I admit that I've gotten some perverse pleasure out of the "democrat vs. democratic party" thread. I find it infinitely amusing that some take such OFFENSE to such a trivial characterization of their beloved party.

I think it raises a bigger issue. The subject of words, their impacts, and the justifiable reaction to those words. Two recent events in the (left leaning) hollywood entertainment world raise this issue as well.

1. Michael Richard's tirade against a couple of black hecklers to his comedy act that featured the repeated word of the "n" word. This has resulted in a media firestorm and demands that Richards compensate the hecklers with cash rewards.

2. A black TV actor, Isaiah Washington, referred to a cast member using a slur for a gay man. In spite of the fact that the use of this word, in a typical cast of actors would result in the response, "which one?", he has been the subject of a media storm demanding repeated public apologies, rehab, the virtual works.

Yet our country was founded on the principle of free speech. We preach tolerance but the entire concept of political correctness, and the sense that some "words", some "phrases" and some speech is just so inflammatory, so insulting, and so hurtful, and it should be censored.

But, they are just words, aren't they?

If directed at someone who does not understand the language they are delivered in, they are just sounds with no meanings.

They are not physical attacks. Being punched, kicked, stabbed, or shot results in tangible injury. How can words to that?

For debate:

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?

Ah, this touches on a subject near and dear to my heart.

I'm deeply in love with words and language in general. Likely because I am not particularly skilled at other forms of expression I find word-smithing to be an endless source of joy.

Words are the primary expression of complicated thoughts and feeling we heave and a species. They are key, critical, and indispensable.

Anything that important must also be incredibly powerful.

Every nation on Earth was built on words. The US perhaps especially.

I think its pretty funny to say that the nation was built on free speech only to try and imply words are not important.

Ideas and emotions are the fundamentals of humanity and words are the chief method of expressing them in the fashion that changes our fate from that of a hairless ape waiting to be turned into a meal into the indomitable group of know-it-alls were are.

So...
Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?
Nope. They are expressions of the most important aspects of the human life.
2. Can words really hurt someone? How?
Ask Adolf...

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?
Not at all. People are free to insult whom they will and those who feels insulted are free to object.

1. But the question is whether the *impact* of those words is overstated. If you call me a name, it has no impact unless I give it any power.

Jaime made a good point (that I disagreed with, but still thought it was a good point) on AD radio last night (before I got cut off!) that essentially said we've given the Jihadists "more cred" by sending in the entire US military instead of just dealing with them like street thugs.

If we react with horror to names, words, and take severe insult, act irrationally as a result, etc,. don't we give those words AND the insulters more than they deserve?

If we simply ignore those words, laugh them off, let them roll off our back, etc., don't we essentially DEFUSE the impact of those words?

2. First of "Adolf" is dead so I can't ask him. Second, his "words" didn't hurt anyone. His military and his concentrations camps sure did. Hitler referring to Jews as subhumans didn't "hurt" them.... being put in gas chambers and ovens certainly did.

3. I'm glad you agree with free speech. I'm with you there.

You did NOT just write this... good grief LH you make ME look tactful.

It's part of the debate. Do words.... do MY words hurt you or anyone else?

Tact, politeness, etc, are all important qualities to civilization. Of course I recognize this. Daily. My professional life depends on these concepts to a level I really can't go into in a place like A-D.

But my question is deeper. Do words REALLY hurt people?

Or, does the reaction to them give them the power that they are not due?

Look at it this way....

If I give you a Christmas present, and you say, "Thanks, LH, but I really don't want to accept anything from you".

Who does the present belong to? Me? You?

If I call you the most vile name imaginable and you REFUSE to accept it... who does it belong to?

Your analogy-foo is odd again. I suspect I'll get you soon though.

OK I'll play.

Words cannot cause you physical harm or physical distress. Words could possibly cause you some emotional distress which if you believe in psychosomatic injury could... I don't.

So. No. Words cannot "hurt" you.

I want my present now.

1. Some people can be, yes. Invariable, we are most sensitive to words when they hurt our feelings, and most likely to say that it's all just fair comment, nobody got hurt, and the people complaining are just whining and should grow up, get a life, etc. The best response is to do as you advise, and learn to ignore it or, better (IMO), laugh at it. Rude behaviour usually goes hand in hand with some degree of stupidity, and stupid behaviour really is funny.

2. No physical harm, but feelings can (and do) get hurt. It's possibly to harass and bully someone without lifting a finger, and doing so can cause lasting psychological harm to the target. (Anyone that disagrees either led a charmed life, has an enormously thick skin, or was doing the bullying.)

3. They don't. The appropriate response to insulting language is to remember that it's usually either applied through ignorance, or malice, or both. Whatever the cause, being accidentally or deliberately rude is more a sign of a character flaw in the people doing it and the people laughing at it than the people on the receiving end of it.

For debate:

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?


There are some variables involved in this. Verbal abuse can become emotional abuse. Age is one variable, another the nature of the abused to the abuser.

There is much information on this subject. Here is a short article from OhioNewsNow.

http://www.ohionewsnow.com/?sec=straightta.../455142327.html

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?

Words are one thing, acting on them is another. The French Revolution's massacres are frequently attributed to graphically violent newspaper columnists calling for blood. The Rwanda genocide is similarly blamed on talk radio calling people cockroaches. Sure, the words were horrific: but without a populace willing to actually carry out the atrocities, they would have only been so much hot air. Still, history proves people are swayed to action by words, so a certain level of responsibility should be observed.

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

Words can hurt people's feelings. Slander and libel can destroy careers, ruin reputations, and cast people out of society. Perjury can lead to false imprisonment, restriction of rights, even death. Frequent angry words from a parent can destroy a childhood. Lies, when believed by a government, have often led to war. Misunderstanding words can destroy a friendship. Breaking one's word can destroy a marriage. Misprinting words (or numbers) can hobble the Hubble. Billions of dollars are made and lost every day based on belief in the accuracy of words; whether true or not, the damage is frequently irreversible. Saying words others find offensive can result in harm to the speaker. Yes, some words are helpful, others are hurtful.

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?

The Isaiah Washington episode is the one I find most telling. I listen to several short news podcasts of from the major media outlets, and they all reported an actor had gotten himself into serious trouble by saying the "f-word" at an award ceremony. Naturally, I was reminded of various similar episodes of the f-bomb being dropped at music awards and sporting events in the past. Strangely, though, it seemed the Hollywood left was up in arms this time, and no one was interviewing the religious right. I was shocked. If you can count on any group to support the f-bomb, it's the Hollywood left; their industry is built on it. Had the lefties finally come around to seeing that Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction was a bad idea? Nope. My bad. Mr. Washington had uttered the other f-word. Ohh. Light bulb.

The Hollywood left still decries "censorship" when one f-word is banned from public airwaves, yet the very same people are eager to ruin a man's career and force him into rehab for uttering another f-word. They seem to want it both ways. The Hollywood left wants the rules to be set up so that they can offend anyone they want to offend, but as soon as someone utters something offensive to the Hollywood left, off with their heads, so to speak. C'mon! Be consistent!

I do believe some words are more offensive than others; I just happen to find both f-words about equally offensive. One f-word is more highly offensive to people who support traditional family values, the other is more highly offensive to people who don't. Overall, they both seem to elicit a similar level of offense.

We should be careful how strongly we support offensive speech for ourselves if we are willing to deny it to others. Whenever we defend the right to offend half the country with one f-word, we are also defending the right to offend the other half of the country with the other f-word; otherwise, we want an irrational, unfair double standard.

I try to avoid reading/hearing both f-words whenever I can avoid them. I believe they both reflect poorly on the people who say them. If other adults want to go to movies or hang out with people whose vocabulary is dominated by one f-word or another, then that's their business. I'll avoid both groups.

Is a certain amount of government control of speech a good thing? I don't want to live in a neighborhood where all the billboards scream "Massacre all the liberals! Knife them in their sleep!" with a gory photo. If we agree messages like that are inciteful and should be taken down, then we admit that some kind of standards for unavoidable public speech are necessary to maintain order.

Injury is one of the classic tests. Is a form of public expression causing or inciting injury (tangible harm)? If so, then a case can be made against it by someone-- maybe not a strong case, but one that might find traction in the courts.

Injury to younger children is usually the rule that relegates some forms of "otherwise harmless" expression to access-controlled areas. Harsh forms of expression, when demonstrated or believed to be harmful to child development, are usually restricted to venues where parents can exert control, if they so choose. I believe both f-words fall into that category, along with various s-words, n-words, d-words, and others. If adults want to say them to other adults out of earshot of anyone else's kids, that's their business, and they should be aware that not every adult is willing to just ignore words they find offensive.

Our words often have consequences, whether or not we believe they should.

Isaiah Washington's use of one f-word may get him fired. I've worked in Fortune 500 companies where use of the more common f-word on the job was a firing offense. I've witnessed several good workers in those companies fired for inadvertently dropping an f-bomb in front of clients. There were no children anywhere near, just the corporate mandate for professionalism.

But not all words that offend people are on the same level as f-words or direct calls to violence. Some people are easily offended by any number of completely harmless terms or common political viewpoints; so we are faced with a decision. Do we walk on eggshells around them while they work out their issues, or do we help them overcome their issues by showing them how harmless the words are? If we think they are doing something offensive to us, is it okay to say something they might find offensive in order to make them see the error in their ways? Do we write them off as a lost cause and continue confronting them with terms they find offensive in order to accurately express our own viewpoints and perhaps sway lurkers? Different people will approach this differently in different situations.

For example, AmericasDebateRadio warns of possible offensiveness and advises "easily offended" people not to listen. On the AmericasDebate Web site, however, patently offensive language is not allowed. The limitations of the two different media may dictate much of the discrepancy, I cannot say.

Although some Web forums seem dominated by those who delight in flaming cut-down wars, I have been under the impression that the moderators of our debates expect-- even demand-- a higher level of discourse from us. I get the impression that AmericasDebate wants us to express ourselves honestly and clearly, but not with the intent of offending others-- just disagreeing with their ideas while supporting our own.

Are my intent and means constructive or destructive? If I understand the goals of this board, I am required to be constructive and to avoid being destructive. As Bill O'Reilly likes to say, "correct me if I'm wrong."

Edited to add:
Yes, quite often, I believe so. When we let certain "relatively harmless" phrases hurt us, we give our opponents some degree of power over us that shines through in our defensive reactions to them. The best answer is often to refuse to be offended by words, but address the ideas that underlie the words. It's not such an easy thing to do. Plenty of things get my Irish up when I'm not careful, but I have to try to behave myself anyway.

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?

Depends on who's doing the talking, or in this place, the writing. Some things my father told me in anger still stick like poison darts. Other things my mother said offhand were hurtful, although now I know it was just the way she was. I care about what my sigoth Lydia says. She's usually very kind. We had our periods of cruelty to one another. It ain't worth it.

Other than that, I've got a pretty thick skin. It's hard to insult someone like me, after experiencing so many things and having attained levels that most people never attempt. It's gotta be a function of age. In my younger years I was angry all the time.

Others are more sensitive. A mark of maturity is being able to make people feel comfortable, and in the case of debate where attempts are made at changing minds, it's probably better to be nice about it than confrontational.

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

You really can worry yourself sick. For example, if your employer continually tells you that your job is constantly at risk if you make one little misstep against unwritten rules, I think that would cause some physical distress. Yes, I am sure of it. And if making the bills each month becomes an exercise in trying not to go homeless, uh-huh. There are physical dues being paid.

I suppose some people are better at handling stress than others, and that some are better in particular environments than others. I've been seriously lost in nature several times in my life, but it never bothered me. I'd just as soon die in nature as anywhere else. What has been hard for me to handle has been living in the bad parts of cities and towns during my minimum wage years, sharing places with drug junkies and other lowlifes. Sometimes a nightmare comes back to haunt, but not in recent years.

But those are situations, not words. But wait, word use is also a situation. Huh, well, some probably handle it better than others. Maybe not giving a flying hoot (there's a more common word that's against the curse-o-meter) about the word attacker helps.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?

You're free to say any damn fool thing within the rules of AD, such as Republicans are moral people. Oh, did that sting? Eh well, get over it. These crooks are losing power faster than you can say be-bop-a-ree-bop rhubarb pie, not that I want to hurt anyone or anything like that

Mistake number one, a common error.

This reasoning basically assumes the words are in private. In public, you don't have to take the name seriously so long as someone does.

In the public arena someone is bound to.


No, we respond in an entirely practical manner because these words are the expressions of ideas.

If someone walks into an airport yelling "down with America, The Great Satan!"

I bet you people get a little horrified, despite the fact that these are "just words."

Likewise use of the n-word often signals a racism against blacks, this racism as an ideal causes real harm as is as frightening as any Al-Qaeda creed.


This is like saying guns don't hurt people, bullets do.

Words can be used as tools to cause harm, maybe not directly...

...but then again I don't think many victims of the Holocaust would see the distinction.

In extreme cases, obviously words can hurt people.

Somebody above mentioned the Rwandan radio stations encouraging the massacre. Encouragement isn't actual harm, is it? Well, thats a grey area. But the Rwandan radio stations were not just encouraging the massacre, they were actively directing it: telling people where to go, where people had been reported hiding, where more militia were needed. They directly led to the deaths of tens of thousands.
(I recommend the excellent book "The Media and the Rwandan Genocide, by Allan Thompson)

I suppose somebody in love with semantics could claim that the words did not ACTUALLY kill, the machete blades did, but that would be akin to arguing that my pushing somebody off a building didn't kill them: the ground is guilty of murder.

Inciting panic which can lead to death or injury; inciting a riot with intent leading to death or injury; degrading, diminishing and verbally abusing a child to the point of critical self-esteem loss and self-harm or eating or other disorders: all these are examples of words actually hurting.


The power of a word is not assigned by the person targeted by the epithet, it is assigned by the person uttering it as well as any who hear it. By somebody's words you can often read intent and motive, and if the motive was to cause pain, then it is not the 'fault' of the person being yelled at.


Lastly, regarding 'Adolph' and the final solution: had Hitler put into place a plan of genocide in 1934, it would have been summarily rejected by the German people. Anti-Semitism was rife in Europe to be sure, but not genocidal anti-Semitism. That was only possible because of a decade of words: propaganda, "education" dehumanisation, lies and demonisation: all words which led to a situation in which the holocaust was possible.


Freedom of speech in the United States addresses these concerns and has fairly clear guidelines of what is and is not allowed: words causing direct harm are not. I frankly don't see what the point of the thread is.

Lastly, I have in my internet travels discovered some people who feel that 'freedom of speech' combined with the convenient anonymity of the internet, allows them to be cruel, tactless, insulting, hateful and inciting. All these are technically protected by freedom of speech and are thus legal. They are not however, protected by the acceptable norms of modern society. Freedom of speech is not a licence to be a jerk.

Apparently, we're witnessing a New Year's Resolution by the originator of this thread.

Well, that's all well and good. In the past lordhelmet has reacted with horror to names and words and taken severe insult when he was called a racist.

I remember the exchange in that debate that set him off quite well.












It would be nice to think words don't matter, but they do. It's my job to know this. I'm very careful about hanging a word like "racist," "gay," "drunkard," "addict" or "pedophile" on someone because words matter. Yes, the word itself has no sharp edges and cannot be used to bludgeon you to death, but that doesn't mean it does not have any POWER.

Negative words brand people negatively. It might not matter too much if I said, "John Smith is gay." It might matter quite a bit if I said "Father John Smith is gay." It might not raise an eyebrow to say, "Mary Jones drinks a bottle of vodka every night." It matters a bit more to say, "Mary Jones, the school bus driver, drinks a bottle of vodka every night."

By my estimate I've been called a racist at least a dozen times by various posters on this board. Because I know in my heart that I'm not, I don't embrace or accept the label. Just as lordhelmet rejected being called a racist by me. In his own mind, he does not think of himself as a racist and will not accept being called one.

It would be nice if words didn't hurt, or bruise our egos, or stigmatize. But they do and to deny that is to be incredibly naive. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbles knew that if you simply tell people, "Go kill Jews" only the most rabid and stupid will obey. What they did was to use words to make Jews somehow less than human and thereby okay to get rid of them. The same tactic was used in Rwanda and the same tactic is used by Jihadists who say it's good to kill Americans because we're all greedy, fat, godless degenerates who offend God.

Call your child stupid, fat and lazy every waking day of their life and don't be surprised if they turn out to be stupid, fat and lazy adults. Call your child, smart, attractive and hard-working and they just may turn out to be all of those things. Would you prefer the love of your life to greet you with a smile and a term of endearment or sneer and call you a foul name?

Words count. Words matter. The wrong ones just as much as the right ones.

I agree with this sentiment 100%. Something to note is that it's somewhat bittersweet coming post the snide remarks made about LH, discounting his points and calling him names rather than debating his ideas.

I believe that words should be chosen as wisely as plausible given the circumstance. It is by these words that we're often judged in reference to intelligence and character. While at times it is necessary to make remarks that are controversial and inflammatory, posts like these really don't bode well for your points:


The fact is that because you often don't agree, and that's ok. The issue is that you make assumptions about "being stuffed in a locker"? How about maybe trying to understand the point? Maybe he's been passed over for jobs due to quotas? Maybe he has to pay back student loans because all the grant money at his school went to minorities? Maybe there are at least somewhat legitimate reasons that he feels that way. For instance, I'm not the guy that was ever stuffed in any locker, haven't lacked in success, and really don't even have any resentment for anyone on a personal level... but I do often disagree with some of your racially centered ideals. I'm not a little man physically, surely not financially, and no one I know would characterize me as an "angry white man". However- strangely I'd venture to state that those are exactly the words you might use to brand me if I made similar posts to LH.

Lambasting his ideas with snide "words" surely doesn't make you more articulate or elicit constructive debate. This is generally why I don't post often anymore. I often vehemently disagree with your sentiments, but believe that incensed verbiage rarely changes hearts and minds.

Maybe in summation, I think that often while we don't agree, slowly we learn to understand the feelings of people diametrically opposing our views. It's easy to use stirring language to rile our opponents, as many of us have been guilty of such. It surely takes an intelligent and well thought post to debate considerately.

I want you to say rude things to a lion. Your mane is dirty. I think I see plaque. I hear you wife does all the hunting... whatever. Do this for 5 minutes. A month. A Decade. I assure your word will NOT hurt the lion at all. Telling people to riot doesn't make them riot. They do. They decide to riot. They may take your words and formulate in their head that it is, in fact, time to riot but your words riot are powerless to a person who will not riot. Words cannot hurt.

Actually Freedom of Speech is a license to be a jerk. You just need to be aware your actions may get you reactions. Sometimes those reactions are tickets, jail, a bop on the nose or a jealous boyfriend chopping you up and feeding you to his dogs.

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?

What do you mean by "we", LH?

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

Well, you have implied that people like me who constantly criticize President Bush and his insane policies are somehow responsible for the deaths of servicemen in Iraq, and that these criticisms are somehow tantamount to treason...Were you just kidding? (I disagree with you, incidentally.)

And the whole "swift boat" episode during John Kerry's campaign, surely that attack on Kerry's integrity didn't create any lasting effect, did it? Except that now television journalists routinely refer to political campaign smear tactics as "swift boating". No, there was no fallout from words there...

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?

It seems to me that a lot of objections about what someone says have to do with the intentions behind the words. When it becomes clear that words are meant to slight, demean, cast aspersions on, or vilify a person or group in a light that is meant to harm that person's or group's reputation, offense will be taken, period.

Freedom of speech also includes the right for someone to express objections to someone's jaundiced characterization of him/her. So while I'm not going to try to sue you or others for using the term "Democrat Party" for what is widely known to be the Democratic Party, I am damn well going to use space on this forum to state what I think of your characterization and the inferences I draw from your using it.

At least I've never implied that you're a traitor the way you have implied it concerning people who share my point of view.

Well... yes... I suppose... So?

You could make the same comment with regards to me insulting a person who does not speak my language. Your point being they do not understand me, thus they are not insulted or hurt. Ok, fine. But that colourful metaphor does not alter the fact that someone who does understand me, CAN be insulted or hurt.

Its like telling me that shooting someone with a wall in the way doesn't hurt the target, therefore bullets can't hurt people. Well no, they can't... if something prevents the bullet from reaching its target.




This argument has already been examined, addresses and ignored by the law of every modern state on the planet. Thats why there is a crime for conspiracy to commit murder: even if you didn't actually do the hurting, you were an active agent in the crime whose actions, verbal or physical, had a measurable effect upon and facilitated the outcome.

Words CAN cause riots. Yes, the people rioting may be the ones holding the bricks and rebars and causing the damage, but see my last post for the 'person pushing vs. hitting the ground' argument. technically, pushing somebody off a cliff causes them NO damage whatsoever. technically. However the law does not see it that way. Or, perhaps a better example (as gravity is universal) pushing somebody into traffic. It is the actions, choices and decisions of the drivers that decide life or death there, but the pusher is still responsible for the crime of killing the pushee.

Yelling fire in a movie theatre is a trite and overused example, but it is a good one: it is illegal bacuse it can cause panic and thus cause harm: and the words are DIRECTLY responsible for the harm caused.

As I said, in extreme cases, words can harm.


Oh, and to return to your unusual example: Go stand in front of a sleeping, hungry Lion in the African savannah. NOW yell all your insults. I bet he wakes up and kills you, comprehension or no. Seems words did some significant harm there.

Why is there any special burden upon me to "understand the point" of you, lordhelmet or anyone else on ? Maybe LH was passed over for jobs due to quotas? Maybe he has to pay back a student loan because all the grant money at his school went to minorities? Maybe if his aunt had a sex change she'd be his uncle. What's your point? That gives someone an excuse to make racially charged and callous remarks? Cry me a river.

I don't care as much as you seem to about the injustices and unfairness in life we ALL have to deal with. I care more about how someone reacts to the hard knocks in life. You can sit there in a puddle of tears having a pity party for yourself if that's what works for you. Everybody else has to pick themselves up, set their sights on the goal they want to achieve, and if there isn't a way, you have to MAKE one.

Have you ever bothered to consider Aevans176 that maybe White guys get passed over for a job because the Black guy or the Latino guy or the Asian woman has better qualifications, a better work history or is just a better candidate for the job? Naaaah. That just couldn't be. If just HAS to be that the White guy got screwed over because he's White.



If isn't always about changing hearts and minds. Some hearts and minds aren't susceptible to being changed. Debates don't always change minds. Often all they do is enable us to air our differences in a public way.

Regarding the issue of why you don't post often anymore, a board like this is a bit like throwing a party. Some people improve a party when they show up. Others when they leave.

Which one are you, Aevans? Don't trip about these being "snide" remarks. They're only words, right?

For debate:

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?


I should probably review the rules, or report this thread. I promised mtself that's what I would do the next time that I felt the need to defend my shoes... However, I feel the urge to respond to your challenge by pointing out that I turn to America's Debate to learn things, share opinions, and try to persuade others that I really do believe that this President is leading the nation on a path that it should not be going on.

While you are finding "perverse pleasure" by opening multiple threads to insult non-Republicans, people do take OFFENSE when their party, or its leaders are referred to in a derogatory fashion. I used to find it amusing that the Republican Party was running a candidate for President named "W" because it was too difficult for them to spell his first name. I started to refer to him in print, as "Dumbya," and I was emphatically told just how offensive it was to the Republicans on this board. This is the first time that I have used that term since, as I have been trying to be sensitive to the needs of Republicans to find simple terms such as GWB or W to refer to their President. After all, there has been more than one President named George, and more than one President Bush; so there is a need to avoid confusion when referring to "43."

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

I have been called all sorts of names all of my life. (edited out)

In Michigan, a "cussing canoeist" was arrested for using obscene language. He spent a few years defending that right in court. I am certain the financial damages of paying attorney's fees by the year added up.

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?

Edited to remove personal attack

This rant has not been spell checked....

1. Are we too hypersensitive over words and their impact?

Well, obviously some people are so sensitive to words that you have to tiptoe around them all the time. Other people are pretty thick-skinned. It varies too much from person to person for me to answer this question with a simple yes or no.

2. Can words really hurt someone? How?

Sure. One must not discount the power of emotional harm. There are very few people, if any, who are so emotionally dead that nothing said to them will cause any emotional suffering. For example, if someone has been in love with someone for a long time, and thought that person loved her, the words "I have always despised you" are likely to cause great emotional harm.

3. How do these recent episodes, and debates like democrat(ic) affect the practical implementation of "freedom of speech"?

Not much. I personally think the "Democrat Party" thing is silly, much like the "freedom fries" thing. It just makes the person using the phrase look foolish. (It's interesting to note that you can hurt yourself with words.) This certainly does not mean that anyone should be restricted from making any statements which are otherwise legal. (This would not include such things as blatantly untrue statements covered by libel laws, statements which are clearly threats of direct harm to someone, and so on. For the record, I do not support laws against "hate speech." I am only talking about things like walking right up to somebody and screaming "I'm going to kill you.")

The other side of the double-edged sword of free speech is that you have the right to condemn what I say as strongly as you like. It is your right to tell me that what I say is stupid or evil. This doesn't mean that you were "too sensitive" to what I said.

Yes, words do hurt.

We only have to think about all the times we have all wished we could take something back, yes?

I'm glad that my topic has generated such passionate debate. If I were the president, I would put up a banner above the topic that said "mission accomplished".

And, I've not yet weighed in on my own topic. I asked several questions that may have implied my stance, but didn't clearly define it. But those who are pathologically inclined to attack me, to list my perceived failings and shortcomings, and to psycho-analyze me didn't notice.

As such, I've continued to enjoy this thread.

Words can clearly hurt. Why? Because they have meaning.

But, on the other hand, those who are hurt by words are hurt because they "allow" themselves to be injured.

For example, if my wife (or someone else I love and respect) takes a verbal pot shot at me, it will likely have impact. Why? Because I respect the opinion of that person and would consider their words to have important meaning.

But would I take offense and feel injury as a result of the hate-filled words posted by some left wing ninnies in this thread? Hardly. Why? Because I choose to ignore their words, their intent, and the meaning of those words. It's my choice, not theirs.

And I think that's a healthier way to live.

People, in general, care too much about what strangers think of them and possibly not enough about those closest to them tell them.

But that's just my opinion. You are all free to accept it or not.

Hello Lord Helmut.

I do beg your pardon if you feel I was somehow attacking you, that was absolutely not the case at all.

My post was just thinking aloud if I am honest and was not referring to anything in particular, just a general observation.

I do agree with you that words spoken by those close to us have the most impact but, I also feel that words can have a detrimental effect on the lives of others, mud has a way of sticking, even if the words spoken may be wholly inaccurate, misconstrued or even deliberately untrue.

I'm sure that there are people who blame being passed over for jobs, grants, or scholarships on minority/Affirmative Action policy when in fact it has nothing to do with that. However, when you know for 100% sure that an EEOC guideline or quota based policy stopped you from being chosen, i.e. myself and scholarships in college and at least one job, you have a different perspective. Legal or not, I had a guy at a MAJOR Dallas based Telecom company take me to happy hour in the summer of '03 to tell me that their department could not hire another white man, as the HR people had directed them to diversify. Ironically, he's one of my largest clients now, but none the less... it was a great opportunity. A black woman in her late 40's took the job who had no telecom experience. Consequently, I like the lady, but none the less it's the truth.

However, you make good point for this board discussing "sticks and stones". Words can matter, particularly when used to intentionally incite emotion.


I guess now I understand your stance. Maybe you're NOT interested in other people's views. Maybe this is practice for the time when you go to the street corner and preach to people walking by. Maybe this is an affirmation of your views, all be them cynical in my eyes.

The fact of the matter is that when it comes to debate, you might consider that the point IS to have a point. On these boards, you make a practice of intentionally not having factual information, but moreover ideas that came from the depths of your apathy. (See how words can incite emotion?)

I believe that the most interesting and idea changing debates on AD come from those who have points based in fact, experience, and understanding. QH might be a good example.

That in no way counters the point both I and Vermillion have made about the public arena, where much of the "Democrat" party talk takes place.

There it is not a matter of your choice whether words do harm.

...and of course "fire is a crowded theater" is another classic example.

It's not as easy as simply wishing the problem away, words are powerful no matter how deep we shove our heads into the sand.

How magnanimous of you.

It's interesting how some one who claims there are those who are "pathologically inclined to attack me" and "psycho-analyze me" is so self-unaware they don't recognize they are engaging in amateur (or just amateurish) psychology. Tsk. Tsk. Some people seem to thing it's all about them and they are the center of the universe with everyone else merely the moons orbiting them.

Ego-trip much, lord helmet?

And as so far as "the hate-filled words posted by some left-wing ninnies" goes, all one has to do is consider the source of these remarks. Someone who regularly questions the patriotism, intelligence, morality, values and courage of others on a continuous basis while displaying an egocentric, self-absorbed and narcissistic streak miles long and inches deep.

Being called "left-wing ninnies" by someone who is either unwilling or incapable by a poster who falls back on juvenile name-calling to avoid actually debating concepts, proposals, and opinions counter to his own isn't even remotely worth taking seriously. There's no debating someone who only respects his and does not, will not and can not entertain any other perspective outside of his own narrow and myopic perspective.



Wow, that's tough for your drinking buddy, but as you report that he is part of "a MAJOR Dallas-based Telecom company" so apparently he has landed on his feet. Public policy and racial redress cannot be based upon anecdotal sob stories about one White guy who got passed on for a job. You're only giving me the perspective of the White man who couldn't hire a unnamed, generic White man to fill a job. If you like the Black woman in her late 40's so much, why don't you ask HER what she thinks about how she got the gig? Maybe she wasn't ruled out of the job due to a lack of experience, but ruled in because of a wealth of potential.

Of course, considering that perspective might force you to readjust your perceptions on Affirmative Action, Aevans176 and that might compromise your preconceived inclination to resent it. Of course you could go the extra mile and try to understand how it may have been beneficial to both the Black woman AND the major Telecom company to diversify their workforce rather than hire another White guy. I doubt you are willing to go that mile.



Not true. I'm very interested in other people's views. You have provided some fascinating insights in how the mind of White conservative works. I learn more from people I disagree with than from those who echo my own beliefs. But entertaining your opinion doesn't mean I have to change mine.



Most certainly. Right now I'm vacillating between the emotions of laughing at your silly remarks, being bored and simply dismissing them as immaterial, inapplicable, insignificant, and irrelevant.

Like I said, "pathologically inclined" to attack me. Why? Because I don't share your views. But, it's ok. You can call me anything that you want. It simply has no impact because I choose to not let it impact me. I'm sure such hate-filled attacks on me fulfil some sort of "need" in you. Perhaps your insecurities are lessened when you put me down? Who knows? Who cares? Have at it. It's water off my back.

The real question, however, is what does this have to do with the thin skin of the democratics and their hypersensitivity at being called the "democrat" party?

As slights go, it's marginal to non-existent. In fact, one poster has showed the "democrat party" is grammatically correct.

But, thin skinned people take offense easily and then are prone to over-react with hate-filled personal attacks.

Perhaps that trait explains a lot more than the "democrat party" topic?

I think a quick look at some of your own posts in the last 48 hours gives us a shining example of exactly who it is who is pathalogically inclined to verbally attack anyone who disagrees with them:



Before you accuse others of verbally attacking anyone they disagree with, perhaps you should take a moment and consider the fragility of your glass house.


However, the purpose of this thread is not to debate debators, and frankly that is an excellent way to get any conversation derailed.

So returning to the topic, the premise that the 'democrats' are thin skinned is simply an assertion based on nothing. Yes, some of them get irritated when the name of their party is deliberately mispronounced. Just as I am sure republicans, or centrists or anyone else on the planet would get annoyed if their name were debliberately mispronounced with the intent of causing slight or mockery.

What is the point? being a member of one part or another does not make one immune to insult, nor does it make one less prone to insult. In the Democrat / Republican divide in the US both sides frequently hurl barbs and insults, and both sides frequently envoke moral outrage at the names they are called.

Name calling can hurt, insulting can annoy and irritate, and frankly the only people I ever see claiming that insults have no meaning are people trying to justify their own constant use of insults. Politeness is not a modern concept, nor an American concept, nor a concept isolated to any particular political party. Yet so many people seem to fieel that, protected by the convenient shroud of anonymity the internet provides, the regular conventioned of politeness and civility are shackles to be escaped, and the web allows them to do it.

No, we couldn't care less. After all, republicans are USED to being attacked by leftists who, due to their thin skin, are prone to lash out irrationally at the slightest provocation. We support a "chimp", a "war criminal", we're evil, cowards, nazis, destroyers of the middle class, haters of the poor, etc. We're racists, homophobes, sexists, and all around disgusting pigs.

And while you turn red calling us names..... we just laugh and move on with our lives and the things that are actually important.



Well, I disagree with your characterization of my posts as insulting. You are, as usual, off the mark.

I use language to communicate my ideas. Sometimes I think that satire is the best method of communicating a point. Sometimes hyperbole. Other times, plain spoken language. That's my personality.... at least my A-D personality.

To the points you tried to make (but failed to).....

Show to me that the democrat's non-binding resolution is NOT blatant cowardice. Weren't they elected to pass BINDING legislation???

Show me that the global warming cabal isn't acting like neo-McCarthyites who black-list all skeptics who don't buy into their radical vision.

And show me how the left's vision of an ideal state (in the form of the USSR, Cuba, and N. Korea) represents "progress" for human beings in any way, shape, or form.

Firstly, I could easily provide plenty of examples from you on this board both of you NOT laughing and turning away, but getting clearly and obviously angry, expressed in insults. But as I said, debating about debators is an irrelevancy, frankly I'm pretty sure your reputation stands for itself.

Secondly I could easily provide vast MASSES of examples of republicans who do not just laugh and move on, but get plenty fired up and answer with insutls and vitriol of their own. No side has a 'leg up' in the constant war of insults that goes on ad nausium between the democrats and the republicans in the US. Both engage in it, both respond in kind on a daily basis, and to pretend retroactively that one side is somehow above it is farcical.



Of course you do. That however, does not make you right. Obviously your comments are insulting. How is labelling an entire half of the population of the United States as 'Cowards', 'Traitors', 'terrorists', 'ignorant', fools' and other such terms you specifically have used NOT insulting? Do you really pretend those are not insults?



Read my last paragraph of my last post. Interesting how people's online personalities change from their real-life ones once they are sheltered by the convenient mask of web-anonymity...




OK, how about: The Senate has NO POWER to bind the President on military ecalation in a state of war? They quite simply do not have the constitutional power to pass a binding resolution banning the troops escalation.



Being done on another thread, no need to bring it in here.



Simple, plain-faced absurdity. "When was the last time you beat your wife?"
Asserting the left wants the US to be a Soviet state is beyond sanity, then asking someone to defend the illogical and unfounded position you just invented off the top of your head is just bad rhetoric.


Frankly, if your intent here it to debate other issues already under debate in other threads, or to attempt to justify how you are 'never' insulting, then both of these are of topic and irrelevant.

Tsk. Tsk. More amateur psychology from someone not remotely qualified to engage in it? Aren't you just a little afraid of being accused of practicing without a license---or knowledge?

I am glad you have been able to recover so nicely from the emotional trauma you seemingly suffered when I called you out as a racist last year. You seem to be progressing nicely from that event. Getting in touch with your feelings and all that...

This "sticks and stones" approach is new for you in 2007. Usually when you take offense to someone daring to hold a different position than your own or criticizing Dubya you rail back about them being full of "hate." This "neener-neener-neener" approach is possibly a tad adolescent, but equally effective in glorifying your own views and ignoring those of those that differ with you.

Whatever gets you through the night.

My reputation does stand for itself. No question. My impact on this forum is beyond debate.

And have I ever felt anger in A-D. You bet your democrat party symbol!!! In fact, there are several things that are guaranteed to get my blood boiling these days! First on that list are so-called American citizens who have decided to turn their backs on our troops and our country when we are at war!

But, that's another topic beyond this one.

But being called a member of the democrat party? Is that one should incite a person?

My point is that we CHOOSE to ignore words, or to react to them. Words, in and of themselves, have no power. We GIVE them the power.

But, on another note, I have a personal question for you, Vermillion. Aren't you a Canadian citizen? Why do you take such an intense interest in US politics? Are you a member of a similar board that debates Canadian politics? I'm just wondering.

Now back to the impact of words.....



These are exactly the type of words that I will choose to ignore. They are obviously offered from a position of weakness, not strength.

Yeah, kinda thought you might "choose to ignore" types of words that might (God forbid!) force you to defend and debate your positions.

Then again, that is sort of typical of your "A-D posting style." Attack the poster's political allegiance and not their political views. Throw rocks at the patriotism of others and their commitment to the freedom and security to this nation even if the most lethal weapon you've ever wielded in the defense of America is a keyboard and then scurry off in retreat when called out for your own partisan biases, petty hatreds and puerile gripes.

From Darth Vader to General Patton--you're not exactly following in their footsteps, now are you, lordhelmet?

Sticks and stones, y'all.

Yes, your reputation certainly does stand for itself. I'm glad we agree.

Oh, and I certainly never questioned your 'impact' on this board. There at least you are quite correct, you certainly have an enormous impact on AD. That was not the point however.




Yes, I notice that has been your new slogan of late. Convenient for you I suppose, as whenever anyone takes umbrage at you calling them a 'Coward' or 'traitor', or 'ignorant', or 'terrorist', or any of your usual comments, you can blame THEM for GIVING meanijg to the words, its certainly not your fault for uttering them... right?

Even you cannot deny these terms are open and obvious insults, nor that the intent behind them is to insult and belittle. One wonders how you keep getting away with it...



Yes Lordhelmet, I am a Canadian citizen, as you well know. You have in fact used it as an argument in past debates, calling me out on not being American whenever your asserted position on an issue becomes untenable.

As to why I take interest in American politics, suffice to say that I do, and always have. Do i need to justify that to you for some reason?


Trying (again) to return to the topic:

Obviously words hurt, and obviously hurting words are used by Republicans and democrats alike, far too frequently. They are used as attack, retort, as both point and counterpoint, interspersed with ocasional invented rightious indignation that the 'other side' could make such comments, while making the exact same comments themselves out of the other side of their mouths. Right Lordhelmet? It is universal, frequent, and prevalent on both sides of the aisle, and for that matter among third party and independent candidates. The proof of it is smeared across our TV screens, newspapers and radios on a daily basis, unending and deteriorating.

To pretend that in this day and age one side is any more guilty of this than another is to fly in the face of reason and reality.

1. We are. There are many people who over react day after day. At home I can say something that greatly upsets my fiancee without any intention to do so... and when it is examined afterwards there is a very real realisation that it was just a hypersensitive reaction

2. However it still hurt. Those moments are still the ones you brood about in the long dark teatimes of the soul, those quiet moments when one looks upon oneself. At those times it is the words not the actions you recall. And that is only on a personal level.

"The Pen is mightier than the sword" That's a well known phrase. And it's well known for a reason. The concepts of slander and libel exist as well for the same reason - Words can cause physical harm as well as emotional, social or financial harm. And that is even before we get to "hate" crimes and "inciting hatred"...

Yeah they can cause harm, without even refering to mass movements inspired and led by certain people, like Hitler.

3. They don't effect freedom of speech, it merely shows that a little common sense and a sense of reponsibility go a long way in respect of the use of freedom of speech....

Now that's funny!

Yep, no question about the old rep. It has loads of rant cred and tons of lib baiting. The illogic is impenetrable beyond anything resembling debate. With an army of straw men, the mighty LH takes on the minions of Wow, hero of the Great Right Hope who dares with the courage of misconception to, and here the music of Wagner swells to crescendo, misspell the proper name of a political party

We all bow to thy shining barber's basin. With his distrustful sidekicked Sancho, it's onward to the windmills!

New slogan? Well, I DID start this topic and you DID respond. I think that the topic has been interesting for many. And do you deny that people give words meaning and that without people empowering them, they have NO power? Do you agree or disagree with my assertion?

And, if you can provide examples of me referring to specific individuals in the way that you have (mis)represented, you're free to take up your complaints with A-D.

I have indeed used the word "coward" lately. It was directed at congressional democrats (in the USA) who are fair game indeed under both A-D rules and our 1st amendment. Why? Because their failure to pass anti-Iraq war legislation and instead try to put forth a NON BINDING resolution, in other words, nothing more than pontification and posturing, is downright cowardly.

Traitor? I never called anyone specific on this board a "traitor". On the other hand, those who actively support our enemies during wartime, declare we cannot win this war, won't win, and should LOSE are hardly "patriots". As I've aptly pointed out in another thread, when the flag is raised and a war starts, the time for debate is OVER. You're either for us or against us.

Terrorist? Well, the people I've called terrorists are..... terrorists. Do you take exception with me calling those who detonate IED's, car bombs, and terrorist suicide bomb vests "terrorists"??

What's the other one? Oh yeah. "Ignorant"? Well, we are all ignorant of some things and knowledgeable about others. And some try to come across, from a foreign land, as know-it-alls with respect to all things American. Whatever.

So what was your point again? You're a Canadian so I can't imagine why referring to American democratics as being members of the "democrat" party would concern you much, or at all.



I ignore words that you intend to insult me with. I'm fully open to debate and defend my positions as I've done in a vigorous fashion since joining A-D.

The poster's political allegiance is REFLECTIVE of a poster's views. You cannot separate the two.

And Darth Vader? lol. Man, you so DON'T get the joke. y'all indeed.

Funny that you say this, but frankly she's not going to win any awards. In my position, I regularly barter $100K+ deals, and this woman (strangely) should be a part of the process. We regularly have issues with her understanding international conversion rates and their impact on business occurring on foreign shores. She's a cool person, but has little knowledge (even this much later) of how our industry works either here in the US or abroad (my job is in international business). Everyone has a hand of cards to play, and this lady was just a few Aces short for this job. It's apparent. In fact, she has a junior analyst that I go see regularly on her staff that ends up handling a large portion of the needed tasks.

The fact of the matter is that had they hired a black person and I was told "we found this lady that has a wealth of knowledge and success", it would be different. It's just like being a white kid applying for scholarships/grants/loans in Louisiana (both now and when I was in school a decade ago). There literally are 1/2 dozen "minority only" pamphlets on the table, which address every race/gender but white men. It's not really anecdotal, yet 100% factual. There were and still are race based initiatives that ONLY exclude white men. Did I come from money? No. Did these experiences polarize my thoughts on the matter? Sure. Maybe they teach young white men to work hard and learn to fight through adversity, and that doing well in school is imperative because you'll have loans to pay off at the end and need a good job!!! (or work your way through like I did). I've known another 1/2 dozen guys for over a decade that came from very similar scenarios that are all successful. It's possible that finding a way to make it work, as opposed to having it handed to you, might be a part of the recipe for success.

Frankly, this sounds a little off debate, but it's not. The issue I have with your train of thought is that instead of saying, "hey- it does sound like that could be difficult" or "I understand why that would be upsetting", you assess my/our statements as discounted or "anecdotal" and see them as an afront to the black race and nonconsequential. Frankly, you make "small man" remarks as if that's the case (either emotionally or physically), regardless of the reality. It's not that you want to see our point, but rather attempt to discount the argument via sarcasm.

The reason that inflammatory remarks (as I've seen your reaction to some of mine) do not bode well for changing anything positively, is that it deters understanding and encourages a defensive posture. Sure, I've done it too. However, I think when it comes to race, you're the Creme de la Creme on blind-eyed posts in my opinion. I understand how an older black person might feel, particularly if he/she were raised in the south and still harbors resentment (and probably should). However, someone raised in the 70-80's who went to college in the 80-90's really should have a different perspective unless taught differently. Racism does exist, but surely isn't limited or relegated to white people. Maybe this is something you might consider prior to making provacative remarks. Some white men in America truly have been privy to very open and strangely encouraged racism.

I have disagreed, quite clearly, and provided specific examples and arguments to that effect. When you get around to addressing them, we can discuss further. Until then it is somewhat futile.