UnNews talk:Chuck Norris on secularism: the single greatest threat that America has ever faced

Excuses

My apologies for the length. It's all good. I checked it myself with my good-o-meter. The more I read writing from the Right, the more I believe in Poe's Law. In the interest of journalistic integrity, however, I must admit that I'm with Chuck on being against the hate crimes bill. Even though his reasoning is suspect, hating isn't a crime, and criminalizing hate does nothing except drive it underground. I prefer to see people's hate out in the open. Free speech has its price.

By the way, lines like "...was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963" weren't edited by me at all. They don't need to be, sadly. Neither prayer nor Bible reading are banned in public schools. School or teacher mandated prayer however, is, thank god. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hating Isn't a Crime

It is when it endangers the safety or wellbeing of someone.   Le Cejak • <May 21, 2008 [8:50]>

If the choice, to set up a false dicotomy, is to have it out in the open or it hiding in the shadows, I'll take out in the open. On an unrelated note, I have the same stance on nudity. Criminalizing "hate" speech too often leads to stuff like this (and a bit from Wikipedia). Also, this is already covered under slightly less nebulous definitions under incitement laws.

What we have to do instead is make genuine hate speech (rather than legitimate criticism, which hate crimes legislation inevitably ends up prosecuting) no longer socially acceptable, like drinking and driving (it is that way already in some areas, but not others). That's much harder than simply tossing jerks in jail, unfortunately.

...I wonder what his stance is on criminalization of anti-Christian speech in the more militant mosques in America... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to look at your "false dicotomy", "hidden hate", if manifested in action as opposed to words, is illegal too. Hate speech really can be extremely dangerous. Most of the time, people who spout hate speech hide themselves in masks (like the KKK) and night-time and the like. Also, people who spout hate speech aren't usually thrown in jail unless someone was hurt. They get sued, maybe get some counseling, something along those lines.

I bet that Mr. Norris would want to criminalize hate speech that he doesn't like, but that's just my experience with conservatives. (debates are phun!)   Le Cejak • <May 21, 2008 [9:50]>

Frighteningly, at least in Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has most of the powers of the Court, but little of the oversight. At least if I'm prosecuted under Federal Criminal law through a real court (and I have written some pages here that could be interpreted as hate speech, as its definition is so malleable), I can defend myself in a real court, where things aren't stacked against the defendant (if memory serves, the conviction rate for the CHRC, through the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, indicate either that the trials are show trials or that the Commission and the Tribunal are infallible. It should be noted that their decisions can be fought all the way up to the Federal Court of Canada where both sides get the benefit of the Law, but it should work like that through the entire chain from bottom to top).

Also, "..."hidden hate", if manifested in action as opposed to words, is illegal too...". Exactly. Action, not words, is what makes it a crime. My main problems with hate speech legislation is that it's thoughtcrime (nineteen eighty-four reference, woot!), it's stacked against the defendant (at least in Canada), that its definition is open enough that any opinion can fall under it (thus making everyone a criminal, depending on which way the wind is blowing), and that it is already covered under other, slightly better defined, law. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)}

The rule in California on Hate Speech is basically whatever starts a fight between at least two people. If no fight breaks out, then the courts have very little choice but to just drop the case.   Le Cejak • <May 21, 2008 [13:39]>

As long as it sticks to that, then it's no different than incitement. Hopefully the text is tight enough that they can't go after social commentary (think Danish cartoon).

...I can see it getting abused. From an analysis of SB 1234:

Existing law provides that no person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he/she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics.

"Intimidate" and "oppress" are loaded terms that mean different things to different people. I hope that the law is more solid (and court decisions will eventually clarify it) than my jaded eyes think they are (they're hooked up to my jaded brain via jaded wireless. I upgrade from jaded nerve bundles a while ago). Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This puts it better than I could: "Once an idea is banned because it is too noxious, too radical, too subversive - and once people become used to this - then the line inevitably moves, and the next most radical idea becomes the new target. The only way to stop this process is to cut it off at the root - to declare that we will never countenance the banning of any idea, no matter how strongly we disagree with it.". For one thing, I would've used more cussing, dagnabit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! Levant case dismissed. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One can argue that hate speech causes emotional and psychological damages to the person or people it is directed at. It can almost be as deadly as a knife or gun when people get so scared that they try to kill themselves or they turn to things like drugs, alcohol, or just eating a lot of food just to cope with it. Hate speech is a form of bullying, it is relational bullying which is almost the worst kind of bullying that involves gossip, slander/libel, rumors, and stereotyping. Though for some reason females seem to use it more than males, but males usually just commit acts of violence instead of hate speech. Hate speech can eventually lead to violence, though. Many Christians are not fundamentalists, but get accused of being fundamentalists as the bullying using hate speech talk about all Christians and not just fundamentalist ones. Sort of like blaming all African-Americans for the acts of a few African-Americans who decided to commit a few crimes for no good reason, and then saying that all African-Americans are like that. Most hate speeches are full of fallacies in that way. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is different when kids are involved...damn you, shades of grey! I'm glad I'm not a judge. The lugging around that body armour...riding an armoured motorcycle all the time. That's tough work. I should mention, too, that while sticks and stones are quite likely to break my bones, names have an inability to hurt me. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note...

...tattoo! But I digress. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear god!   Le Cejak • <May 21, 2008 [13:40]>

By the long-discarded verruca sock of the Great Lord Harry's second cousin once removed! Is it me, or does he look somewhat like a monkey in that tatt? Also, does his expression change to a cheerful one if the guy flexes? --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 13:46, May 21

One of his eyes is about to droop out, and his mouth is hanging open quite the way Under user's does! It's like Chuck's face is about to fall off.   Le Cejak • <13:52, 21 May 2008>

Have I ever mentioned that you "recent changes" watchers freak me out at bit? This story isn't even officially released until next Tuesday. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate "spin"

H.R. 1592, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in no way (as far as I can see) covers anything involving free speech issues or hate speech. It includes "...willfully causes bodily injury to any person or...attempts to cause bodily injury" and "death results from the offense; or the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kil only". It's a hate crime bill, not a hate speech one. Considering how much Chuck rants in the original column and most of his other stuff on WorldNetDaily about how America isn't Christian enough, why can't people who think that the Ten Commandments belong on courthouse steps remember the one about not bearing false witness? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Modus...

...This knocked me on my ass. It really did. Could this be the greatest Modus article to date? ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 14:07 May 31

Uh...thanks? It was hard to write (one of the few times that a spork ended up being more work than whatever the opposite of a spork is called). If it was the greatest, however, it would have candy. All great things have candy. Like that guy in the van outside the playground. He's the greatest. He says he'll give me a lift home, too. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? Maybe he could help me out, too. Ask him if he has enough candy for your young, hairless, sexy friend. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 14:21 May 31

He said sumpin' about him having enough candy for a "manager of Troy". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What's that? All I know is I want some candy and a hug. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUN • WotM • RotM • AotM • VFH • SK • PEEING • HP • BFF @ 15:01 May 31

Shrug. My logic exactly. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Adverts

I've removed them all, if you want them back revert my edits, but I decided removing them would make it look better. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 16:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow.......Altering an article on VFH with 14+ votes in this manner is highly irregular. It would probably be best to not do that. I'm going to revert it because when Modus sees it, I know he will anyway. never mind, already done by UU.--    16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I lolled. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:17, 5 Mar

FU Edit conflict! Anyway, I've commented on VFH, but here's the deal, PM666: don't make massive stylistic changes to an article on VFH, particularly if they significantly alter the feel of the article - we're voting on it as it is. Spelling corrections are good, wholesale changes are not, particularly if the author considers the images you want to remove so integral to the article he was willing to amend some of them after Mnbvcxz pointed out they were out of date. Several people seem to think the article needs the ads (including me and DrStrange), so maybe you missed the point of 'em? Anyway, they stay. Just be careful, OK? --UU - natter 16:20, Mar 5

I did miss the point it seems, its just he said he couldn't remove them so I decided to do it instead. So I figured since I knew how to I would. Sorry about that didn't realise it was problem. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 16:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He can't remove them because he feels they're too important to the article, not because he doesn't know how to! ;-) --UU - natter 16:47, Mar 5

Ok fine, I misread it, happy? I'm a retard, there! I'll just stick to making and reviewing articles, I can do those pretty well --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I lolled again. Don't worry about it PM666, it's a wiki and therefore easy to fix. :-D -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:57, 5 Mar

FU EDIT CONFLICT AGAIN! Indeed, don't take it so hard man, I'm gonna take this to your talk page... --UU - natter 16:58, Mar 5

What are all you people doing here? Don't any of you have jobs? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than messing with your articles that are up for VFH? Not really. —Sir SysRq (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got the what on the who now? Stop talking crazy. That's...(lengthy pause)...Chuck Norris' job. Did you see what I did there? Didja? I do stuff like that all the time. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally. You were like all up and out and I was like full out full on, yo. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know! I'm unsure if there was a hook, but if there had been, I must have been off it. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. We were all like yeah with the stuff and the James. Ah, the James. So beautiful in summer. I miss going to the James as a child. I keep meaning to move out there, but I just don't have the moneyyyy... —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)