|
Is the Liberal party full of racists? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
ah so that makes using slurs OK...
I get it...
Exactly what you said about media spin. The Conservatives are not anti-gay but the media loves to try and convince you otherwise. |
Not all media.. you forget CanWest Global is Conservative friendly.
And yes, I'm aware that CBC is Liberal friendly. |
|
|
| naesean3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Isnt it racist to suggest that certain groups can use certain words but others cant?
Ill never understand that. Words are either ok or not ok. |
I did not want to debate this......:rolleyes:
I never said "certain" groups can use "certain" words - don't put words in my mouth JAYX1
anybody can use/speak/spew any word they want - free country that Canada is (though it is not always "politically" correct - I agree 100%)
I repeat - WORDS HAVE AS MUCH POWER OVER YOU AS YOU LET THEM
that's all.........:D |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
More apparantly rascist comments from the Lieberals...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...ions050505.html
Manitoba MP wants 'racist' minister to resign
Last Updated Thu, 05 May 2005 11:46:00 EDT
CBC News
OTTAWA - Conservative member of Parliament Inky Mark called for the resignation of cabinet minister Reg AlThursday, calling him a racist for suggesting that Liberals wanting to entice defectors would have looked for someone "a little higher up the gene pool" than Mark.
On Tuesday, Mark said a Liberal minister called him to offer an ambassadorship in return for giving up his seat in the House of Commons, thus making the Liberals' minority government a little more secure. He would not name the cabinet minister.
Alcock, who is Treasury Board president as well as the minister responsible for Manitoba, Mark's home province, denied that any such offer was made to Mark.
"Frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody, I'd go a little higher up the gene pool," Alsaid Wednesday.
When reporters asked him for his response Wednesday, Mark dismissed Alcock's comment as a schoolyard taunt.
But the MP for Dauphin-Swan River had a change of heart overnight. He held a news conference Thursday morning, backed by more than a dozen other Conservatives, to call Ala racist.
"It demonstrates racial intolerance," Mark said of the "gene pool" comment. "It's about genetics. That's what the Second World War was about."
Mark was born in Hoysun, China, but left as a boy to move to Canada.
Asked to account for his change of attitude about Alcock's comment, Mark said: "Believe it or not, growing up in this country, I've been desensitized to this kind of thing."
One after another, the other Conservatives stepped up to the microphone to defend Mark and call for an end to what they called a series of racist remarks by Liberals in recent days.
At the same news conference, Mark refused again to say which cabinet minister had offered him the ambassador's job, though such an offer would be a criminal matter if it could be proven.
The Prime Minister's Office has told some Parliament Hill reporters that rather than being enticed to leave the Conservatives, Mark himself has been calling Liberals asking which appointments might be available if he decided to vacate his seat.
When reporters pressed him on that issue on Thursday, Mark replied: "That's another story, OK? ... This story is about a statement made by a cabinet minister."
He then called the news conference to an end and left the room.
Every vote counts in fractured Parliament
The Conservatives have promised to defeat the Liberal government "at the earliest possible opportunity," thereby bringing about a general election a year after the last time Canadians went to the polls.
Stephen Harper's party can do that if all its 99 MPs join with the 54 elected members of the Bloc Québécois and one other MP on a confidence vote in the House of Commons.
The vote on the 2005 budget motion would be one confidence vote that could defeat Paul Martin's Liberals.
However, the Liberals have struck an alliance with the New Democrats to pass the budget, giving the temporary coalition a combined vote total of 151. If all three of the Independent MPs vote with the government as well, it will survive the vote of confidence.
The situation means every vote counts.
As well as alleging that Mark was offered an ambassadorship to leave his seat in the House of Commons, Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay said "a number" of other MPs in the party have been promised Senate seats or other plum positions to jump ship.
The Liberals have denied that allegation as well.
Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by naesean3
the conservatives are FAG-HATERS!!!!
|
except that they're calling for full gay rights within a civil union
also check out:
http://gayandright.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
BTW, why do you think the Lieberals want to decriminalize marijuana and prostitution?
Like the mob, the government will soon run the drug trade, the prostitution trade, the booze business, and gambling. It’s no wonder that the big crime families have friends within the Lieberal party. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Isnt it racist to suggest that certain groups can use certain words but others cant? |
no. racism is using race as the sole differentiating factor on a particular issue. more on that below...
| quote: | | Originally posted by Jayx1 Ill never understand that. Words are either ok or not ok. |
Isn't that oversimplifying the issue? Why must it be one or the other? Why does everything have to be so black and white (ha) all the time? Why can't we judge individual situations on their merits? It amounts to rule worship and is a very inflexible mode of thinking, IMHO...
I have intense debates with people over this very topic rather often.
Some people will say, as you've suggested, that it must either never be ok to use slurs or it's ok for everyone...in order to avoid some perceived double standard. I disagree as that approach seems to ignore what I think is the most important factor...the intent of the speaker. Someone who clearly displays anti-gay attitudes using the word "fag" is far different than friends using the words between themelves.
A black person can call another black person a n*gger and still mean it in a condescending, disdainful, subservient manner. So I think that it has nothing to do with double standards...and not about whether or not it's members of that minority using a slur that make it "ok" or not.
Some people, myself included (and many of my gay friends vehenmently disagree), will argue that assigning such power to the words themselves, without focusing on the intent behind them, serves little purpose other than to legitimize whatever strong meaning others associate with them.
Does the word "n*gger" need to be forever tied to the derogatory meaning that slave owners gave it (or wherever the hell that word came from...I really don't know)? Independent of the intent of the speaker? I don't think so.
I had a friend recount a high school story about someone in class who said "that's gay"...using the phrase to convey "that's lame" about something. My friend thought he should have been ripped and thrown out of class. I disagreed, much to his bewilderment. I said that throwing him out reinforces the unnecessary power people grant to the word, even though the kid clearly did not mean it as a slur against gays. Was it potentially insensitive? sure. inappropriate in a classroom? sure. worthy of substantial discipline? no. The teacher could have calmly stated that it was inappropriate in a classroom and that academic discussions warrant, at the very least, proper use of the English language, lol...
Using slurs indiscriminantly can certainly be tacky or socially unacceptable...but so is swearing and making sexual references in certain situations. So there still can be social rules of some sort that govern the "acceptable" use of slurs, just as there are social rules that govern all sorts of behaviour, dress, etc.
anyway...that's my little essay for this evening :p |
|
|
| naesean3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
no. racism is using race as the sole differentiating factor on a particular issue. more on that below...
Isn't that oversimplifying the issue? Why must it be one or the other? Why does everything have to be so black and white (ha) all the time? Why can't we judge individual situations on their merits? It amounts to rule worship and is a very inflexible mode of thinking, IMHO...
I have intense debates with people over this very topic rather often.
Some people will say, as you've suggested, that it must either never be ok to use slurs or it's ok for everyone...in order to avoid some perceived double standard. I disagree as that approach seems to ignore what I think is the most important factor...the intent of the speaker. Someone who clearly displays anti-gay attitudes using the word "fag" is far different than friends using the words between themelves.
A black person can call another black person a n*gger and still mean it in a condescending, disdainful, subservient manner. So I think that it has nothing to do with double standards...and not about whether or not it's members of that minority using a slur that make it "ok" or not.
Some people, myself included (and many of my gay friends vehenmently disagree), will argue that assigning such power to the words themselves, without focusing on the intent behind them, serves little purpose other than to legitimize whatever strong meaning others associate with them.
Does the word "n*gger" need to be forever tied to the derogatory meaning that slave owners gave it (or wherever the hell that word came from...I really don't know)? Independent of the intent of the speaker? I don't think so.
I had a friend recount a high school story about someone in class who said "that's gay"...using the phrase to convey "that's lame" about something. My friend thought he should have been ripped and thrown out of class. I disagreed, much to his bewilderment. I said that throwing him out reinforces the unnecessary power people grant to the word, even though the kid clearly did not mean it as a slur against gays. Was it potentially insensitive? sure. inappropriate in a classroom? sure. worthy of substantial discipline? no. The teacher could have calmly stated that it was inappropriate in a classroom and that academic discussions warrant, at the very least, proper use of the English language, lol...
Using slurs indiscriminantly can certainly be tacky or socially unacceptable...but so is swearing and making sexual references in certain situations. So there still can be social rules of some sort that govern the "acceptable" use of slurs, just as there are social rules that govern all sorts of behaviour, dress, etc.
anyway...that's my little essay for this evening :p |
A++ ;) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
racism = treating people differently soley based on their skin colour. Therefore telling me that i cant use the word n*gger or fag simply because im white and straight is by definition, racism.
I don't beleive in double standards. |
|
|
| MarkT |
and I just finished explaining how I feel that it's not about race and double standards...but ok! Can you examine the underlying issues behind slurs, semantics, communication, etc or do you need someone else to do that and provide you with a narrow, black and white rule that you can blindly follow?
Try using some independent thought instead of crying 'waaaah, it's not equal!' perhaps? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Well if simple standards are always applied to me then i will apply simple standards to everyone else as well.
If you dont see why double standards are wrong then thats very unfortunate. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I figured that there was some internalized issues at work here.
I'm satisfied now...thanks. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| I think all opinions are internalized. dont you? |
|
|
|
|
