[marden]

Isn't it Good to be More Polite?

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Racial slur banned in New York

The city council of New York has voted to ban the use of the "N" word.

The resolution to ban the so-called "N-word" is largely symbolic as it carries no weight in law and those who use the word would face no punishment.

But it reflects a growing unease that the racial slur is now part of everyday conversation and that the taboo against its usage has been swept away.

It might be the first step in the Islamification of New York City and as goes New York so goes America.

Ayn Rand wrote a pamphlet for the Alliance, entitled Screen Guide for Americans, where she wrote:

The purpose of the Communists in Hollywood is not the production of political movies openly advocating Communism. Their purpose is to corrupt our moral premises by corrupting non-political movies--by introducing small, casual bits of propaganda into innocent stories- thus making people absorb the basic principles of Collectivism by indirection and implication.

Texts taken from The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden, page 199. Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even though this passage talks about Communists, the tactic might be the same here with the "N" word. If Americans can be 'trained' to not use our free speech to say the "N" word then we would have to agree in principle to not blaspheming the Prophet.

Remember during the cartoon riots when Westerners were slamming the Muslim world for getting upset about cartoon depictions of Muhammad? We said that in a FREE society there is no guarantee against being offended and that it's only words, thoughts and ideas being expressed and that they should be allowed.

Well, in America the HipHop Rap segment of society feels the most alienated from the mainstream and many are already expressing a naive allegiance to radical Islam simply because radical Islam has declared war on America. In other words, from their perspective as alienated outsiders, the Hip Hoppers see the terrorists being at war with the American mainstream, which they also feel themselves "at war" with.

To have a ban on the use of ANY language is a HUGE step toward making inroads in the black community by trying to instill a sense of pride in those who feel victimized (think of who else this might be said of...Palestinians) and by establishing the leaders of this ban (or whomever might successfully CLAIM leadership of it...NYC's Muslim leaders perhaps?) as people who the masses can follow. Since Malcolm X was killed in the mid 1960's there has been no one to "lead" the generations of young angry black men and so they have grown in all directions, like weeds. But with some direction and discipline from radical Islam they can become a real cancer to America. Like the Shiites in Iraq are a cancer to the central government's hope of ever being freely democratic.

But even further, this ban not only accomplishes the above but also has the effect of conditioning ALL of America to accepting limits on our freedom of expression.

Our religious right couldn't do it.

Our political parties couldn't do it.

No one before could have done it.

But SOMEONE has done it here.

Someone proposed that we voluntarily give up our freedom of speech and they have successfully had it pass through a legislative body in the largest city in America.

The fact that this ban carries no penalty is an important factor in getting it approved. It's quite sufficient to simply establish the PRINCIPLE.

For now.

And as we have seen in microcosm in different online forums all it takes to make a REAL law is to propose a 'people's law' that everyone agrees with and abides by.

This is ingenious if it is really part of a sinister plot.

And it is a truly dangerous development that COULD be used to advance the spread of Islam in America no matter who or what was behind the original intent of the legislation.

And one last thought, most EVERYONE agrees we should be nicer to each other. And THAT is the key to this idea taking root.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[itistoday]

It is never a good move to make a law censoring people's speech, simple as that. **** ****** bitch **** mother ****er but be prepared to pay the consequences for it if you offend someone by saying it.

[Chuckit]

Comparing your own cause to the Red Scare was an inspired touch. I also enjoyed the part that suggests we shouldn't be compassionate towards victims or we'll be supporting Palestinian terrorists.

[zro]

Sorry. Fearmongers get no credence from me.

[Railroader]

As much as I hate the use of 99% of all profanity and racially derogatory epithets, I abhor that a law is being made.

BTW: Welcome back marden! Missed ya!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

As much as I hate the use of 99% of all profanity and racially derogatory epithets, I abhor that a law is being made.

BTW: Welcome back marden! Missed ya!

Thanks Railroader! I missed you too.

I agree with you that most profanity and racial slurs are offensive. But a law goes too far.

Egypt blogger jailed for 'insult'

An Egyptian court has sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president. Abdel Kareem Soliman's trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.

He had used his web log to criticise the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.

A human rights group called the verdict "very tough" and a "strong message" to Egypt's thousands of bloggers.

Soliman, 22, was tried in his native city of Alexandria. He blogs under the name Kareem Amer.

A former student at al-Azhar, he called the institution "the university of terrorism" and accused it of suppressing free thought.

The university expelled him in 2006 and pressed prosecutors to put him on trial.

'Slap in the face'

During the five-minute court session the judge said Soliman was guilty and would serve three years for insulting Islam and inciting sedition, and one year for insulting Mr Mubarak.

On blogs everyone is allowed to write what they want. This proves how unintelligent the president and Al-Azahr are
Kasia

Egypt arrested a number of bloggers who had been critical of the government during 2006, but they were all subsequently freed.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Egypt blogger jailed for 'insult'

NYC's "N" word ban could possibly lead to this some day. That guy could be one of our posters, here. And it could very well be ANY of us some day.

[paul w]

This is absurd. People should simply learn why the word is bad rather than imposing laws, however symbolic, on which words can or can't be spoken. It's silly to act like it never existed. We used to say ******. Some people still do, actually.

Uttering the word does not make one racist, and remving the word doesn't remove racism in the slightest.

[marden]

Originally Posted by paul w 

This is absurd. People should simply learn why the word is bad rather than imposing laws, however symbolic, on which words can or can't be spoken. It's silly to act like it never existed. We used to say ******. Some people still do, actually.

Uttering the word does not make one racist, and remving the word doesn't remove racism in the slightest.

I couldn't agree more heartily!

[Railroader]

They are being niggardly by not thinking this through and by making laws against it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

NYC's "N" word ban could possibly lead to this some day. That guy could be one of our posters, here. And it could very well be ANY of us some day.

"Could" is alarmist-speak for "Not gonna happen, but I want your attention."

"The Negroes could rise up against us and take all our wimmins!" "If gays are allowed to love like normal people, the next step could be children marrying barnyard animals!" "Women being allowed to vote could lead to the downfall of our democracy!"

If you want to see someone who actually is leading us in that direction, how about a guy who opposes (not could, does) habeas corpus?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by marden 

Isn't it Good to be More Polite?

It might be the first step in the Islamification of New York City and as goes New York so goes America.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Nice try stirring up the flames Marden, but you're a bit further off your rocker than usual. And in the wrong forum.

Now I completely disagree with the law but.. come on. You even managed to be hypocritical: you have in the past suggested that we give up free speech.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Could" is alarmist-speak for "Not gonna happen, but I want your attention."

"The Negroes could rise up against us and take all our wimmins!" "If gays are allowed to love like normal people, the next step could be children marrying barnyard animals!" "Women being allowed to vote could lead to the downfall of our democracy!"

If you want to see someone who actually is leading us in that direction, how about a guy who opposes (not could, does) habeas corpus?

Chuckit, there isn't an either/or contest going on here. Both of those things exist at the same time, as well as hundreds of more situations. If you are truly concerned with civil liberties wouldn't you be concerned with ANY and ALL possible infringement?

You seem to be saying that as long as there may be a danger of government infringement then we should welcome, or at least turn a blind eye to, any possible infringement by radical islamists.

Does your position reveal your true intent and motivation? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction that has no other meaning?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by marden 

NYC's "N" word ban could possibly lead to this some day. That guy could be one of our posters, here. And it could very well be ANY of us some day.

On one hand, oppressive regime. On the other hand, marden in prison.

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Nice try stirring up the flames Marden, but you're a bit further off your rocker than usual. And in the wrong forum.

Now I completely disagree with the law but.. come on. You even managed to be hypocritical: you have in the past suggested that we give up free speech.

Oh? Got a link for that?

I am always amazed at how people read one thing and then they twist it in their minds so badly that they really believe it said something else.

My guess is that is what you have done. You THOUGHT I was saying that we give up our free speech.

Let me clear that up for you once and for all.

I never said that we should give up our freedom of speech.

[marden]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

On one hand, oppressive regime. On the other hand, marden in prison.

Though I may have reached the level of a public icon (like a Tom Cruise or someone like that who you can slam and say whatever you want about them and they just have to 'be above that sort of thing' and just develop a thick skin) or something in your mind, let me assure you I am a real life human being and I can be offended just as any other real life human being might be.

Please don't go into your video game mentality where anything you might say about me is done mindlessly and without due respect for my humanity.

I know you didn't mean that seriously, but words have power. That's why we don't wish people dead or to contract serious disease. We can be polite but it should be of our own accord. Not because it is the law.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

Chuckit, there isn't an either/or contest going on here. Both of those things exist at the same time, as well as hundreds of more situations. If you are truly concerned with civil liberties wouldn't you be concerned with ANY and ALL possible infringement?

Possible infringement doesn't concern me much more than potential murderers do — everybody is one.

Long story short: It's a toothless regulation that nobody is required to follow. Is it stupid? Yes. Should they have done such a thing? No. Is it dangerous? Also no. They made it unenforceable precisely because if anybody were to be brought to trial for violating the "law," it would be thrown out immediately.

Originally Posted by marden 

You seem to be saying that as long as there may be a danger of government infringement then we should welcome, or at least turn a blind eye to, any possible infringement by radical islamists.

You seem to be saying that the New York City Council members are all Muslims. Do you have a source for that?

Originally Posted by marden 

Does your position reveal your true intent and motivation? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction that has no other meaning?

Now you seem to be suggesting that I could be a Muslim, which, since I know it isn't true, I'm not sure what it's supposed to accomplish.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Possible infringement doesn't concern me much more than potential murderers do — everybody is one.

Long story short: It's a toothless regulation that nobody is required to follow. Is it stupid? Yes. Should they have done such a thing? No. Is it dangerous? Also no. They made it unenforceable precisely because if anybody were to be brought to trial for violating the "law," it would be thrown out immediately.

by introducing small, casual bits of propaganda into innocent stories- thus making people absorb the basic principles of Collectivism by indirection and implication.

This could be a precursor. But it is worthy of note. As mentioned previously, to my knowledge, never before has a legislature voluntarily (symbolically or not) taken actions to infringe on our civil liberties. There is no penalty perhaps because this ban would be proven to be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You seem to be saying that the New York City Council members are all Muslims. Do you have a source for that?

But I'm not saying that at all. What I DID say was this:

But SOMEONE has done it here.

Someone proposed that we voluntarily give up our freedom of speech and they have successfully had it pass through a legislative body in the largest city in America.

The fact that this ban carries no penalty is an important factor in getting it approved. It's quite sufficient to simply establish the PRINCIPLE.

For now.

And as we have seen in microcosm in different online forums all it takes to make a REAL law is to propose a 'people's law' that everyone agrees with and abides by.

This is ingenious if it is really part of a sinister plot.

And it is a truly dangerous development that COULD be used to advance the spread of Islam in America no matter who or what was behind the original intent of the legislation.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Now you seem to be suggesting that I could be a Muslim, which does nothing to improve your credibility.

There is nothing wrong with being Muslim. But there IS something wrong with anyone who intentionally or unwittingly
supports events and actions that could help weaken America.

[marden]

The 'Crime' Of Blogging In Egypt
By Raja M. Kamal and Tom G. Palmer
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; Page A15

A former college student, Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman, is sitting in an Egyptian prison, awaiting sentencing tomorrow. His alleged "crime": expressing his opinions on a blog. His mistake: having the courage to do so under his own name.

Soliman, 22, was expelled from Al-Azhar University last spring for sharply criticizing the university's rigid curriculum and faulting religious extremism on his blog. He was ordered to appear before a public prosecutor on Nov. 7 on charges of "spreading information disruptive of public order," "incitement to hate Muslims" and "insulting the President." Soliman was detained pending an investigation, and the detention has been renewed four times. He has not had consistent access to lawyers or to his family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022001267.html

Free Kareem Amer - Signatures

Release Abdelkareem Soliman

Free Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman!

Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman is a 22-year-old Egyptian blogger who has been arrested by authorities in Alexandria, Egypt.

Abdelkareem first received international attention in early 2006 when he was kicked out of Al Azhar University for posts he wrote on his blog. During that first incident, he was detained by police but eventually released. Despite his first arrest, he has continued to speak his mind on women's rights, religious freedom, and academic freedom.

On November 6, Abdelkareem was again interrogated over his blogposts. A human rights lawyer from the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information was present to represent Abdelkareem. But the police still decided to arrest him.

You can edit the text of the email/petition below. When you click "submit," an email will be sent to international leaders. If you prefer not to have your name on the petition signatories list, just indicate so above the "submit" button. Thank you for taking a minute to protect freedom of speech in Egypt.

http://www.freekareem.org/