Posted on 05/17/2002 6:02:46 AM PDT by Richard Poe
Thanks for the post.
Mr. Rae could have gone much further, especially if he had managed to reach his wife in the midst of the attack. Of course, it appears Mr. Rae would have then been charged with murder as a "hate crime." Idaho is not a very attractive place at this point. Must have been invaded by Calif. liberal types, much like Arizona.
Can you believe that our society has degenerated to the point that educated people cannot use descriptive words without being attacked by the brainwashed PC (Newspeak) police? I guess "1984" is a reality in 2002.
It is the media that has inflicted this PC garbage upon us and we've allowed ourselves to be intimidated by them. For gosh sakes, a word is a word is a word.
I concur.
Well, I don't know about you, but this reference offends me.
Snow is white. Flour is white. Titanium Oxide is white. I am Caucasian, a decendent of indo-european language speakers inhabiting western europe. We are actually tan, or tawny; I'd like it better if they called us that: "Yo tawny..."
For what it's worth: I also happen to like vanilla ice-cream. I think vanilla improves anything it's introduced to. Consider: add vanilla and milk to chocolate and you have- Milk Chocolate. Throw in some nuts and you have something far greater than the mere sum of its parts, and you have a digression.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know.
That's a crock.
I've got a major problem with using it, and I've got a major problem with hearing others use it as well. I would say that most black folks have a problem with anyone using the word.
ROFLMAO
People choose to be offended by a lot of things, but it violates freedom of speech to establish use of the n-word as evidence of a "hate" crime.
I got no arguement with that - the notion of a "hate crime" is so arbitrary to begin with, that I would rather not see that as a crime at all. In addition, I certainly would not like to see any limitations on speech. As a writer, I certainly have had occasion to use words that would be considered to be mean, evil or offensive. I would not like to see anyone try to limit my expression though.
That's one of the problems that is obvious with the UN's Court - anything said that offends another person could be construed as "hate speech," and would be actionable.
The charges against Rae stem less from PC gone mad and more from the contempt for poorer white people which became so obvious during the Clinton years (eg , Carville's suggestion that all women living in trailer parks are whores who'll do anything for $100).
Can't have "trailer trash" thinking they're human, right? This'll teach 'em that some folks , especially "protected minorities", have the right to do whatever they want to 'em, and their only role is to shut up and take it. Next time somebody like the (misleadingly named) Manley takes a notion to attack Mrs Rae, she'll understand that she's supposed to just lie back and let him do whatever he wants to her.
What happened to Lonny Rae is a part of the ongoing effort by wealthy white liberals to force poorer whites to be their human shields. Poorer whites are to be rendered absolutely defenseless so they'll be more attractive "targets of opportunity" to the thugs and bullies of society, thereby making the gated community set that much safer . That's why gun control is so trendy a cause among the upper class. Manley was not charged with assault against his much smaller adversaries, and his "adversaries" are charged with hurting Manley's feelings, making it plain how very little the rights and even physical safety of poorer whites counts for today.
I've said before that the state overreacted, especially considering that there were no charges against Manley, who, though he had every right to tell Mrs. Rae to get out of his face, still had no business putting his hands on her unless she touched him first.
I wouldn't be comfortable with that either - mind you, anyone who sees me in person would be very unlikely to do that.
Good point. The constitutional right of Americans to rreedom of speech should not be abridged by any law, domestic or international. People have a right to choose to be offended, but they don't have the right to suppress the speech that offends them.
Despite how I view many of Chris Rock's beliefes, he's got a point there. :)
That's one of the problems that is obvious with the UN's Court - anything said that offends another person could be construed as "hate speech," and would be actionable.
Good point. The constitutional right of Americans to freedom of speech should not be abridged by any law, domestic or international. People have a right to choose to be offended, but they don't have the right to suppress the speech that offends them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.