Skip to main content

do we really have to cover this again?

i wish they still fed people like you to the lions
i have a pair of boots that came in a box that read "made from genuine black kid leather". it kinda threw me when i first saw it, because i didn't even think that was legal, much less something you'd want to advertise, but gradually it dawned on me that the manufacturer meant to highlight the use of soft, supple goat leather. i still tossed the box, because no one needs to find any more evidence of cannibalism and murder in my house. [ok, it's not cannibalism if you're making them into clothing, but they don't have a term for that yet.]

the point of me sharing that is to illustrate that there are moments where meaning can become confused and you end up thinking that someone said something really horrible when they actually meant something totally innocuous. like the time i told dom not to get his knickers in a knot and he thought i'd said something pretty offensive [and nonsensical if you think about it, which you probably shouldn't]. such things happen. we move on.

but there are times when there's just no question that you said something pretty vile and it was exactly what you meant to say. like the case of the woman who got herself fired by my new employer of the week cold stone creamery for dropping an n-bomb in reference to the president and expressing her american dream that he'd get murdered.

she insists she's not a racist, which leads me to believe there is some alternate dictionary floating around that defines racism somewhat differently than i would. spitting vitriol at people on the basis of their race is absolutely racist. all that her claim of not being a racist shows is that she's pretty stupid as well. [for those who couldn't have figured that out from the original facebook comment.] indeed, she seems flummoxed that her comments raised such a furor, because, after all, she was just expressing an opinion.

along the same lines, jezebel magazine ran a piece calling attention to similarly-worded tweets from teenagers about the commander-in-chief. and in return, they were inundated with messages with people whom they refer to, quite accurately, as "rage-aholics". people who are just furious about everything, but mostly furious that their countrymen had the temerity to elect a black guy. twice.

the common thread here is that all of these people fall back on the defence that they are "just voicing an opinion" and that this is an example of their right to free speech. many of the "rage-aholics" demand that jezebel's staff read the first amendment, but personally, i'd advise that these angry folk do the same and that they make an effort to calm down and understand what is meant by "free speech".

lesson one :: free speech does not mean you can say whatever the hell you want. if i encourage someone to kill a guy i don't like very much- even if i don't ask them to do it per se, i still have a legal responsibility if my confidante ends up attacking my enemy with a machete. there endeth kate's right to free speech. so, yes, your right may be enshrined in the constitution, but there are still limitations on it. that said, the threats against obama's life are vague enough that none of the people are likely to be arrested. so let's move on to...

lesson two :: no one ever said that you have the right to say whatever you want without consequences. the right to free speech means that your government can't pass laws that impede your speech. but you can absolutely be held responsible for it, which includes the rights of journalists to call attention to what you said and insist that you defend it, no matter who you are. so, yes, you can take to twitter or facebook or your street corner and start screaming that black people can't lead because they're all serial killers, but likewise, people who hear you or read your thoughts have every right to ask you to defend what you've said. that's their right of free speech.

this isn't the first time i've ranted about this, because as a defender of the rights of people everywhere to express themselves in almost whatever way they see fit [i do think it's reasonable to impose limitations when it comes to committing or aggressively inciting violence], i get frustrated that so much of that defence seems to involve defending the right of people to say really ignorant, anti-intellectual, uneducated, flagitious things. people in the world are still dying for the right to speak their political views and it is insulting to them to equate their struggles with spoiled brats screeching racial epithets for the world.

you have the right to free speech, kids. you also have the right to remain silent. it's important to work out which one is appropriate to the situation.

[the photo used was widely circulated, but there's a fantastic deconstruction of it right here, which is where i found it after googling "stupid racists".]

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …