eastern-type male named Abdul would be looked at more closely. That is racial profiling, but who in their right mind at this time could argue that it's unjustified at this time in history? Yes, it's unfortunate. Innocent people always get caught up in the net when it happens, but the alternative is to let the bad guys run around and cause chaos whenever and wherever they wish.

Before you call the local ACLU on me, I'll just ask: do you want these fanatics stopped or not?

bigbarada
10-15-2001, 12:53 PM
Excellent points, stillakid. Or like Jonathan Alter said in his article, "Blame America at Your Peril," in the Oct 15th issue of Newsweek, "Critics of the war on terrorism don't seem to understand: someone is trying to kill them."

Some of our freedoms will inevitably be stifled at least in the short term, that's almost a given considering the circumstances. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure this doesn't go on longer than it needs to.

As for racial profiling, since when has that been a new concept in the US? I know the Border Patrol uses it as policy. Between Ft Bliss and my hometown there is a checkpoint and because I look vaguely Puerto Rican, I get stopped all the time to have my car searched. Even when I show them a military ID. My nationality is a combination of several European races, Jewish and Native American. Not a hint of Mexican or Puerto Rican in me. However, I've been calmly submitting to these checks for the last several years. So, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Maybe I'm just used to having abridged rights, having been in the Army for ten years.

I've also heard many people claiming how the US has lost it's innocence. The US? Innocent? Of what? If anything we've lost our naivete'. Many of us have known for years that the world is a dangerous place, full of countless injustices. For those of you just now joining the party, it's about time you got here. Sorry Sep 11th had to be your wake up call.

stillakid
10-15-2001, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by bigbarada
Excellent points, stillakid. Or like Jonathan Alter said in his article, "Blame America at Your Peril," in the Oct 15th issue of Newsweek, "Critics of the war on terrorism don't seem to understand: someone is trying to kill them."

Some of our freedoms will inevitably be stifled at least in the short term, that's almost a given considering the circumstances. However, we must remain vigilant to ensure this doesn't go on longer than it needs to.

As for racial profiling, since when has that been a new concept in the US? I know the Border Patrol uses it as policy. Between Ft Bliss and my hometown there is a checkpoint and because I look vaguely Puerto Rican, I get stopped all the time to have my car searched. Even when I show them a military ID. My nationality is a combination of several European races, Jewish and Native American. Not a hint of Mexican or Puerto Rican in me. However, I've been calmly submitting to these checks for the last several years. So, if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Maybe I'm just used to having abridged rights, having been in the Army for ten years.

I've also heard many people claiming how the US has lost it's innocence. The US? Innocent? Of what? If anything we've lost our naivete'. Many of us have known for years that the world is a dangerous place, full of countless injustices. For those of you just now joining the party, it's about time you got here. Sorry Sep 11th had to be your wake up call.



Very well said.

vulcantouch
10-15-2001, 03:10 PM
kiddo: "his statement was more of a suggestion that emotional charged comments should be curtailed in a moment of turmoil"
-you mean emotionally-charged comments like "terrorists are cowards", which fleischer And his boss have repeated ad nauseum? why should one disputable, emotionally-charged statement be permissable while another is not?
no spin was necessary; in that context, "watch what you say" spoke for itself :(

"If you're not a bad guy, what's the big deal?"
bb: "if you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal?"
-the "big deal" is that those who have waited for this chance to expand government aegis over private lives are imperfect, emotionally-charged beings who are sometimes gonna take it upon themselves to decide whether one's dissent means he's a "bad guy" who has "something to hide". it's naive to think their fear won't motivate them to use the opportunity to act as judge, jury And executioner.
i oughta know; i've meted out my own "autonomous justice" from time to time. the difference is, i've never done it out of fear. i also never presumed to claim my personal choices were made for the common good or a higher cause. these people will. such lies will be an additional victory for the enemy.

"what's worse? Living with the possibility of several more Sep. 11th's or losing all of our freedoms"
-i don't agree that the choice is necessarily between one or the other, cuz the former remains regardless; so i'd say it's more a choice between one or Both.

jt: "some of you may require a sarcasm roadmap to figure out what it's saying"
-exactly; as a rule, i find the onion too preachy to be funny. a happy exception was the issue that came out right after 9-11 (http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/index.html) -had me laughin out loud at times :D

"ultimately (fleischer) backed his statement. . . anything that isn't straight down the party line being called 'treasonous' and 'anti-American'"
-the key word being "party" :( u might dig this little cartoon (http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/10/15/tomo/print.html) :eek: did you hear what the driver of the pickup with five flags on it yelled at the driver of the pickup with only four flags? "go back to afghanistan!" :p
contrary to what america now feels a desperate, unrealistic need to believe, its leaders are the same opportunistic, self-serving boobs after 9-11 as before; no magical transformation has taken place among them. and while there is a certain logic to racial profiling, the fact of america resorting to it will still count as a Huge victory for the terrorists, both in the resultant degradation of america's professed ideals and in that the enemy can use the fact of it to fuel propoganda.
let's face facts: america can bomb deserts to kingdom come, but right now it's Still losin this war. america's still playin catch-up ball. this tactical reality results from one simple cause: arrogance. did america really imagine there wasn't eventually gonna be some kinda comeuppance from the world's have-nots? (i know i know, bin laden comes from a rich playboy background. but rich playboys don't pose this kinda threat unless they've got a significant base of grassroot (sandroot?) support to draw from.) was i the only one who could see that it was only a matter of time before our oblivious overpreoccupation with silly stuff in a world full of deprivation was gonna bite us where we live? i don't think so, cuz i know i wasn't the only one here who's been enjoyin his AZZZZ off. and one thing that really makes the good times roll is knowin deep down that they Can't last forever, and that their end is built right in.
bin laden's shrewd; he's picked his battles well. america hasn't. not before 9-11, or now-
vt
np: wings, "live & let die"

THE Slayer
10-15-2001, 03:11 PM
At first, when this thread got all closed and all the yelling started, I was sorry I even started it. I knew exactly what it was going to turn into when I started it, that's actually the reason I started it. To get open and insightful viewpoints from most of you fine people. So I'm glad it all worked out like I planned.

That kinda makes me sound devious doesn't it? :)

preacher
10-15-2001, 05:25 PM
Ari Fleischer is basically a nobody as far as legislation goes. His "official" duties are as press secretary. Meaning his job is to head off the barrage of media inquirey from various news networks and/or papers while the president attends to higher priorities. Personally, I'm in agreement with you guys that haven't really warmed up to him. I don't like him much myself. But to say that Fleischer has any input into the legislative process, and that his opinion is indicative of where our freedoms are headed is rediculous. Fleischer's point, and it is the same one that I've made previously, is that its disappointing and outrageous for there to be anti-american statements being made that are hurtful toward the moral of the military and the psyche of the american people - especially just days after the WTCs destruction.

Even if Ari did have clout, I'm not worried in the least that any of my opinions about Ari Fleischer, Bill Maher, or some of the faults I've seen in Bush's handling of things (seize not freeze al queda assets) will be seen by some government agent. Even if the FBI or CIA does look into my e-mail, they would find upon reviewing my background that I'm an upstanding American citizen that has never gone to jail, pays my taxes, works in a company that requires government clearance, have been allowed to work in Intel (if you think that easy you are dreaming...place is secured like fort knox, airlines could learn a thing or two by following Intel's example), has a becon score of over 730, and earned a BS in Electrical Engineering.

You guys that are that worried about exercising your freedoms should probably stop using cell-phones too. The government has had the means for awhile now to pick up all traffic on the microwave band and listens for key words. If you mentioned the presidency, pentagon, ICBMs, anthrax, or a countless host of other key words since 9-11 chances are you have been heard by an agent at least once since 9-11.

You may rethink walking in malls too because you're every action is being recording by a camera and is archived permanently by a time lapse recorder. If you urinated on the side of JC Penny you're evil deed is captured.

I've expressed in the past my concerns of how we are migrating to a fascist governing style myself. But to be fearful of the government on the basis of Ari Fleischer's comments is silly. There are other more substantial pieces of evidence that show that the walls are closing on us, but I'm going to exercise all my freedoms. I have more immediate things that I'm reading about such as... oh, I don't know....the Anthrax outbreaks in FL, NV, and NY; suicide attacks upon India. One thing this whole mess has shown me, and that I believe now more than ever...sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.