" being distraught over for having been called a nigger in her own home."-Nope wrong, she did not say that she was nor did Dr. Laura call her one...inflammatory, over-reaction on your part though I am willing to listen again-Oh and, she did not extend the hypersensitivity to the entire population, merely to the more outspoken pundits and reactionaries.
To answer your questions in order:
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes and no-Not neutral or smiley, but acceptable among familiars.
In this particular day-and-age context, one could equate the term "nigga" used informally among black men who are kindred spirits to the term "queen" or "mary" used similarly among gay men or women.
Its unfortunate that anyone be the target of a comment directed towards them with clearly racial overtones. I am assuming that you are not a Caucasian or Asian and that you have a series of responses to blatant or cloaked racist terminology in any context. Am I wrong to assume that the term "black folks" is also offensive vernacular? If so, I apologize.

I agree that madam uber bitch was a bit hard on the woman who clearly takes issue with the situation within her household. I do not however, based on the segment presented believe that Dr. Laura suffers from anything more than rabid-bitch-when-it-comes-to-idiots syndrome. It comes with her territory of screening calls for the best brand drama her show affords and telling people (mostly emotionally frazzled females from America), that they need to ditch their emotionally-based responses to situations and take practical measures to deal with their problems. She's got extremely conservative views regarding sexuality and same sex couples and has pissed off most gay people in the world as well

I believe this video offering to be a similarly emotionally-charged response to an issue which is particularly personal to yourself, and you used it as a pulpit from which to decry injustice.
If the world would have never experienced the brand of slavery the Americas served up we would not be having these conversations.
Thanks a lot, empire.

This would be like fighting Italy after WWII... just because Italy had been allied with Germany.

I'd quite simply argue it is instead like fighting Italy during WWII because Italy was allied with Germany.

The entire problem is because everything has been spun into unrecognizable gibberish by the time it gets near the media, let alone the public. The advocates for staying in Afghanistan use Al Qaeda as shorthand for Islamic jihadists, because that makes it easier for the ignorant masses to follow. Further still, at the "Great Game" level nobody cares over much about a safe haven in Afghanistan for Islamic jihadists. The real concern is a safe haven for jihadists along Pakistan's border. The former head of Paksitan's ISI, that the US and nearly all muslim countries paid to form the jihadist armies that ousted the Soviets is Hamid Gul. He currently is an outspoken supporter of the Taliban's jihad, and formerly said the following in response to concerns about their formation "We are fighting a jihad and this is the first Islamic international brigade in the modem era. The communists have their international brigades, the West has NATO, why can't the Muslims unite and form a common front?" He's still very influential in Pakistan, and he is hardly alone. The jihadist's campaign prior to 9/11 had been garnering support within Pakistan's government, and they had made big strides. Since 9/11, when Pakistan's government responded to western pressures to reverse course, the jihadists have begun efforts to destabilize Pakistan instead. If they can't gain absolute control of the nations nuclear arsenal, instability and civil war within a nuclear state they hold tremendous sway in will also serve their needs.

And there you have the problem. Actually talking about the REAL situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is simply far beyond the attention span of the people. They don't have the time to even hear the basic facts, let alone form any kind of opinion. So instead, the media provides them with unrecognizable pablum. It's like choosing between the steak and the lobster, but the only taste test you get is baby food jars of pureed steak and potates, or pureed lobster and spinach.

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

A wife could be punished with one of these to "keep their tongue in their head"
ie. If they were nagging their husband, unladylike language, outspoken opinions, or guilty of being a gossip and spreading rumors.

Basically the punishment used to keep feminists in check.

White supremacists openly teach hate that leads to murder. This guy ran a school for skinheads, for christ's sake; he was not a mere blowhard. This isn't a simple case of petty namecalling. The tradition of white supremacy that the murdered guy hails from has a long history of maiming and murder.

That doesn't excuse that particular murder, but anyone with that guy's resume is not too far separated from being a murderer or facilitating murder, and he was definitely quite a few levels beyond merely saying rude things to people.

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^spoco2:
I really don't know about upvoting this.
While the men like this who spout such hateful propaganda are horrendous individuals, I prefer to see them either be shown the error of their ways and become outspoken against their former life, or at the very least ousted and shown to be hypocritical or otherwise full of shit and never taken seriously again.
This murder is not good in any way.
Either, the guy who killed him is lying and he did so just for robbery or other motive.
OR
He murdered him for propsitioning him for sex, which is quite frankly horrendous... You can't handle a man suggesting sex even though you aren't gay? Me thinks you have serious homophobic issues yourself. Surely the right answer is 'No thanks, I'm not gay'
Horrible all around.

That's a great point. It seems like many of us hate racist blowhards more than we hate actual murderers. That guy, while he lived, was an irritating bastard. But saying rude things to people who offend you is a far cry from butchering them.

>> ^spoco2:

I really don't know about upvoting this.
While the men like this who spout such hateful propaganda are horrendous individuals, I prefer to see them either be shown the error of their ways and become outspoken against their former life, or at the very least ousted and shown to be hypocritical or otherwise full of shit and never taken seriously again.
This murder is not good in any way.
Either, the guy who killed him is lying and he did so just for robbery or other motive.
OR
He murdered him for propsitioning him for sex, which is quite frankly horrendous... You can't handle a man suggesting sex even though you aren't gay? Me thinks you have serious homophobic issues yourself. Surely the right answer is 'No thanks, I'm not gay'
Horrible all around.


That's a great point. It seems like many of us hate racist blowhards more than we hate actual murderers. That guy, while he lived, was an irritating bastard. But saying rude things to people who offend you is a far cry from butchering them.

I really don't know about upvoting this.

While the men like this who spout such hateful propaganda are horrendous individuals, I prefer to see them either be shown the error of their ways and become outspoken against their former life, or at the very least ousted and shown to be hypocritical or otherwise full of shit and never taken seriously again.

This murder is not good in any way.

Either, the guy who killed him is lying and he did so just for robbery or other motive.

OR

He murdered him for propsitioning him for sex, which is quite frankly horrendous... You can't handle a man suggesting sex even though you aren't gay? Me thinks you have serious homophobic issues yourself. Surely the right answer is 'No thanks, I'm not gay'

Horrible all around.

@dannym

Marriage as an institution is damaged anyway,divorce is more popular-Activism should be a force of nature akin to rescuing a country from damage...like earthquake relief-Taxes are bullshit,so the tax break argument is secondary to gay folks simply wanting to be accepted as equals-(no problem with that)-but these folks would do better to use their energy to fight REAL injustice perpetrated on all Americans/Individuals who have to suffer the criminality of the IRS, the non-disclosure of classified documents relative to political assinations and UFOs', and alllll the billions of dollars and hundreds of lives affected by projects funded by the criminalization of drugs and trafficing of the same by elements in the background, of our so-called,democratic government,to fund projects that effect the WHOLE of humanity,not simply a group of flagrant, incensed, outspoken queers.


To sum up, gay marriage is about as important in the grand scheme of things for the country as a whole, as new laws regarding jaywalking, relative to midgets without legs.

Get behind a band-wagon of the real, babies.

>> ^burdturgler:

I don't know why you're dragging the wikileaks thing in here because that's completely unrelated. Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but is English your primary language? My beef with wikileaks was them purposefully editing the actual content of videos for "maximum possible political impact" (their words).
I think your confused about the title and the video. The point is that mine safety and global warming are both serous issues.


@NetRunner
"@Zyrxil, I'm open to suggestions on how to more appropriately title this. Keep in mind it's a 60 character max.

I'm relying a little bit on people's recognition of NetRunner being an outspoken hippie, and unlikely to actually think global warming is silly at all to lure them in."

Isn't what wiki leaks did exactly like what Netrunner just...

Bah. I see I've been out maneuvered on every front. You got me this time batman!

@Zyrxil, I'm open to suggestions on how to more appropriately title this. Keep in mind it's a 60 character max.

I'm relying a little bit on people's recognition of NetRunner being an outspoken hippie, and unlikely to actually think global warming is silly at all to lure them in.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
I'm convinced that it's the folks who take voting so goddamn seriously that keep the rest of the pack down here-clicks some never want to be a part of commandeering the vessel-

When I see an enthusiastic patron of the site, who is having fun, I tend to boost them in status as best I can-especially if they don;t sound like some broken fucking record mirroring the sentiments of the bulk of the developmentally disabled here....esp. with outspoken political and religious (atheist) views....two of the most tired subjects on the internet next to bewbs and kittehs.

Whaddya gonna do, kids today are becoming brain-dead retarded adults, at breakneck speeds??!

this is why i want to have your babies......

I'm convinced that it's the folks who take voting so goddamn seriously that keep the rest of the pack down here-clicks some never want to be a part of commandeering the vessel-

When I see an enthusiastic patron of the site, who is having fun, I tend to boost them in status as best I can-especially if they don;t sound like some broken fucking record mirroring the sentiments of the bulk of the developmentally disabled here....esp. with outspoken political and religious (atheist) views....two of the most tired subjects on the internet next to bewbs and kittehs.

Whaddya gonna do, kids today are becoming brain-dead retarded adults, at breakneck speeds??!

I happened to be looking up Emma Thompson after enjoying "An Education," and I found a nice quote from and about her on Wikipedia:

Thompson is an outspoken anti-religious atheist: "I'm an atheist; I suppose you can call me a sort of libertarian anarchist. I regard religion with fear and suspicion. It's not enough to say that I don't believe in God. I actually regard the system as distressing: I am offended by some of the things said in the Bible and the Qur'an, and I refute them."

As I've said before on VS, I'm somewhat religious. I go to church a couple times a year and I pray once in awhile. Fundies would probably call me a "cafeteria Christian" with derision in mind but, to quote a video* here on the Sift, I rather like that label. For the record and to keep things brief I'll note that I'm in agreement with Dag on the things he listed above.

Anyway I have a buddy who is vocally atheistic (it seems to me he's quite proud of that as well). He's a clever conversationalist and with our different perspectives I think we could have some really good talks about, say, Creationism and its associated movement in the US, something that both of us find unsettling -- except that he scorns the religious moderate (e.g., me) just as much as he does the extremist (e.g., a former roommate who turned out to be a non-evolution-believing fundie who seriously wore shirts that said in big letters ABSTINENCE IS AWESOME), so that is not happening. I am sure that a large part of his loud atheism is obnoxious shtick for the sake of those watching, an excuse to say jackassed things about believers and seem edgy.

Oh yes: when he was about to go to a dangerous place, he told me that he had become a "receptive agnostic" and stopped being beaky and snidey about religion and faith and believers and so on. When he came safe home, he cranked up the outspoken douchey belligerent atheism to a level as high as ever. I always thought that was really weak. He's smart enough to think so too, I'm sure, somewhere in there.

* http://www.videosift.com/video/AJ-Jacobs-My-year-of-living-biblically

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pat Condell, appropriate intolerance, respect, atheism' to 'Pat Condell, appropriate intolerance, respect, atheism, outspoken' - edited by EndAll