• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Anonymous takes on WBC again

#21
hrodbert696 said:
Westboro Baptist has a total membership of about 40 people, not some megachurch with thousands of members. My small-town presbyterian church is over twice their size. They are really not significant. The only thing that makes them even vaguely significant is the attention that the media and the internet heaps on them. This is an obvious case of "if you just ignore them, they will go away." All the attention, however, negative, only encourages them. How about if you all take the pledge to be the first, and ignore any and all news involving them?
Click to expand...

+1

But IMO: it makes people angry and it sells, so media will not stop. Media in it's way is kinda like Westboro Baptist church. Not the part with hateful speech but part of harassment. Just replace the hate signs with cameras and mics.
 
#23
Munjibunga said:
Hate speech, to be exact. I'd take a chance on losing a little freedom of speech to shut them up.
Click to expand...

well, if it happens, just hope you remain in the popular majority. if you do, no problem. if not...well, you just might find that what YOU have to say is not looked upon so great one of these days.

as it were..."when they came for the jews, i said nothing, because i wasn't a jew, blah, blah...when they came for me, there wasn't anybody left to say anything."

personally, i won't willingly give up any of my rights to government. they can't seem to do anything else right. why trust them to know which speech to ban?

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#24
Lonesomedave said:
well, if it happens, just hope you remain in the popular majority. if you do, no problem. if not...well, you just might find that what YOU have to say is not looked upon so great one of these days.

as it were..."when they came for the jews, i said nothing, because i wasn't a jew, blah, blah...when they came for me, there wasn't anybody left to say anything."

personally, i won't willingly give up any of my rights to government. they can't seem to do anything else right. why trust them to know which speech to ban?

davesignatureII-1.png
Click to expand...

Also, lets not forget the fact that by placing a ban on hate, we won't stop some people from thinking the way they do. We just kinda put a blindfold in regards to the issue. Just because we won't see it as much, doesn't mean the issue is gone. We need to stop trying to put a band-aid on the issue just because it's easy.
 
#26
kserg said:
Also, lets not forget the fact that by placing a ban on hate, we won't stop some people from thinking the way they do. We just kinda put a blindfold in regards to the issue. Just because we won't see it as much, doesn't mean the issue is gone. We need to stop trying to put a band-aid on the issue just because it's easy.
Click to expand...

thank you!

and for those who advocate violence against the "church" members....well, you can do that, but as soon as you do, you grant everyone the same license to use violence against YOU if you say something they may take exception to.

the way to combat bad ideas is by good ideas, not violence.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#28
kserg said:
Also, lets not forget the fact that by placing a ban on hate, we won't stop some people from thinking the way they do. We just kinda put a blindfold in regards to the issue. Just because we won't see it as much, doesn't mean the issue is gone. We need to stop trying to put a band-aid on the issue just because it's easy.
Click to expand...

What about inciting hate against another group of people? Do a little reading into how the genocide in Rwanda started.

lowsound
 
#30
Lonesomedave said:
.

as it were..."when they came for the jews, i said nothing, because i wasn't a jew, blah, blah...when they came for me, there wasn't anybody left to say anything."
Click to expand...

Hmm...I appreciate the ninja Godwin's Law there.

With free speech comes responsibility and having a little bit of social intelligence that comes with the right to not be censored by the government. Yeah, I have the right to walk up to anybody on the street and call them any number of expletives. Getting punched in the face aside, I don't do that because it's a douchey thing to do.

Going to the funerals of six year-old children who were gunned down in cold blood to protest just proves that you're a grade-A asshat with no cooth. It's possible to forward an unpopular opinion without being a complete disrespectful jackass while doing so.
 
#38
Munjibunga said:
It's a good thing Tom Metzger wasn't ignored. There is a movement afoot through petitions to have the WBC declared a hate group. That would be a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

a step in what right direction?

i thought they had only used speech... have they used violence or threatened anybody? please correct me if i am wrong.

but, you say, dave, this is different...we really, really, really, really (ad infinitum) disagree with what they say. this is different than simply disagreeing with what they say. we REALLY disagree with what they say.

so, if we declare them a "hate group" (whatever that means), we can then strip away their constitutional rights?

i hate to say this, because i feel a very special bond toward the participants here in TB, but i am much more afraid of the mob mentality that i see here than i am of a small fringe group of kooks...however offensive their use of the first amendment rights is.

violence and/or the use of legal apparatus to silence those with whom we disagree is NEVER the answer, and if we succumb to the temptation to use it on these folks, watch out...it is coming soon to a mouth near you...perhaps your own.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#39
Lonesomedave said:
let me play devil's advocate for a moment...

while I deplore what WBC have done in the past, and what they said they are going to do in the future...what they have done is just words. in other words, SPEECH.

the first amendment exists to protect the unpopular opinion, the popular one doesn't need protection.

what anonymous has done is go to the government, in order to shut down someone else's free speech... i hope they are not successful.

if we can unilaterally declare someone not to have constitutional rights because we don't like what they say, we may all wake up one day to find someone doesn't like what WE have to say, and can muzzle us.

this is a slippery slope, and to wish violence upon the wbc or to try and silence them legally, i feel, would be a grave mistake.
Click to expand...

Right to free speech gives to a right to say what you want. It doesn't give you the right to say what you want without consequence.

I don't think they should be silenced legally, as you say, that is a very slippery slope (and one that Anonymous themselves crusade very heavily against)

But as mentioned, the right to free speech does not exempt who's speaking from the response said speed may incite.

So pretty much a +1 to everything you've said so far.

Waterpilot said:
The consequences have to be by legal means though.
Click to expand...

Far from it. If you walk up to someone in the street and start calling them all sorts of things, as well as alluding to the idea that their mother had some not so nice relations with a variety of farm animals, expect a violent response. Sure, said response might not be legal, and you could take legal action against their violent response, but just because it's illegal for them to knock your block off don't expect they won't do it.



Yes, what WBC do and say is absolutely deplorable, but they're still just words, and moreover they're words that both you and I know are so far from the truth it's not funny. So simply ignore them.

The aim of a protest of this sorts is to raise awareness and spread a message. If this message falls on deaf ears, they've lost.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back