Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

Odd, because it did work for me, as I can't even see @speechless's comments due to one particularly nasty, insulting conversation we had one day that ended in my ignoring him/her. Now there's no way to un-do that if I wished to, without having lucky do it for me.
Agreed though, stricter enforcement of the 'rules' would have made my requesting this feature (yes, I requested this...go ahead and blame the Newt) moot. The people that constantly made the site a place I wasn't sure I wanted to visit, IMO, violated the rules repeatedly...but my opinion is only, like, my opinion man, and if the moderators don't think they've crossed the line, this feature was the only way I would be able to continue here...since I was unable to ignore a few members (now I'm not talking about speechless) because their inflammatory hate speech was so often quoted and commented about, so I would click 'see it anyway' out of curiosity, and often ended up replying.
Now that I don't see them at all, I feel much better about being here. It does mean that I no longer contradict their insanity publicly (or at all), so they get to spout their hateful ideas with less opposition, but there came a time when enough was enough and I realized that I was only giving them the attention they were seeking just by replying, and certainly not making a dent in their ignorance or hatred, and it wasn't doing me any good either.
Since they know how far they can skirt the rules while still being as annoying as possible, this was the best option I could think of....and I'm quite grateful to Lucky for implementing it for me (and others).
I think it sucks ass that most of the dissenting (right wing) voices here have become so angry and hateful that they aren't worth listening to anymore, and seem to only post here to get a rise out of others, not to inform or discuss. I wish that was not the case, but since it is, for me it was either stop reading them altogether (requiring this addition to 'ignore'), or just leave like so many others have. I was not ready to abandon the sift and let them 'win', so this seemed the best alternative.

It would be nice if you could see who you are ignoring on your profile page somewhere, and had the ability to choose to un-ignore on a person by person basis by one's self. Who knows, it's possible that some of them might go to the lounge (where ignored users can still be seen), indicate they had changed, and make me interested in reading their comments again. As it stands, I would have to go to @lucky760 for that 'un-ignore'...it would be better, I think, if we could do it ourselves without bothering him, but I don't know how possible or reasonable that really is.

I see (and love) what you did there. I wish I could double or triple upvote that comment.

While I totally get your point, and that's the only reason I used to engage these few people that come here to complain about tolerance, inclusion, or forced responsibility for one's own actions. That said, I came to the conclusions that replying to them is giving them the attention they seek, and more 'air time' for their ridiculous hateful ideals. If no one replied to them, they would quickly become a group of 4, passing hate speech back and forth to each other, but in their own little bubble, obviously shunned by the 'community' without being banished. That seems the best option available at this time, as their hateful, racist, misogynist, anti-(choose your minority) speech is seen as 'opinion' so it's considered to be (just barely) not rising to the level where they should be outright banned (not in my opinion, I think they crossed that line long ago, but mine is not the important opinion...just like in most other situations).
I now have them on ignore-plus (see the sift talk post), where I no longer see that they even exist...and I'm SOOOO much happier visiting the site now. It is an unpleasant side effect that now, some of their vocal detractors are silent (when it comes to them), but that also means they have far fewer to 'argue' with...meaning they post far less nonsense for 'noobs' to see, and will likely eventually move on when they stop getting any reaction (that's why they're here, for the negative reaction. There's a word for people who lurk on websites with the intent to upset other users...I just can't put my finger on it).

...and welcome back.

This is certainly hate speech. I hate muslims; not islam, muslims.

Muslims, like jews, christians and neo-nazis, are by definition not decent people. It's islam that we're concerned with in particular, and islam is substantially the worst of those ideologies.

It's easy, isn't it, lazily to accuse your opponents of ignorance - but I'm obliged to wonder how much you actually know about islam, its texts and its history.

It is a historical and scriptural fact that mohammed was a rapist and promoter of rape among his followers, as well as being a slaver and warlord and murderer of many thousands of people. All muslims know this, and all have chosen to endorse his crimes and follow his teachings and are, as a fundamental tenet of the islamic faith, expected to emulate his behaviour.

Can you dispute even a single word of what I've just asserted? All muslims are guilty of mass-rape. All muslims are guilty of mass-murder.

It's sad to see those who flatter themselves that they're progressives descend into rape-apology and collaboration with genocidal fascism.

Hate speech, cute.

I'm not "defending" anything, nor am I saying the issues with women in Islam are anything trivial.

What I am doing is calling you on your ignorant bullshit.

I've done more than my share of criticising Islam, but you're crossing the line from attacking the ideology to pretty much straight up racism ("sub human animals" etc).

Most Muslims, like most Christians, Jews, etc, are decent people who are probably embarrassed by the stupid shit said and done in their name.

There are laws that prohibit displaying Nazi-symbols (like the swastika), hate speech, especially if it calls for violent action (like "Kill all Jews"), as well glorifying or defending actions of the Nazis.

But since they learned to stay clear of this in public they have the constitutional right to free speech and there is no way to forbid their stupid demonstrations.

How about "nigger-guy"? I'm sure many think they (including you) should be strung up from the nearest tree.
You intentionally use racist hate speech to describe anti-drug advocates? There are plenty of other derogatory terms you could have chosen that don't make you look overtly racist for no reason.
FAIL.

Hate speech will not be tolerated at VideoSift. Take that shit to YouTube where it will be more appreciated.

@Payback, I'll put in my 2 cents on this discussion with @messenger, since it's stayed public.

I feel like you both seem to have a point about why certain users should be reminded of the sift 'rules' about attacking, intentionally offensive, and racist comments. It seems it's really about what gets your goat, for one of you it's racist hate speech, for the other it's self righteous misogyny. They do both add by giving an example of the 'wrong' side of many debates, and can both be trying to deal with.
From what I've seen, lantern has been more egregious about attacking others and actually threatening violence, while Shiny is just the same old annoying, hyper religious 'if you don't believe exactly what I do you're wrong, evil, and going to hell' crap. I'm not sure either really rises to the level of a ban, but both could certainly do with a refresher on what the 'rules' here are (as could most of us at times).

No, they aren't the best argument, but were one someone else brought up as outliers in Christianity, which they are not, they are simply vocal about their beliefs in inappropriate places and times...their beliefs are (in large part, but with exceptions) mainstream.
I think fewer 'Christians' are accepting those with a 'gay lifestyle' than you believe, they are simply realizing that publicly spouting their hate speech doesn't get them far anymore. They still believe we're all going to hell for not believing as they do...or that we're all demons trying to trick them into hell.
Granted anti abortionists are a better example, and are still main stream Christians. Militant 'born agains' (usually the bombers at the abortion clinic) are a better example, as they're a violent sect of Christianity that paints the whole religion with their zealous insanity....and one that has tried time and time again to make their ridiculous beliefs into law for all.

I'm not mad or pissed off at you comment , just thoughtfully responding to it.


whose society? You and I both live in the same society but have different points of view what is acceptable. So what gives anyone the right to make "their" point of view "more acceptable" than another? Why should the other point of view be drummed out of existence?


Just because I hold a different point of view on this site, it is viewed with more scrutiny and hence more likely to draw the wrong intentions of my thoughts then what my intentions were.

What I said above is not hate speech.

As a society we define things that are acceptable and that which are not. Hate speech is something that has a definition, we can refer to it and act accordingly.

I'm assuming that action will be forthcoming.

To you hate speech is anything you don't agree with.
What a pussy.
Grow up. People are allow to have different points of view.
Who died and made you GOD?

WTH? he directly says lantern is right, he is directly endorsing the hate speech

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

OK. You are right. And I need to follow my earlier statement. I think this qualifies as hate speech.