Stupid racist shit.

September 13, 2001 11:56 AM

Stupid racist shit. I'm sorry about the language, but I am already sick of this sort of idiot xenophobia.
posted by johnnydark (17 comments total)

What do you expect from something called the "vomitorium"? Look through the trash long enough and you'll find something disguisting. What a shock!
posted by revbrian at 12:02 PM on September 13, 2001

What an ass.
posted by Hildago at 12:03 PM on September 13, 2001

And of course, in addition to the rampant racism are people who have seen too many action movies & insist that had they been on the plane, they would not have stood idly by & let these terrorists hijack the plane.

"I'll be damned if I'll let some fuckin raghead hold ME up by knifepoint. Sure, I'm on a plane, OMG there is a terrorist...I'm gonna fucking die anyway. I might as well take the fucker out and TRY to make sure we land safely."

I absolutely detest sentiments like this -- she/he is almost implying that the people on the hijacked planes are at least partially to blame because they didn't stand up to terrorists. Well, while it's really easy to watch Bruce Willis up on the big screen & think "I could do that," it's far different when it's actually happening to you.
posted by zempf at 12:11 PM on September 13, 2001

Sturgeon's Law, folks.
posted by marknau at 12:11 PM on September 13, 2001

you can make a difference in trying to limit this trash.

I've been going through some of the Yahoo! message boards a lot over the past few days. When I see a message advocating violence against Americans of certain ethnic groups I click the "report abuse" link and hope Yahoo! will silence these jackasses.
The forums on the net about tuesday's events should be a place for compassion, debate, discussion, and expressions of sadness, not a voice for ignorant fools and their primitive ideas. Please do what you can to erase this baseless hate.
posted by themikeb at 12:12 PM on September 13, 2001

well themikeb, its good to see that censorship is alive and well in your mind

I dont like idiotic baseless banter anymore than the next guy but that doesnt make me better or there opinion "abuse"

your attitude is wholly unamerican and it sickens me
posted by vincentmeanie at 12:43 PM on September 13, 2001

so you're ok with people vandalizing mosques, assaulting arab-AMERICANS, attempting to run middle eastern looking people down in parking lots, and making threatening phone calls to muslim organizations.

When these assholes signed up for their accounts they agreed to terms which include not advocating violence. I'm just pointing that out to the people who run the site.

This is in no way censorship, it's my way of trying to see cooler heads prevail. When we turn against our fellow countrymen, these animals who killed our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, win. And no real American wants that to happen

How dare you call me un-American! YOUR attitude is wholly inhuman and increases the rift between us when we need to come together.
posted by themikeb at 12:55 PM on September 13, 2001

whatever, reactionary attitudes like yours are exactly what people who commit crimes of terrorism are after..

I never advocated any violence or physical action by anyone, I simply made a point.

it seems like in the wake everyone is breathing this side with the majority or be the enemy attitude..
posted by vincentmeanie at 1:05 PM on September 13, 2001

Vincent makes the good point that freedom of speech is precious.

It is easy to be for "freedom of speech" for those opinions you agree with. The real test is whether you stand for the freedoms of people with whom you disagree.

Mike's point that these people are using a private forum, and that they agreed to certain rules, is certainly correct.

However, the impetus to silence voices that are offensive to us is a wrong-headed approach, no matter how ignorant those voices are. The proper response to speech that you despise is more speech.
posted by marknau at 1:47 PM on September 13, 2001

whatever, reactionary attitudes like yours are exactly what people who commit crimes of terrorism are after..

No, they seek to disrupt our open society and continue their cycle of fear and hatred. It's really a matter of staying away from the dark side of the force. When we advocate violence, and let those who advocate it spread their poison gospel, we are bringing ourselves down to the level of those who perpetrated this act.

i'll be the first to stand for freedom of speech, but when that freedom impedes or possibly impedes on the human rights, safety, and lives of other people, it can't continue.

If these people want to continue their hate-filled idiocy, then can take it to a proper forum, like a white supremacist message board, or write it on a piece of paper and throw it in a toilet where I can defecate on it. Proliferation of messages like that on a civilized board can continue the downward spiral of violence and bring our society to the level of mere animals.

Maybe advocating the use of the "ignore" feature would be more to meanie's liking?
posted by themikeb at 2:05 PM on September 13, 2001

Crisis or not, offensive participants can be removed from private facilities. It's not to stifle free speech; it's because the particiants failed to follow the terms of agreement.

HOWEVER -- during times of crisis, we must realize that certain rights must be temporarily sacrificed. In both private and public arenas.

Inciting masses to commit crimes during times of war or crisis is against the law. And I support action taken against those that make comments exciting the public to harm our Muslims and Arab-Americans.
posted by jennak at 2:09 PM on September 13, 2001

Malice is sending out an autoemail to anyone that writes her to disagree. In part she says:

"3. Yes, I use the term "raghead", and I don't really give a flying fuck what you think about it. All frequent visitors to my site know I use racial slang of all sorts quite liberally, and that I find most people's totally hysterical overreaction to anything that is remotely racist totally amusing. And yes, we know that they were "ragheads", I'm not making it up based on an assumption...at least a few of them have been identified as having been from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Don't believe me? Watch the news."

Is there some sort of stupid virus going around that makes people think calling Arabs "ragheads" is just "remotely racist," and on top of that, that someone from Afghanistan is an Arab? Hysterical.

And themikeb, I'm trying to do the same thing. Freedom of speech doesn't include hate speech.
posted by tranquileye at 2:34 PM on September 13, 2001

Freedom of speech doesn't include hate speech

Who is going to be the High Moral Arbiter of this?

And when he decides that rock-and-roll music, television shows, homosexual references in books, and violence in movies are all too dangerous to be included as free speech, what basis do you have to disagree?

"That's different?"

Actions or directly inciting actions are different, yes. But speech has no exceptions. It must always be free.
posted by marknau at 2:41 PM on September 13, 2001

In addition to being a right, freedom is also a responsibility.
posted by iceberg273 at 2:43 PM on September 13, 2001

Who is going to be the High Moral Arbiter of this?

um, Yahoo? it says so. in the terms of agreement.

you agree not to use this service to:
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

and we actually have policies against hate speech and hate crimes in many places. is that "un-American"?

look, it's too easy to throw around the "un-American" accusations. the thing is, we all define "American" ideals differently. let's try to avoid McCarthy-era paranoia about "un-Americanness."
posted by mjane at 3:26 PM on September 13, 2001

so tranquileye, you're basically Mel Brooks, an equal opportunity offender. i'm ok with that. You just have to be sure you're not inciting people to acts of discrimination and qualify your autoresponder. If you want to take the time to do that, that's your prerogative.
posted by themikeb at 3:27 PM on September 13, 2001

Who is going to be the High Moral Arbiter of this?
um, Yahoo? it says so. in the terms of agreement.

Sorry, we seem to have crossed wires here.

I acknowledged that Yahoo, as a private forum, has the right to regulate use. However, I still have reservations about the impulse people have to quash the voices of people they disagree with.

tranquileye, if I read him right, was trying to say that we shouldn't feel any qualms whatsoever about shutting the hate-speechers down, because:
Freedom of speech doesn't include hate speech

And my reply was intended to point out the dangers of making exceptions based on our personal preferences.
posted by marknau at 3:59 PM on September 13, 2001