Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Storm Rider

We Pick Our Sacred Cows

Recommended Posts

Recently the media and organizations have taken great offense at an NBA owner that made racist comments in a private phone conversation to another individual.  The NBA is attempting to punish Sterling by forcing him to sell his team, the Clippers, because of these racist comments and they have fined him $2.5 MILLION for making such comments in a private conversation.  

 

A CEO and co-founder of Mozilla Corporation is forced to resign because several years ago he contributed to Prop 8.  The fact that this man has the unmitigated gall to support marriage between a man and a woman and made a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 - SIX YEARS AGO.  

 

One of the rights offered US citizens for the First Amendment is the right of free speech.  One's thoughts and one's right to speak those thoughts have often been respected and valued in US society.

 

Then we have the case of Ray Rice.  An NFL football player who knocks his girl friend out, is filmed while removing her limp body from the elevator....and nothing.  Doesn't lose his job; isn't fined; in fact, the media just ignores it for the most part.  

 

The lesson seems to be that the great sacred cows of our present society is you can beat your girlfriend unconscious, but if you dare to express yourself in a racist manner or dare to go against the gay lobby then you lose your company, your job, and are fined exorbitant sums of money for doing nothing more than claiming your First Amendment rights.  

 

Granted I have dared to express some sarcasm in this thread, but the actual point is how our society prioritizes what it sees as poor behavior.  What does it say about our society when thoughts and words become viewed as so much more damaging than actual criminal acts?  What does it say about marketing of political ideas?  Who sets the agenda of when we should be offended and why?  

 

I am relatively stunned that Rice was able to physically abuse a woman and I never heard anything about it until today.  On the other hand, a private conversation costs an individual $2.5 Million!?!  

 

I really want to know the group that manipulates the American people like marionettes and gets them to bark, sit pretty, and make ugly faces at will.  That is a group that can get things done.

Share this post


Link to post

The group is called Babylon. They are very good at what they do... And their agents have thousands of years of experience... If you want more info on them Nephi, Moroni and John the revelator has some great info on them.

Welcome to the last days...

Share this post


Link to post

I actually read a really great article on this issue the other day-I wish I remembered where I read it.

It basically said that we were entering a new phase in our culture where policing peoples thoughts and private beliefs, and punishing them for them, is becoming the acceptable thing to do.

We no longer support the notion in this country of "I may not agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The article's author suggested that this change began to take place with the invention of hate crimes and laws which teach that it is bad to hit in general, but evil to hit someone from a designated group of people.

It was a very interesting look at our developing inability to deal with beliefs we don't agree with. It was a little scary actually.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually read a really great article on this issue the other day-I wish I remembered where I read it.

It basically said that we were entering a new phase in our culture where policing peoples thoughts and private beliefs, and punishing them for them, is becoming the acceptable thing to do.

We no longer support the notion in this country of "I may not agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The article's author suggested that this change began to take place with the invention of hate crimes and laws which teach that it is bad to hit in general, but evil to hit someone from a designated group of people.

It was a very interesting look at our developing inability to deal with beliefs we don't agree with. It was a little scary actually.

Its a play right out of Rules for Radicals. Did I mention that the forward of the book is dedicated to Lucifer. Its a progressives best friend.

 

On another note.

The idea of  hate crimes is a total joke.

Share this post


Link to post

" Here am I.  Send me that not one soul shall be lost"

Share this post


Link to post

Found it-

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/26/is-america-starting-to-target-thought-crime/

 

It's a really interesting article, and based mostly on a separate article written for the Washington Times which focuses largely on Michelle Obama's recent request as a commencement speaker that students police their relatives and friends for racist and other inappropriate remarks or feelings.

Share this post


Link to post

Recently the media and organizations have taken great offense at an NBA owner that made racist comments in a private phone conversation to another individual.  The NBA is attempting to punish Sterling by forcing him to sell his team, the Clippers, because of these racist comments and they have fined him $2.5 MILLION for making such comments in a private conversation.  

 

A CEO and co-founder of Mozilla Corporation is forced to resign because several years ago he contributed to Prop 8.  The fact that this man has the unmitigated gall to support marriage between a man and a woman and made a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 - SIX YEARS AGO.  

 

One of the rights offered US citizens for the First Amendment is the right of free speech.  One's thoughts and one's right to speak those thoughts have often been respected and valued in US society.

 

Then we have the case of Ray Rice.  An NFL football player who knocks his girl friend out, is filmed while removing her limp body from the elevator....and nothing.  Doesn't lose his job; isn't fined; in fact, the media just ignores it for the most part.  

 

The lesson seems to be that the great sacred cows of our present society is you can beat your girlfriend unconscious, but if you dare to express yourself in a racist manner or dare to go against the gay lobby then you lose your company, your job, and are fined exorbitant sums of money for doing nothing more than claiming your First Amendment rights.  

 

Granted I have dared to express some sarcasm in this thread, but the actual point is how our society prioritizes what it sees as poor behavior.  What does it say about our society when thoughts and words become viewed as so much more damaging than actual criminal acts?  What does it say about marketing of political ideas?  Who sets the agenda of when we should be offended and why?  

 

I am relatively stunned that Rice was able to physically abuse a woman and I never heard anything about it until today.  On the other hand, a private conversation costs an individual $2.5 Million!?!  

 

I really want to know the group that manipulates the American people like marionettes and gets them to bark, sit pretty, and make ugly faces at will.  That is a group that can get things done.

Also, smacked around girlfriends don't have lawyers and organized political action committees.  Plus, what would the Ravens do at running back if Rice was suspended?

Share this post


Link to post

Time to break out my handy dandy free speech comic:

 

free_speech.png

 

Bringing up free speech as a defense for yourself or anyone else should only be done if the government is persecuting you for what you say. If other organizations or people are punishing you then it is not a free speech issue. It's a social issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Nehor, the my intention of bringing up the First Amendment is because our US nation has traditionally valued the right of people to share their thoughts or express their ideas.  The fact that now thoughts, even more than criminal acts, are so disrespected and worthy of total destruction is interesting.  

 

Your cartoon is really cute and I am glad you shared it here where we don't use profanity (you really pulled the wool over our board rules), but it does not directly apply to my position.  I was trying to address concepts - who picks the sacred cows for society and what ideas become pariahs while actual criminal acts become insignificant actions?   

Share this post


Link to post
I am relatively stunned that Rice was able to physically abuse a woman and I never heard anything about it until today.  On the other hand, a private conversation costs an individual $2.5 Million!?!

 

I think many of those on the anti-Sterling bandwagon are themselves just as guilty of racism as they claim he is.  Since we're in the sports world, it seems to me that Stephen A Smith has a far more grounded perspective:

 

‘I Don’t Give a Damn’: ESPN Host Goes on EPIC Rant About Mark Cuban and Race After Being Labeled an ‘Uncle Tom’

 

If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't necessarily being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an ******* and they're showing you the door.

 

 

FIFY

 

It could also mean you're taking flak because you're over the target and the guilty have taken the truth to be hard:

 

And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. 1Nephi 16:2

Share this post


Link to post

Time to break out my handy dandy free speech comic:

 

free_speech.png

 

Bringing up free speech as a defense for yourself or anyone else should only be done if the government is persecuting you for what you say. If other organizations or people are punishing you then it is not a free speech issue. It's a social issue.

 

You are right, this isn't really a free speech issue.

 

However, the cartoon is a perfect example of the state of our country when it comes to 'thought' or 'belief' crimes.  Not only are we, as a culture, very comfortable calling someone names because we disagree with them, we feel morally superior when we do so.

 

We have reach a point in our culture where the majority of us can't stand being disagreed with.  We can't deal with it.  The second anyone does anything that irks us or makes us angry, we launch our public 'attack' of their position.  No one is safe.  

 

I just read a blog written by a mother who was calling out another mother who, instead of commiserating with her about a bad day, had the nerve to instead ask 'what can i do to help'.  The blog's author went on and on about how such a reply was not sincere, and just made her feel like a bad mom, and wasn't appreciated.  The other mother's 'crime' was that she reacted to a situation in a way that the blogger would not have reacted, and that was all that was necessary to denigrate her and warn others to tread more carefully.  

 

In the past i think that most of us, including the blogger, would have realized that such a reaction to that kind of situation is a sign of some emotional issues and problems of the blogger.  Today though, the blogger's reaction is to believe that her unease was caused by the morally inferior position of the other mother.  And of course this example is the most benign of many (of all different levels of seriousness) that illustrate the point.

 

As the cartoon shows, not only do we have little ability to deal with those we disagree with, many of us now believe that we should punish such people, and do whatever we can to force them into adopting our view.  We must 'show them the door' if they say or believe something we don't, because obviously, that one crime alone proves they deserve to be marginalized.

Share this post


Link to post

If the mods delete your post and suspend you for a few days for breaking the board rules and posting profanity, are your free speech rights being violated? Hmmmmm...

Share this post


Link to post

It works both ways...

 

One Million Moms has called for a boycott of Honey Maid for showing gay couples with families in their TV ad.  They also tried to get JC Penny to fire Ellen Degeneres because of her support for marriage equality.

 

In 2008 a group of California citizens working together with religious organizations voted to end recognition of the marriages of thousands of gay couples.

 

We probably all need to work harder at getting along.

Share this post


Link to post

It works both ways...

 

One Million Moms has called for a boycott of Honey Maid for showing gay couples with families in their TV ad.  They also tried to get JC Penny to fire Ellen Degeneres because of her support for marriage equality.

 

In 2008 a group of California citizens working together with religious organizations voted to end recognition of the marriages of thousands of gay couples.

 

We probably all need to work harder at getting along.

 

It definitely works both ways.

 

Since the majority views have all the power though, it could be argued that their (whoever that might be) inability to handle disagreement is the most dangerous to the freedom of thought and belief of any country.

Share this post


Link to post

It definitely works both ways.

 

Since the majority views have all the power though, it could be argued that their (whoever that might be) inability to handle disagreement is the most dangerous to the freedom of thought and belief of any country.

 

I agree.  But of the examples noted on this thread, I  only see one where freedom of thought/belief/speech has been violated:  Sterling & his Clippers.  And even that one is questionable since it appears to be within the NBA's rights to exercise certain controls over their organization.  I'm not very versed on it though.

Share this post


Link to post

Recently the media and organizations have taken great offense at an NBA owner that made racist comments in a private phone conversation to another individual.  The NBA is attempting to punish Sterling by forcing him to sell his team, the Clippers, because of these racist comments and they have fined him $2.5 MILLION for making such comments in a private conversation.  

 

A CEO and co-founder of Mozilla Corporation is forced to resign because several years ago he contributed to Prop 8.  The fact that this man has the unmitigated gall to support marriage between a man and a woman and made a $1,000 donation he made in 2008 - SIX YEARS AGO.  

 

One of the rights offered US citizens for the First Amendment is the right of free speech.  One's thoughts and one's right to speak those thoughts have often been respected and valued in US society.

 

Then we have the case of Ray Rice.  An NFL football player who knocks his girl friend out, is filmed while removing her limp body from the elevator....and nothing.  Doesn't lose his job; isn't fined; in fact, the media just ignores it for the most part.  

 

The lesson seems to be that the great sacred cows of our present society is you can beat your girlfriend unconscious, but if you dare to express yourself in a racist manner or dare to go against the gay lobby then you lose your company, your job, and are fined exorbitant sums of money for doing nothing more than claiming your First Amendment rights.  

 

Granted I have dared to express some sarcasm in this thread, but the actual point is how our society prioritizes what it sees as poor behavior.  What does it say about our society when thoughts and words become viewed as so much more damaging than actual criminal acts?  What does it say about marketing of political ideas?  Who sets the agenda of when we should be offended and why?  

 

I am relatively stunned that Rice was able to physically abuse a woman and I never heard anything about it until today.  On the other hand, a private conversation costs an individual $2.5 Million!?!  

 

I really want to know the group that manipulates the American people like marionettes and gets them to bark, sit pretty, and make ugly faces at will.  That is a group that can get things done.

 

1. The US Constitution guarantees you the absolute right to be an idiot. It doesn't require it.

2. The US Constitution guarantees you the right to say almost anything you want without government restraint or penalty. The NBA owners association is not nor has it ever been a governmental body.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree.  But of the examples noted on this thread, I  only see one where freedom of thought/belief/speech has been violated:  Sterling & his Clippers.  And even that one is questionable since it appears to be within the NBA's rights to exercise certain controls over their organization.  I'm not very versed on it though.

 

I'm not talking about freedom of thought or belief as something that is guaranteed by the constitution.  I don't mean it's violated because some law has been broken.  

 

I believe that it's violated whenever someone attempts to stifle it or to bully another into changing it.

 

Because if we have to first make sure our ideas and beliefs 'tow the company line' before we are safe to have and express them, then freedom of thought and belief doesn't actual exist.  And if it no longer exists, then by definition it's been violated.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not talking about freedom of thought or belief as something that is guaranteed by the constitution.  I don't mean it's violated because some law has been broken.  

 

I believe that it's violated whenever someone attempts to stifle it or to bully another into changing it.

 

Because if we have to first make sure our ideas and beliefs 'tow the company line' before we are safe to have and express them, then freedom of thought and belief doesn't actual exist.  And if it no longer exists, then by definition it's been violated.

 

So in your opinion, Mozilla employees & clients stifled and bullied the CEO?  And the NBA stifled and bullied Sterling?

Share this post


Link to post

So in your opinion, Mozilla employees & clients stifled and bullied the CEO?  And the NBA stifled and bullied Sterling?

 

Were those people allowed to have whatever thoughts or beliefs they wanted to without risk of punishment or demand for change?

 

The definition of stifle is to try to stop someone or something, and the definition of bully is to use superior strength or influence to intimidate someone and to try to force them to do what you want them to do using threat of or actual pain (emotional, mental, physical, financial).

 

Does what happened to those people fit the definitions?

 

In my opinion, the answers to those two questions are no and yes.  If you disagree then i welcome your thoughts on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Were those people allowed to have whatever thoughts or beliefs they wanted to without risk of punishment or demand for change?

 

The definition of stifle is to try to stop someone or something, and the definition of bully is to use superior strength or influence to intimidate someone and to try to force them to do what you want them to do using threat of or actual pain (emotional, mental, physical, financial).

 

Does what happened to those people fit the definitions?

 

In my opinion, the answers to those two questions are no and yes.  If you disagree then i welcome your thoughts on it.

 

I agree with the basic principle you are suggesting but neither was stifled or bullied for their thoughts or beliefs but for how they chose to express those thoughts/beliefs.  I don't think that changes your point much but I do think it is important 

 

So are you willing to look at it from the other point of view?  Did the Mozilla CEO seek to stifle or bully gay and lesbian couples in California?  He used his strength (financial) and influence (vote) to end the legal recognition of their marriages.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the basic principle you are suggesting but neither was stifled or bullied for their thoughts or beliefs but for how they chose to express those thoughts/beliefs. I don't think that changes your point much but I do think it is important

How do you believe Sterling could have expressed his beliefs that would have produced a different outcome?

So are you willing to look at it from the other point of view? Did the Mozilla CEO seek to stifle or bully gay and lesbian couples in California? He used his strength (financial) and influence (vote) to end the legal recognition of their marriages.

I think it's important to remember there is a distinction between trying to change someone's beliefs or thoughts and trying to change their actions.

Freedom of action, unlike freedom of belief, has never been championed in this country, and hopefully it never will be. That would be anarchy. Thought police and regular police are a horse of a different color.

The CEO was not trying to police anyone's thoughts or beliefs. He was not trying to bully or stifle anyone's thoughts or beliefs about SSM.

He WAS trying to regulate peoples actions, as we all do whenever we get involved in government.

Share this post


Link to post

How do you believe Sterling could have expressed his beliefs that would have produced a different outcome?

I think it's important to remember there is a distinction between trying to change someone's beliefs or thoughts and trying to change their actions.

Freedom of action, unlike freedom of belief, has never been championed in this country, and hopefully it never will be. That would be anarchy. Thought police and regular police are a horse of a different color.

The CEO was not trying to police anyone's thoughts or beliefs. He was not trying to bully or stifle anyone's thoughts or beliefs about SSM.

He WAS trying to regulate peoples actions, as we all do whenever we get involved in government.

 

I have no idea how Sterling could have expressed his beliefs differently since I don't really know what beliefs or thoughts prompted him to make those statements.

 

As far as I can tell, the Mozilla CEO was trying to end gay couples' marriage because he believed that they were wrong.  He was trying to regulate people's actions according to his own beliefs.  He was using his majority position to bully gay couples into losing their legal marital status.

 

I think that what the employees/clients of Mozilla did (that apparently pushed the CEO to resign) was morally wrong.  I also think that what the Mozilla CEO did to end gay marriage was also morally wrong.

 

So yes, everyone picks their sacred cows.  And all too frequently we seem blind to what is sacred to others.

Share this post


Link to post

The group is called Babylon. They are very good at what they do... And their agents have thousands of years of experience... If you want more info on them Nephi, Moroni and John the revelator has some great info on them.

Welcome to the last days...

 

Oh please, it is nothing as nefarious as the "last days," and no, the devil is not involved.

 

The group that the OP refers to when stating "I really want to know the group that manipulates the American people like marionettes and gets them to bark, sit pretty, and make ugly faces at will.  That is a group that can get things done,".....easy, that group is the media.

 

The media controls what it is that we discuss amongst our friends, co-workers, family members, etc. They bury the story about Sterling, then no national debate about his racism. They bury the story about the ex-CEO of Mozilla, no national debate about backlash against Prop. 8 supporters.

 

The media controls America's thinking. Of course, there are exceptions for every rule, but the truth is that the media not only frames or reflects the national conversation, it drives the national conversation.

 

Media is the most powerful influence on American society.

 

Their motivation is dollars:  more controversy = more viewers/readers = more dollars.

 

The simple truth is the Ray Rice incident referenced by the OP is just not controversial enough to elicit public interest....just another spoiled athlete doing something stupid, for which we all know by experience will go unpunished due to our judicial system's love affair with famous people.

 

But the Sterling incident, now there's a story that involves issues that touch on everything from free-speech, to our own country's history of racism, to legal rights regarding secret recordings, to the salacious details of illicit affairs, and all of it wrapped around the always fascinating tale of the fall of a really rich person who had the whole world in his hands, only to see it slip away (American's love it when they get to witness the fall of a "1 percenter" in real time).

 

The Sterling case provides a talking point for just about everyone, whether you are arguing the merits or pitfalls of race relations in America, libertarianism, free-speech, marriage vows, the 1% versus the 99%, media roles, corporate rights, property rights, etc. Meanwhile, the Ray Rice case is boring in comparison, as it doesn't elicit enough controversy.

 

Sad but true, and without the need to conjure up "last days" talk or the role of the devil in driving these issues/topics.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no idea how Sterling could have expressed his beliefs differently since I don't really know what beliefs or thoughts prompted him to make those statements.

As far as I can tell, the Mozilla CEO was trying to end gay couples' marriage because he believed that they were wrong. He was trying to regulate people's actions according to his own beliefs. He was using his majority position to bully gay couples into losing their legal marital status.

I think that what the employees/clients of Mozilla did (that apparently pushed the CEO to resign) was morally wrong. I also think that what the Mozilla CEO did to end gay marriage was also morally wrong.

So yes, everyone picks their sacred cows. And all too frequently we seem blind to what is sacred to others.

Do you see no difference between regulating thought and belief, and regulating actions?

Share this post


Link to post

Do you see no difference between regulating thought and belief, and regulating actions?

Yes. But in all three of these examples we're talking about actions: the Mozilla CEO can think and believe whatever he wants about marriage, Mozilla employees can think and believe whatever they choose with respect to their CEO, and Sterling can think and believe whatever he wants about race. In all three cases, it is their actions that are being regulated, as you put it.

We aren't talking about thought and belief. We're talking about those thoughts and beliefs being expressed in various ways. And the consequences of those expressions.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...