Limiting speech that can be offensive to minorities

Post Reply New Topic

Given that he is said to have targeted Planned parenthood in the past and even indicated his political beliefs were his reason for the attack, seems pretty obvious it was domestic terrorism. Pretty sure its not usually a 'scientific consensus' that determines if one is a terrorist or not. I guess you don't know what you speak of.

Unless they actually mean 'ass pie' that could also just be a really immature insult....I mean I don't think ass pie and aspie is the same thing. Just saying.

First "terrorism" legislation is largely there to fill gap in a legal system, it is always not the crime someone is charged with. There is no real set definition of a terrorist other then someone who territories people for some agenda.

The crime remains the same regardless of if the are mitigating factors or not. Mitigating factor may affect the verdict and a trail need to happen first.

The is no legal term or status for "nutters" and in fact many people would might be called nutters would not be deemed criminally insane, and the personality disordered are no exception. Likewise for temporary impairment.

Many of these people could not be deemed clinically insane.

If someone shows awareness of what they are doing and goes ahead with it, they can rightly be tried.

The former French colony is named after the same river as the former British colony of Nigeria is named after: the river Niger (prounced like a truncated version of the word Nigeria- N-EYE-Jear) You can also pronounce the country Niger as N-EYE-jear, but more properly the country should be pronounced the French way of "Knee-ZJHERE" (like "lingerie"). Niether pronunciation sounds like the N-word.

I believe that preventive measures should be taken to raise awareness of it in future generations, and that children should be taught to avoid it.

However, I think that passing any kind of absolute "no hate speech" law and expecting people to abide by it would be very unrealistic.

For example. I make use of terminology that could be considered racially offensive. It's not because I'm racist, and it's never intentional. This racial terminology is officially discouraged here in Scotland, to point where you could lose your job over it. Unofficially, and on a social level, it is universally accepted and enforced, with each generation having unintentionally learning it from the previous generation, and unintentionally teaching it to the new generation.

thank you. i've known that the correct pronunciation was something far from the N word because of its french origins...i've pronounced it as rhyming with "pierre" a few times. though i remember some silence in high school when it was brought up.

Maybe theyve gotten more sensitive than they were in my days in school.

I do remember one time back in eigth grade geography class when another White guy was looking over my shoulder at the map of Africa in the opened book we were looking at. And hearing him chuckle while saying "LOOK! There's a "n****r River"!".

But I don't recall it being an issue when anyone said the name of the country, or the river, in front of the whole class.

Of course now that I think about it- I never heard the name of the country Niger actually pronounced out loud until years after junior high- when I heard a reporter stationed in the country say its name the French way on TV.The subject of the country of Niger just didnt come up in conversation much back then, even in eighth grade geography class.

Niger is pronounced like something very close to "Ni-jeer," except with a French accent.

Its what I said above. "J" as in "Jacques". Knee- ZJHARE (rhymes with "pear").

I have often seen spellings like "Ass pie" "ASSburgers" used in comments sections of blogs and youtube videos made by Autistic people. Most often it is used in the context of "ASSpergers is a fake disease" used by lazy excuse making people etc. The person doing it could be a troll, bully, hate autistics, or feel Aspergers is co opting real autism or some combination. In a comments section a bully may not care about autism but just wants to feel superior to several hundred people. The thing is a commentator bully rarely represents a real threat.

Interesting that you choose to rely on criminals to communicate without deception, let alone delusion.

I've heard both pronunciations.

I think yours might be more correct, because it's the French way of pronouncing it.

Nutter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive.

I dont claim to know if the planned parenthood shooter was always obsessed with his cause, or not. Nor do I claim to know if that makes any difference to whether he is labeled as a terrorist or not.



Let's say that you're a Columbine type who plans for a long time to shoot up your highschool (collect the guns and etc), but like the Columbine shooters you did not claim any political agenda.

And then when the big day comes and you- suddenly change your mind about your target- and you think "I like animals so instead of shooting up my highschool I will attack the local mink farm -murder the employees- and set the minks free." And lets say you carry that out. Does that make you a "animal rights terrorist". Or would you still just be a nutter?

Alternatively: lets say you were always obsessed with spree killing in the name of animal rights- but were never in any kind of communication with PETA, or any group like that. Even then-would that make you a political "terrorist"? You were not in communication with PETA. You would be doing on your own. So your not doing the act to advance any group's agenda. So are you still defined as a terrorist?

And what if you're not a spree killer, but are a serial killer( kill a lot of folks on the installment plan rather than killing the bunch all at once) with a private political agenda? The Unabomber did his mail order style serial killing in the name of his own private political ideology. So does that make Ted Lozinski a "terrorist"? Or is he just "a nutter"?

Nutter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive, good point. The distinction would have a lot to do with planning.

As far as your specific points, terrorism has more to do with ideology than any specific group. The ideology of animal rights as motive supersedes affiliation with an established animal rights group. As long as it the perpetrator makes clear that it is "in the name of animal rights," and there is evidence for that motive, I would say that it is still terrorism.

Teddy Kaczynski had a cause. Even if it was his cause alone, he committed his crimes to bring awareness to his cause. I would consider that terrorism.

This Robert Dear character, well, I just don't think enough is known for certain to make that call. I could be persuaded to believe he is a terrorist with sufficient evidence. From what I do know, it just doesn't add up that this guy was ideologically motivated. Even a quote about baby parts is insufficient to me. I initially heard he was attempting to rob a bank next to the PP building before being holed up in there. To me that does not preclude a degree of opportunism on part of the perpetrator. In other words, perhaps he tried to make the most of his surroundings and was already thinking about his day in court. Of course, he could be a terrorist. He could also be completely irrational. But I also hold open the possibility that he is being very calculating and using a cooperative media to help obfuscate the facts.

There, I said it. I have a very high threshold for proof. I prefer not to jump to conclusions. Just because I hear a particular narrative repeated in the media doesn't mean it always holds water.

Facts are stubborn things.

they are also increasingly rare things, some might say.

NOW we're getting closer to the root of the problem. What's the difference between nutter and terrorist? From all that I've read it's whether they have lost touch with reality or have a firm grasp on it and are doing something for a political cause.

For the moment & the sake of this specific argument only, if that is accepted as true...

Are religious extremists in touch with reality?