Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper thought it’d be fun to take their gay-hating “God Hates Fags” protest show on the road and stage an event outside of Hampshire’s local college production of The Laramie Project, a play about the death of Matthew Shepard, but authorities at the UK Border Agency and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith have banned Phelps from entering the UK, saying it opposed “extremism in all its forms”.
The BBC has more of the government’s response:
“The government has made it clear it opposes extremism in all its forms.
“We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.
“The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs.”
The church’s pickets of military funerals have outraged Americans.
The Westboro church’s website advertised the picket which was set to take place on Friday, proclaiming: “In merry old England they plan to further enrage the living God by putting on the farce known commonly as The Laramie Project.
“We will picket them, and see if they actually believe those lies they tell about how tolerant and accepting Brits are.”
walt zipprian
Now if we could only exile Phelps from the U.S.
I bet they’d go over big in Jamaica.
Alan down in Florida
Go UK!
Sean
Love the Brit Gov..
Jack
Yeah, don’t try and send your maniacs over here, America. We don’t put up with that kinda crap here.
burger king
God is gay
so’s the Goddess
Phelps hates himself
and he’s probably a fag deep down.
shutting him up is the loving thing to do.
Sebbe
yesssssssssssssssss!! Phelps hates on sweden too. Or says god does, says the country and the royal family are all gay. It’s more likely though that Swedes hate god.
faghag
This is how we treat hateful scum in the UK, maybe you should do the same overthere.
ChristopherM
@faghag:
Suppressing hate speech only makes it grown. Letting it out into the sunshine so people can see it for what it is and speak out against it is what truly kills it.
ChristopherM
That should be “grow” rather than “grown.” Perhaps I was thinking about how Shirley Phelps’ hairdos always make me groan.
Sebbe
@faghag – Agree and might I add, the prospect of a British fag hag is very intriguing, come to America baby.
faghag
@Sebbe:
lol I’m working on it believe me.
danger
God is a cigarette
Sebbe
@faghag – I’m sure you could find someone to marry you. Over here they don’t care if your marriage is fake as long as it is between a man and woman.
Sebbe
@danger – LMFAO, thank you.
danger
I kind of wish they were coming over here. They would have seen just how much we like making fun of people like them, its something we are good at.
God Hates Twats.
Charles J. Mueller
@ChristopherM:
What would happen, I wonder, if the words Jews or Blacks were substituted for the word fags?
Would you still be in favor of not suppressing hate speech?
But even more importantly, would the Jews and Black even allow it?
Just saying…
danger
i think that is a difficult question to answer really. Whilst it is right that vile views and hatred should have no place suppressing it can make the people involved feel persecuted and martyred to an extent and provide them with even more justification. Letting them express their nonsense and then m,aking fun of or arguing cogently against it might be a more powerful weapon to employ than banning it out of hand. Then you let others who might be intrigued by the poor suppressed souls being denied their right to speak see them for the lunatics that they really are.
none the less it would laso be great fun to beat fred phelps with a condom full of poo.
I am on the fence on this really.
Sebbe
I would suggest that “free speech” and “hate speech” are not synonymous. But, I can see both sides of the argument.
Sebbe
This is off topic, but I’m going to share anyways. I was young and visiting my grandmother in Sweden. We were out shopping and were approached by mormon missionaries. I had never seen these people in person in Connecticut. Grandmother, who I had never heard speak english and who was a lifelong member of the state church, managed to mutter, “we go with devil, now go away”!!! Go mormor!!! To this day this is one of my favorite memories of her and the only time I remember her speaking English, besides her futile attempts to speak to (with?) my father.
Scott in NYC
Christopher is 100% right. The best thing for morons like Phelps is to let the world see what complete bigoted idiots they are. Let their own words be their downfall. I am opposed to censorship period…I don’t like anyone telling me what I can and can not see or hear. Even if it’s something as disgusting as the teachings/preachings of Phelps.
Tallskin
DAMN! I was going to take the train up to Basingstoke and join the anti-Phelps picket!
I was so fucking angry at them that I was seriously thinking of using physical violence against them, if I had been able to get through the lines of police protecting them.
Just joking! (well half joking, I was fucking angry at the idea of them coming here)
But the bad habits of your yank loons are being picked by the sky pixie worshippers over here. I am concerned that it will get to the stage where gangs of these fuckwits will make pickets and protest at anything gay going on???
Perhaps a good beating for them will be needed after all, I dunno.
Charles J. Mueller
@Scott in NYC:
“The best thing for morons like Phelps is to let the world see what complete bigoted idiots they are.”
Well now…we let Herr Hitler do that, didn’t we? And look how that turned out?
And if you believe that anti-semitism is tolerated in America, think again.
ZDNet reports that YouTube faces criticism and possible legal action for hosting anti-semitic videos:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2007/08/youtube-nazis-and-hate-speech.html
“I am opposed to censorship period”
Then you must be terribly upset that a black cannot be called the “N” word in the media, or that a Jew cannot be called a K*ke, an Italian person a W*p, a Spanish person a S*ick or a Chinese person a C*ink.
Dang. Nobody is any fun anymore!
Bruno
Come on, don’t lie. It would’ve been fun to throw scones and teabags at that gang of loonies!
PearlsBeforeSwine
@Jack:
In the US, we have a different notion of free speech than in many other parts of the world. When I saw the original announcement that Fred Phelps was going to England, my hope was that they would arrest him and put him in jail. Couldn’t you do that for us? It would make us very happy and it would probably make Fred Phelps happy, too. Then he could really play the martyr.
Canada might do that for us as well.
petted
The Brits also blocked that Dutch MP Wilders from entering the UK cause of his extremism towards muslims – glad to see that all extremists attempting to visit the UK are being shown the same treatment.
petted
@PearlsBeforeSwine: If we’re lucky the Phelps will try to visit like Wilders did get held in detention by security when they landand forced to take the next flight home – I’m all in favor of them having less money.
ChristopherM
@Charles J. Mueller:
I absolutely would feel the same way were it God Hates _______ (whatever). I want to see where my bigots are. I want them to be out in the open so they can be challenged. They are far more dangerous when you drive them underground. Why would we make martyrs out of them when we can point out their stupidity?
Also, every time Fred Phelps opens his mouth, it is a positive thing for us. He spews his bile and someone on the fence realizes they are wrong about gay people, that they don’t want to be associated with someone so horrible.
Regarding your statement, “Then you must be terribly upset that a black cannot be called the “N” word in the media, or that a Jew cannot be called a K*ke, an Italian person a W*p, a Spanish person a S*ick or a Chinese person a C*ink.” The media can do that. They have every right under the Constitution to do that. They don’t do that because they know that enough people find that disgusting that they will lose their business if they do it. There is no law against being a bigoted asshole, but it is bad for business.
Finally, if I had a nickel for every time some crazy bigot got compared to Hitler, I’d have at least five dollars (and that’s a lot of nickels!). Fred Phelps is a horrible person who, if Hell existed, would deserve an eternity of torment there. He has no followers and can get no followers besides his inbred family. He is no Hitler…he’s too fucking stupid to be Hitler.
moo
@Scott in NYC: I don’t think this is censorship, we’re just not letting the arsehole into our lovely country.
BobP
Could we all chip in and send the whole damn family to say…Dubai? I’m sure it would only be a matter of time before they found some reason to behead the bastards!
Alexa
The UK has a history of not letting extremists – or people they deem to be extremists – in, so it’s not really surprising they banned Phelps. Did they ban all of them, or is it possible some of them might get in?
Scott in NYC
Charles J. Mueller,
Your post is completely baffling. Here we are, talking about a COUNTRY not allowing an anti-gay bigot to visit, and you suddenly start talking about Hitler and anti-semitic youtube videos.
You’re welcome to think Phelps is beginning the fourth reich in the UK. True, his church is about 100 strong, about 80% of which is his own family. When will people realize that by denying him entrance, you elevate this man’s profile? He’s a bug on the windshield being treated like he actually MEANS something. He doesn’t. Your mention of Hitler suggest this man has power so far beyond any reasonable assessment of the man it’s absurd.
As fun as I am sure it was to suggest I delight in racial slurs, anyone who actually read what I wrote would know that I feel quite the opposite.
Maybe you can be a bit more careful in your posts.
Charles J. Mueller
@ChristopherM:
“The media can do that.”
Oh, well…if they have the right to do that, then I won’t get my hair curlers in an uproar the next time someone calls a gay person a faggot as Mr. Knight was. Thank you for bringing me up to speed on that.
“He is no Hitler…he’s too fucking stupid to be Hitler.”@ChristopherM:
Thank you, Christopher, for putting my mind at ease. I’m so relieved
I was beginning to get a little worried about the Mormons and the Christians who just voted our civil-rights away.
I don’t know why we “faggots” (umm…you just gave me permission to use that word, didn’t you?) Have to always make such a big, fucking issue over everything? Why don’t they just STFU and sit down and stop making waves, eh?
Now, where did I put my TV guide? *Sarcasm front on regarding all of the foregoing*
Charles J. Mueller
@Scott in NYC:
Please refer to my response to ChristopherM SOSDD
“Maybe you can be a bit more careful in your posts.”
Umm…man speak with forked tongue. In your post, you vigorously decrid censorship. Did you not, however, just allude to it in that comment?
Sorry, bub. That’s a double standard. You defend the right of Fred Phelps and his ilk to say whatever they wishes about us as gay people, yet you are telling to “watch it” when I complain that I don’t don’t like being called a fag and told that I should die. If I a not allowed to liken him to Hitler, then he should not be allowed to liken me to the devil.
Log Cabin much, do you?
strumpetwindsock
@PearlsBeforeSwine:
The Canadian government refused them entry last summer but a few snuck in anyway. Fortunately there was a big contingent of locals to prevent them from interfering in a tragic funeral they wanted to disrupt:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/08/08/westboro-protest.html
Darn that U.S. border eh… it’s just a pipeline for terrorists trying to get into Canada.
*kidding (at least 50%)*
strumpetwindsock
…make sure you read the part where the spokeswoman (Phelps’ daughter) complains that they might call off their protest because they were afraid they might not get protection from Canadian police.
First time I have read the term “back-alley brawl” used in reference to our country.
HYHYBT
@danger: Well, then, we know one thing: God isn’t a lesbian.
Charles J. Mueller
@strumpetwindsock:
That’s where people like them belong. In a back-alley. That’s where their tactics are from.
getreal
They have freedom of speech in America but they are extremists it makes sense that other countries are barring them.
Charles J. Mueller
@getreal:
Definitely.
And that is the heart of the problem. The extremists are using freedom of speech like a Gatling Machine Gun to mow us all down with.
Too many gay people just don’t get that these extremists are are war with us. Make no mistake about it. And if we do not fight back, we will have lost not only the battle, we will have lost the war.
getreal
I am a black person who has defended the KKK’s right to march. In my opinion these people’s views are evil but I am a big believer in the first amendment. I am not any less disgusted by these people than you are.If anything It’s possible I’m more angry these bottom feeders give all christians a bad name and are helping creating a large number people out there who now hate ALL of us. These people are awful I agree but holding up signs and demonstrating is their right as Americans. I remember having the argument with friends if the KKK wants to march in Washington DC spouting hatred they have the right to but the second they attack someone or burn a church then we can use the law to stop them. I am just a believer in the saying “I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it” These people turn off scores of people with their rhetoric and except for the far far far right wackjobs the average person is very uncomfortable with the hate these people spew. The truth is on our side and soon the laws will be on our side. We don’t have to use dirty tricks in our war, we don’t have to circumvent the constitution. As long as they are using words instead of machine guns they have rights. The tide of public opinion is simply turning there is nothing thee people can do about it and their hateful antics are helping turn that tide. In my opinion it would be a losing strategy in this war to lose our moral upper hand that in the end is why more and more Americans are supporting gay rights. For a lot of people out there it is becoming harder to understand why LGBT people are being denied their rights we lose that high road when we try to deny others (even if they are evil,wrong,hurtful,deluded) their rights. It may sound dumb to some people or simplistic but winners don’t have to cheat and sooner or later we are going to win this.It should be through hard work, mobilizing, coalition building. etc. let’s leave the dirty tricks and hate mongering to the opposition. Wow I just wrote a book.
moo
@getreal: I’m not sure if this is even relevant but we don’t have a constitution in the UK, and something like the First Amendment (sorry, don’t know what that is) doesn’t apply here.
I think Charles’ point is that public opinion doesn’t always swing in the direction of ‘good’, just like it didn’t in 1930’s Germany. for us younger people (certainly in Europe where we didn’t really have race problems on the scale that the US had after the war) 1930’s Germany seems like a long time ago, but for an older gentleman who grow up in the aftermath, it perhaps doesn’t seem that long ago really.
getreal
@moo: The 1st amendment is freedom of speech and expression.Like a lot of Americans I’m really proud of the constitution and feel protective of it, it’s certainly not perfect but were it is good it is something really special.
getreal
@moo: If you look back at my first statement I say their speech here is protected but others country should bar their entrance as they are extremists.
moo
@getreal: Sorry, quite right.
Scott in NYC
@Charles J. Mueller:
Charles… I hope you can keep it together for long enough to continue this back and forth. But judging from your posts, I wonder if you haven’t already gone off the deep end.
This would seem obvious to me, but when I said to be a bit more careful in your posts, I was talking about you – as one person – suggesting that I – another person – delighted in racial slurs. If we’re going to have any kind of reasonable debate, I would suggest actually reading what I wrote. That’s what I meant by being more “careful” – I certainly did not imply that I’d like to outlaw your right to be as irresponsible with your words as you’d like. I certainly am not going to start the process of attempting to have other countries deny your entrance.
I think your issue is that you see anyone taking issue with anything anyone else says as synonymous to OUTLAWING someone’s right to say it. Taking issue is debate…outlawing is censorship. It’s a big difference. Maybe now you’ll be able to recognize it.
Scott in NYC
@faghag:
Maybe next time, the UK will decide that someone else is offensive and they are not allowed in to your country. Only YOU might not feel they’re offensive. Who will decide?
How weak is it to have anyone deemed offensive not allowed into your country? It’s weak and pathetic. Americans don’t need big brother protecting their feelings from mean people. I would guess most in the UK don’t either…save you.
Sebbe
@scott in nyc – countries have the rights to bar anyone they want from entering their borders (sovereignty). America does it as well under certain circumstances. Unfortunately we are not global citizens with the right to go wherever and whenever we want.
Scott in NYC
@Sebbe:
Sebbe…I know countries have the right to bar anyone they want…and I also believe there are reasons to not let..say…a convicted murderer across borders. That I get. The Phelps bigots are just bigots. No country should be denying them entrance.
As far as global citizens, that has nothing to do with it. I am arguing on principle…for anyone, not just Americans. I don’t see where I wrote otherwise.
Sebbe
@Scott in NYC – couldn’t it be something as simple as the UK gov’t doesn’t wish to expend resources on these people who are not citizens of their country. Certainly, police or other services would be needed if this turned out to be a large demonstration.
Personally, I wish we were global citizens with the right of free movement anywhere in the world. But, that is not the current law. So just wondering?
Scott in NYC
Sebbe…
You are making two different points…one I understand yet respectfully disagree with, the other, I am still not getting at all. I’ll take each separately:
1) The UK not wanting to expend resources on police protection: I get that, but really, I don’t see it as plausible. The UK police – like any country – expend resources on a host of different groups, protests, issues, etc. Including the highly offensive RESPECT party (if it’s still around). To single this small group out as too huge a resource expenditure seems a little far-fectched to me.
2) This global citizen thing with free movement argument…I don’t understand it. If it’s meant that I want Americans to be considered global citizens (as opposed to citizens of other countries) I not only don’t believe it, I never said anything that suggested I did. If it’s meant that I think people should cross borders at will with no national protection, I don’t believe it and never said anything that suggested I did. I am lost as to why you keep bringing this point up.
Sebbe
@Scott in NYC – forget about number 2, maybe I misunderstood you.
In regards to number 1 – The difference in your example is that those groups are domestic.
getreal
@Sebbe: Co-sign
Scott in NYC
Sebbe…I hear that…but it still doesn’t shake out for me. They could shut down those groups if they wanted to…denying someone entrance is just a different form of censorship.
Ezekiel
@ChristopherM:
I’d have to agree in some ways — guys like Phelps are backwards morons, and the more we can let him feel the heat from people who recognize it, the better off we’ll all be. I mean, let’s face it — most people are smart enough to recognize hypocrisy and nonsense when they see it, and those who aren’t will still find a way to be ignorant even if we suppress guys like Phelps.
ChristopherM
@Charles J. Mueller:
“Too many gay people just don’t get that these extremists are are war with us. Make no mistake about it. And if we do not fight back, we will have lost not only the battle, we will have lost the war.”
You are absolutely correct. We are at war with them. And when we try to get the government to shut them up, we lose. When we let them spew their hate and get up in their faces and speak the truth, we win. Free speech is a two-way street, and when we try to block one direction, we typically block our own. Censorship by the government is the wimp’s way of fighting back. I want them to speak so I can speak right back.
Charles J. Mueller
@Scott in NYC:
“I wonder if you haven’t already gone off the deep end.”
Just for your edification, my mental faculties are just fine, thank you very much. When I do become certifiably insane, I will instruct the institution that I been incarcerated for my own good, as well as that of the general public, to notify you accordingly.
Scott, I went back and reread every single post on this thread starting with number 1. Other than the question I posed on comment no. 33, “Log cabin much, do you”, I fail to find one instance in which I made any reference to your mental faculties or attempted to make you look like a doddering old fool who needs to be put away.
At it’s most, it strongly suggests ageism on your behalf and, at the very least, your comment shows an element of disrepect for for your elders which is not very becomming…or appreciated.
If you wish to engage in discourse with me or debate anything I have said, I encourage you to do so. I enjoy lively debate and do not deny anyone else the right to engage in it as well.
That said, however, I would respectfully request that you refrain from beginning your replies to me with allusions to my sanity, or lack thereof, if you expect a courteous and respectful reply from me.
Charles J. Mueller
@ChristopherM:
“Censorship by the government is the wimp’s way of fighting back. I want them to speak so I can speak right back.”
That’s all well and good if the playing (fighting) field were level. Unfortunately, it is not. It’s stacked against us, not only by the religious right, but by the government as well. And it would do you well to remember that there are more of “them” than there is of “us”. We may not wish to be know as “wimps”, but we are, like it or not, an overwhelmingly outnumbered minority group. That’s a fact.
Furthermore, I do believe that it’s a bit unfair when the Xstain Right is able to manipulate and coerce the government of the people, for the people and by the people, to side with them and pass legislation that attempts to marginalize, defame, discriminate and criminalize us and deny us our civil-rights, while at the same time defending their right to do do.
I am sorry, but I not equate hate speech and free speech in the same breath. The former incites contempt, disrespect and violence as we are too often witness to these days. If living our lives in fear of being killed is the price we must pay to protect their freedom of speech and the right of others to murder us with impunity, based on their perceived convolution of freedom of speech rights as the justification for their evil deeds, then I say the price is too high and very unjust.
Are we using freedom of speech to ban the presentation of any art forms that we might find offensive? Are we using freedom of speech physically bash any of our enemies? Are we using freedom of speech to pass legislation against any of our enemies? Why must we be so concerned with preserving “their” rights, while they are working with so much zeal and such a religiously inspired fervor to eliminate our rights?
Perhaps I am just getting old and senile, but it just plain doesn’t make any sense to me. Why should we be obliged to ‘fight fair” when everything these people are doing to the LGBT community is obviously unfair?
When I was still a little boy, my father taught me that if a bully hits me first, I have every right to hit him back. And, if hitting him back results in him resorting to “dirty fighting”, then I have ever right to kick him in the balls if needs be.
Do you find a problem with that way of thinking?
Rob Moore
This is one family tree that really needs to die out. I’ve seen interviews of the various members of this clan and even the children learn hate and intolerance as a way of life. His daughter is even worse than her mind-deformed father.
ChristopherM
@Charles J. Mueller:
“Do you find a problem with that way of thinking?”
Not at all. Except that what you’re talking about means having someone else do your fighting for you. I disagree that there are more of “them” than there are of us. Most people, even those who disagree with us on many things, think people like Phelps are nuts. When we are reasonable, we win more people over to our side than we lose.
The other problem with your way of thinking is that for some reason, you think that when someone who is against you gets silenced, somehow that same thing won’t be turned around on you. It can and it will be.
moo
@Charles J. Mueller: “If you wish to engage in discourse with me or debate anything I have said, I encourage you to do so. I enjoy lively debate and do not deny anyone else the right to engage in it as well.”
That’s good to hear.
anyankafan
is it true they are planning to come to australia today for the bushfire memorial day?
Charles J. Mueller
@ChristopherM:
Whatever. To each his own.
Tallskin
I do have a question. Why are the Phelps family allowed to pass on their vile views to their little kids?
Shouldn’t the kids be taken away by social services and brought up away from them in sane and safe homes???
What is happening to the kids is child abuse.
Scott Berwitz
@Charles J. Mueller:
Charles – I don’t have the slightest idea as to your age – so nothing was meant a nod to ageism. I apologize, sincerely, if it came off that offensive. It was meant to be provocative, not deeply insulting.
That being said, earlier you made this statement:
“Then you must be terribly upset that a black cannot be called the “N” word in the media, or that a Jew cannot be called a K*ke, an Italian person a W*p, a Spanish person a S*ick or a Chinese person a C*ink.”
I would find the direct implication that I am a racist who delights in the subjugation of minority groups far more offensive than saying you may have gone of the deep end.
Practice what you preach, Charles.
strumpetwindsock
@Tallskin:
Probably because they have damn good lawyers. From what I have seen (not from personal family experience) Child and Family Services don’t seem to have any problem finding a reason to remove a child from a home ir they really want to, especially if it is a poor/non-white family.
I remember hearing a story (don’t have the source) of a woman who had her child taken away for “sexual abuse” after she told her doctor she felt aroused when she breastfed.
But here are two recent cases, in the news only because of the Nazi connection. And of course because it involves children and is before the court they can’t talk about the reasons for removal before it goes to court:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/01/29/court-swastika.html
Trying to ban the media from the trial is a stupid move though, and it is really questionable whether a judge would agree to that.
Here’s a case from the U.S.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/14/nazinames.html
strumpetwindsock
… the breastfeeding story was from New York, I think. Somewhere down east in the states.
Charles J. Mueller
@Scott Berwitz:
I have no idea who you are or why you are addressing your comment to me?
I checked the postings on this thread twice, and nowhere do I see the name Scott Berwitz or any comments you have accused me of making about you.
getreal
@Tallskin: Even if they are wrong they have a constitutional right to their views we live a free country. Having hateful values is unfortunately not legally child abuse. That being said they have a right to their opinion they are stupid but they a right to be.
m
@Charles J. Mueller: Just a thought; could Scott Berwitz and Scott in NYC be the same person?
Moo
Charles J. Mueller
@m:
That’s very possible, Moo. I got to thinking about that after I posted my reply.
If it is, I am certain that I’ll hear back from him shortly.
Thanks for your thoughts.
strumpetwindsock
@getreal: I agree absolutely you can’t start taking kids away from their parents just because of their views. By that standard I can think of lots of kids I’d like to see taken from their parents. The problem is there’s no guarantee the foster families would be any better.
And in the Winnipeg case, unless they had other grounds for removal I don’t think it would be fair for them to remove the child.
That said, the system is already unfair and many child welfare agencies have no problem cooking a legal reason to take kids, particularly if the family is poor, non-white, or single-parent.
Look at what happened when they busted the polygamists last year and seized all those children. Whether you agree with their lifestyle or not it was a monumental balls-up and certainly did more harm than good.
Krzyleo
Anyone who hates is not of God. God is love.
getreal
@strumpetwindsock: C0-sign
Scott in NYC, Scott Berwitz
Charles…same guy, it’s me. Sorry, sometimes I use one, sometimes I use the other, and I didn’t realize.
Scott in NYC, Scott Berwitz
However…did you really doubt that I was the same person? You said you re-read all the posts…and you saw that you did make the precise comment I attributed to you – only it said “Scott in NYC” instead of “Scott Berwitz.” And you couldn’t figure that one out?
Charles J. Mueller
@Scott in NYC, Scott Berwitz:
Thank you for the apology, which I accept. I think.
The immediate recall of that apology with a posting obviously designed to attempt make me look like a doddering old fool, left me somewhat puzzled, however. It’s a peculiarity in your postings that I have picked up on more than once.
Your posting no. 64 is a good example of that. While you explained, and apologized for what I felt was an ageist remark, you went on to make my commentaries about politically incorrect racial names look as if I was implying that you are a racist. You assumed that I was doing so when, in fact, I was not. In in so doing, you made it obvious that you still wished to pick a bone with me on some level.
Had it been my desire to call you a racist, I would have done so, boldly, clearly and distinctly rather than just alluding to it. Innuendo, as I am certain that you must have noticed by now, is not one of my writing hallmarks on these threads.
The topic of this thread was about hate speech and my references to the racial slurs, were examples of what is no longer considered acceptable speech in our society. Since you appear to be a fierce proponent of free speech, I was merely pointing out that you may very well feel that the making of these of these words into politically incorrect speech, was a serious abridgement of your freedom of speech rights. Any other meaning assigned to my comments, is merely misinterpretation or hearing what you want to hear, on behalf of the reader.
With respect the duplicity of posting names, yours is not the first posting name on these threads to cause confusion, as you will note by the addition of parenthesis after quite a few other posters on these threads. If I were to reply to one of your comments with the name Charles J. Mueller (the other one), would this not also cause some confusion on your behalf as well? And why I purposely wish to cause that confusion, if you get my drift? After all, my name is not in the least unusual. There are hundred of people in the US with my exact same name.
If you are going to post under various assumed names, which is your right to do so, it is not up to reader to play Sherlock Holmes to try to figure out who is who and what comments belong to whom. It’s rather disingenuous to apologize to someone over the confusion and then in the next breath, allude to their stupidity for questioning two similar, but different names.
If the apology is offered with conditions, then I submit that it really isn’t a sincere apology begin with. Saying to someone “And you couldn’t figure that one out?” At the very least, if sounds snarky. At it’s worst, it comes off sounding more like, “I’m sorry that you’re such a dum-dum.” I would have felt less insulted by the complete lack of any apology at all, truth be known.
And just for the record, it did, in fact, occur to me that you were one and the same, but then I thought about the old adage about making assumptions. Bad enough that a good many people think of a person of my years as old and foolish, but making an ass of one’s self at my age is totally unforgivable.
Charles J. Mueller
@Krzyleo:
So…why isn’t he showing us more of it?
Moo
Shame on you, Scott. If that is indeed your real name!
Scott in NYC, Scott Berwitz
Charles…
I am going to do this one more time. Maybe you’ll own up to it…I doubt you will given your last response.
First, you quote me: “”I am opposed to censorship period”
Then you say in response (capitalization is mine):
Then YOU MUST BE TERRIBLY UPSET THAT A BLACK CANNOT BE CALLED THE “N” WORD IN THE MEDIA, OR THAT A JEW CANNOT BE CALLED A K*KE, AN ITALIAN PERSON A W*P….”
You continue with other racial slurs I supposedly am “terribly upset” can not be used and then finish with this little hit at the end:
“Dang. Nobody is any fun anymore!”
Charles – what gets me about you and others who subscribe to this position and argument is that I was making a statement against censorship, not for bigotry. But you very clearly accuse me of being upset that these words can’t be used…and then do not have the balls to even admit you made the accusation later on in the very same thread.
I have no issues with your age – your the one who keeps bringing that up. I have no idea how old you are and it does not bear at at all on my argument. My issue is with this anti-intellectual mode of attack – and I have seen it before on here. It, apparently, is not enough to disagree with someone. The other person has to be called a racist…or to heavily suggest it. It’s weak, it’s false and it lessens the charge for REAL instances of racism and bigotry.
But for G*d’s sake, at least have the guts to take responsibility for your own words. There right up there for anyone with their eyes open to see.
–Scott
Charles J. Mueller
@Scott in NYC, Scott Berwitz:
“I would find the direct implication that I am a racist who delights in the subjugation of minority groups far more offensive than saying you may have gone of the deep end.”
Your words. Not mine. You implied that I called you a racist and I explained that to you in my reply no. 76 which you obviously have not read. No one attacked you. You just keep repeating the same old shit, over and over.
Read my lips. I NEVER called you a racist. And here is my clarification of that. You are putting words in my mouth. Obviously, you insist on seeing and hearing what you want to see and hear regardless of what I actually said.
“Had it been my desire to call you a racist, I would have done so, boldly, clearly and distinctly rather than just alluding to it. Innuendo, as I am certain that you must have noticed by now, is not one of my writing hallmarks on these threads.”
What part of that do you not understand? You have obviously decided that you are going to take insult, where non was ever intended, no matter what I say.
And then, when you find that you cannot win your point on that issue, you then go back and look for other imagined insults to harp on. To wit:
“Dang. Nobody is any fun anymore!” A hit???
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment that is as common as “A stitch in time, saves nine”. It was meant to be funny, but oh no…you have read more shit into it and find a reason to be upset…over nothing. You make it sound like I defamed your character or questioned your mother’s morality. Your outrage, over nothing, is ludicrous and laughable.
Grow up, for crying out loud…or get some thicker skin.
This is, after all, a blog site, not a place to get your ego massaged.
I’m finished with you.
Scott in NYC, Scott Berwitz
Charles,
You’re pathetic. You did not address the original post of yours that started all this. Now you begin referring to other posts where you take no responsiblity for it all. First you tell me that it must suck for me that the most disgusting racial slurs can’t be used, now you make it an issue of how thick my skin is.
No egos, no outrage. Just truth…and taking responsiblity for what you say. You fail on both accounts.
–Scott
barry waterfield
All joking apart, I think it very likely this Phelps chap is to some degree ill. Unless he tries to shoot someone you’ll probably never get to find out but I’m fairly sure he is cuckoo. I would suspect at least a form of mental illness as the rest of the family has it also. His mother, who was speaking on the news when she was deported, has the same look in her eyes as he has. I’ve seen that look before, in the face of the man who abused me as a child, it’s the look a man gets when he’s desperate to control a situation that could blow. Has he ever been a child abuser ? I know that’s probably an unkind thing to say but at first glance that’s how they both strike me. Compare their faces to the face of the Dalai Lama who has loving compassion in his eyes and you’ll see what I mean.