Bigmouth

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

The rise of the internet as a media tool contributes largely to less free thought. Initially it might have helped to foster more independent thinkers as it provided us with a fresh new source of media which was free of the bias of television news, talk radio and print media.
Somewhere along the way the internet became corrupted in this regard. And like its media counterparts it soon became a vehicle for people to push their ideology and agendas.

Yes, internet is a new medium and is more popular that any other. Thats because you can interact with it, you can answer back. TV or Radio are one way communication, you can only see and hear and keep your opinion to yourself.

Its freedom of speech in the internet. Nobody is going to show you red eyes or shut you up. People, insignificant nobodies, non-celebrities can make a stand here, get their voices heard, faces seen, opinions read. Of course its the best thing that has happened in a century.

I think that there is enough free thought, independant opinions, original ideas spread all over the internet. You just have to pick them up from the infinite clutter. Thats because all of the participants of the internet are not bright enough.

Do you think anybody can make his way on a TV show or radio talk? No. But in the internet you can. It goes without saying that TV and Radio are biased. Do you consider everything you see and hear in those media as original and unedited chunks of Truth, do you? The internet is a far more verifiable source of valid information. You have encyclopediae, databases, official websites at your fingertips. Its the most powerful Library of info in the world.

[Ogryn1313]

And yet, such an unprecedented amount of unimpaired freedom is being abused. Freedom of speech requires responsibility. And many idiots abuse this right. Take the Falwell example. He had a right to say those things he did. And so too did his haters have a right to say what they do about him. And then, before his body is laid to rest all over the internet ignorant and hateful so called intellectuals are celebrating his death and saying vile things. Yeah, we are free speak like this.

But should we? Is it responsible and ethical to say things, especially when his family is in mourning? Was it right for Churchill to condemn the victims of 9/11?

I'm all for free speech. And one can be controversial. But we should all be moral and ethical. And responsible. See, we no longer have civility in debates and discussions. This kind of thing fosters hate speech and intolerance, dillutes intelligent conversation and increases ignorance I think. I don't blame this on the net itself but rather the way people abuse it. It's the people's fault.

Freedom of speech no longer means what it says either. Ever notice a lot of minorities use groups like the ACLU to interfere with the rights of the groups they oppose for example?

So if the internet as media outlet continues to contribute to the decline of intelligent and responsible free speech, then, in my opinion completely worthless and has no redeeming value.

[Bionca]

Ogryn, it's interestng that you use these two examples. Jerry Falwell and Ward Churchill with 9/11 as a connection.

You know that days after the attack Mr Falwell, on the 700 Club (Right Wing Religious program for those who don't know) blamed gays, feminists, and non-christians for the attack. Stating that the US is losing it's divine protections because of liberal morality (paraphraising on my part, but the direct quote is easy to find) and the mentioned groups are the prime examples.

So, yes Mr. Churchill and his "Little Eichman" comment was horrific. The media roasting he got was earned. Mr Falwell didn't wait a week before putting out some blame that included a good number of people who died on that day. Where was HIS respect for the families who were in mourning? Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

And yet, such an unprecedented amount of unimpaired freedom is being abused. Freedom of speech requires responsibility. And many idiots abuse this right. Take the Falwell example. He had a right to say those things he did. And so too did his haters have a right to say what they do about him. And then, before his body is laid to rest all over the internet ignorant and hateful so called intellectuals are celebrating his death and saying vile things. Yeah, we are free speak like this.

But should we? Is it responsible and ethical to say things, especially when his family is in mourning? Was it right for Churchill to condemn the victims of 9/11?

I'm all for free speech. And one can be controversial. But we should all be moral and ethical. And responsible. See, we no longer have civility in debates and discussions. This kind of thing fosters hate speech and intolerance, dillutes intelligent conversation and increases ignorance I think. I don't blame this on the net itself but rather the way people abuse it. It's the people's fault.

Freedom of speech no longer means what it says either. Ever notice a lot of minorities use groups like the ACLU to interfere with the rights of the groups they oppose for example?

So if the internet as media outlet continues to contribute to the decline of intelligent and responsible free speech, then, in my opinion completely worthless and has no redeeming value.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by GRH

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.

GRH,

It would appear to apply to bi-sexuals as well, practicing or not, no?

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by GRH

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.

As for you....I'll say what I wish to say. Free speech. I don't believe I have quoted anyone. Furthermore, name calling is just pathetic. Tranny lovers? Fags? Are you somehow trying to somehow suggest my opinion, or anyone else's on these issues are invalid because we are what we are?

I'll have you know I don't consider myself gay. Yes, I like "trannies." But I'm not a fag. If I were a fag I'd only be interested in men. Not women or tgirls. And to me they are both women.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by ogryn

I'll have you know I don't consider myself gay. Yes, I like "trannies." But I'm not a fag. If I were a fag I'd only be interested in men. Not women or tgirls. And to me they are both women.

I agree at least on this point with Ogryn. I too dont like to be labeled as a Fag or a Homo, just because I like transwomen( besides women), actually I am seeking femininity in a Tranny, not another man.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

People like Palin don't care how you like to be labelled, if your not fucking a girl with a pussy, then your a homo as far as they are concerned. They aren't going to go, oh that person with a y chromosomes and penis you are fucking is really a woman?, oh well that's ok then, go right ahead, no religious objections here.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Ogryn, it's interestng that you use these two examples. Jerry Falwell and Ward Churchill with 9/11 as a connection.

You know that days after the attack Mr Falwell, on the 700 Club (Right Wing Religious program for those who don't know) blamed gays, feminists, and non-christians for the attack. Stating that the US is losing it's divine protections because of liberal morality (paraphraising on my part, but the direct quote is easy to find) and the mentioned groups are the prime examples.

So, yes Mr. Churchill and his "Little Eichman" comment was horrific. The media roasting he got was earned. Mr Falwell didn't wait a week before putting out some blame that included a good number of people who died on that day. Where was HIS respect for the families who were in mourning? Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

Bionca, I feel the point I was trying to make might not have been adequately articulated on my part and thus you misunderstood me. In your reply there you seem to be drawing a moral equivalency between the two men. I'm not interested in which one is the worst person. That's a whole other issue.

The point of my post was to illustrate how people are abusing freedom of speech and being irresponsible in their application of it. I only cited those two as examples. In this case the hate thrown at Falwell after his death as an example of the hatred and irresponsible free speech of one group of people. In the case of Churchill the nature of one man using free speech for promoting himself at the expense of the victims.

The thrust of my point, which I failed to convey, is that free speech is being used as a blanket to condone irresponsibility and hate speech. I never defended Falwell nor attacked Churchill. I am simply trying to show that freedom of speech is a precious gift we shouldn't abuse and use to spout hate speech.

And part of my point is an attempt to show the nature of some liberals and most of the far left are being hypocrites. These are the main bunch who champion free speech and yet look how many (mostly in the left not the libs) use it for hate speech. I know the right does it too. But the right doesn't present itself to Americans as the intellectual elite who wish to save the nation. The far right, in general, shows an ugly face to Americans.

I'm sorry I couldn't articulate this better. And I've probably not done any better this time. But to try to make comparisons on who is the worst (Falwell or Chruchill) is getting off course and away from what I intended to point out.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

Bionca, I feel the point I was trying to make might not have been adequately articulated on my part and thus you misunderstood me. In your reply there you seem to be drawing a moral equivalency between the two men. I'm not interested in which one is the worst person. That's a whole other issue.

The point of my post was to illustrate how people are abusing freedom of speech and being irresponsible in their application of it. I only cited those two as examples. In this case the hate thrown at Falwell after his death as an example of the hatred and irresponsible free speech of one group of people. In the case of Churchill the nature of one man using free speech for promoting himself at the expense of the victims.

The thrust of my point, which I failed to convey, is that free speech is being used as a blanket to condone irresponsibility and hate speech. I never defended Falwell nor attacked Churchill. I am simply trying to show that freedom of speech is a precious gift we shouldn't abuse and use to spout hate speech.

And part of my point is an attempt to show the nature of some liberals and most of the far left are being hypocrites. These are the main bunch who champion free speech and yet look how many (mostly in the left not the libs) use it for hate speech. I know the right does it too. But the right doesn't present itself to Americans as the intellectual elite who wish to save the nation. The far right, in general, shows an ugly face to Americans.

I'm sorry I couldn't articulate this better. And I've probably not done any better this time. But to try to make comparisons on who is the worst (Falwell or Chruchill) is getting off course and away from what I intended to point out.

I understand what you were trying to do. I also missed my point I think, by taking your example and running too far with it. The issue of Free Speech is accountability - say something messed up = getting called out. Because of the Internet it is harder to say something and then take it back later. Falwell say some shitty things about innocent people and he got called out for it. Falwell had a history of saying shitty things about dead people, his politicization of religious issues made LIVING difficult for lots of people, so he got some back when he died. Accountability.

Ward Churchill said insesnitive, incorrect, hurtful, probably ant-semetic crap. He got called out, discredited, and ultimately ignored. Any potential insight that he may have contributed to discussing international terrorism (if any) was negated. Accountability.

Hipocracy thrives every place. The "pro family" Congress man who visits a brothel, the "progressive" blogger who thinks it's great fun to mock Ann Coulter by pointing out she has some physical features that could belong to a trans*woman. Political involvement is more than supporting a party or an ideology, it is supporting a philosophy and holding your side to higer standards. The people who parrot the party talking points are just shills.

I'm a Liberal, always have been (socially more than fiscally). I'm way way harsher with my fellow Lefties than I am with any Conservative.

[Tread]

Want to show you a rating about free spech and freedom of press, especially to the US-americans of you. Notice that the United States and Israel are rated two times.
Watch the ranking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporte..._Index_Ranking

Don't belief everything that you hear in your country and tell it as facts.

[jimnaseum]

God, guts, and Guns...
Election time in the US is better than the Olympics, Football, or anything BECAUSE the truth means nothing, which raises it to an even higher truth. Selling a politician is like selling a breakfast cereal or candy bar, it's about human psychological weakness and opportunities. POWER. You can find the truth two aisles down from reality at the library. We're talkin the WORD of GOD here, and Ann Colter and Karl Rove and Jimmy Carter and Barack O'bama.....aw, forget it.

[Ogryn1313]

Originally Posted by Bionca

I understand what you were trying to do. I also missed my point I think, by taking your example and running too far with it. The issue of Free Speech is accountability - say something messed up = getting called out. Because of the Internet it is harder to say something and then take it back later. Falwell say some shitty things about innocent people and he got called out for it. Falwell had a history of saying shitty things about dead people, his politicization of religious issues made LIVING difficult for lots of people, so he got some back when he died. Accountability.

Ward Churchill said insesnitive, incorrect, hurtful, probably ant-semetic crap. He got called out, discredited, and ultimately ignored. Any potential insight that he may have contributed to discussing international terrorism (if any) was negated. Accountability.

Hipocracy thrives every place. The "pro family" Congress man who visits a brothel, the "progressive" blogger who thinks it's great fun to mock Ann Coulter by pointing out she has some physical features that could belong to a trans*woman. Political involvement is more than supporting a party or an ideology, it is supporting a philosophy and holding your side to higer standards. The people who parrot the party talking points are just shills.

I'm a Liberal, always have been (socially more than fiscally). I'm way way harsher with my fellow Lefties than I am with any Conservative.

Very well said. I'm glad you could see where I was going with my posts. It seems I lack the ability to articulate things well.

Accountability. Right to the point. That's what matters. But online I don't see any accountability or means to effect accountability.

You're the right kind of liberal. Seems you measure the passion of the liberal with respect and civility, something the left often lacks. But I don't consider a liberal left. I think lefties are an extreme fringe of the liberals.

Originally Posted by sesame

Its freedom of speech in the internet. Nobody is going to show you red eyes or shut you up.

Sure...not until any of these moronic factions decide to pressure ISPs into applying hefty fees to the submission of so much as a YouTube comment, so only the ultrawealthy, be they left- or right-wing, can afford to put their opinions online for everyone else to see (and grumble at their helplessness to offer any response). Sometime after that, the right-wingers (who've actually put in the time and money to execute their master plan[s]) will take over the last bastion of free, unbiased information by force.