Posted by powagon@yahoo.com on Monday, November 04, 2002 at 9:29PM :
In Reply to: off the subject but I think this is interesting posted by Galen on Monday, November 04, 2002 at 8:36AM :
...and it seems some of you are blindly sucking up to the "political correctness" teat. Ever hear of a rap group called N.W.A.? It stands for "Niggers With Attitude". Not "the 'N' word", just "Niggers". Care to guess the color of the people using this "hateful" word? "Rednecks"? Ever listen to the rap crap booming out of the car next to you at the gas station? You think those rappers repeatedly using the word "nigger" in their anti-social, mysogynistic, psychopathic diatribes are a bunch of white-skinned, blonde-haired, freckle-faced frat boys? Ever Listen to Richard Prior or any of a large number of other black stand-up comics? What do you think would happen if you tried to stop these people from using the word "nigger"? There'd be a great furor about "free speech" and "art", yet the "art" of Mark Twain is billed as "racist" for using the same word. Folks, if it is politically correct for ANY persons of ANY ethnicity to use ANY derrogatory term it should be good for us all to use it. When Blacks stop calling THEMSELVES and each other "nigger" (not "N*****") I will worry about it. Until then, it is a part of the American dialect, mostly kept here BY those who protest the loudest then use it among themselves to refer to each other. Believe it or not, thanks to the second amendment, the first amendment is still around in spite of the PC crowd. Like it or don't the "redneck" is entitled to his opinion AND free to express it and you are free to disagree and express it. Also, whoever equated this man with "terrorists" has completely fallen into the P.C. trap. "Hate speech" (another term from the P.C. crowd used to refer to anything THEY don't happen to like: it used to be called "free speech") is not the same as an act of violence. One is a 1st amendment protected right; the other is a criminal act because it TAKES AWAY the rights of others. If you insist on silencing this man, one of these days it'll be YOUR speech that is being silenced.
Suppose, for example, those of us out here who are Constitutionalists find the term "Redneck" offensive. Should we demonize, then silence you for your "hate speech" or is it okay to denigrate whites and political conservatives? 'Tis a slippery slope we're dealing with here and a number of you are dancing on the downhill side of the edge... There is no such thing as "a little tyranny". Read the wise words of our founding fathers and the Federalist papers. Ask the just-freed Russians, the German people alive in the 30's and 40's and those living in China and the middle east today. "When they (the P.C. thought-police of 1936 Germany) came for the Jews...(or in this case, "rednecks"...)I remained silent because I wasn't a Jew...("redneck")". Joe, it is your forum. You can silence those of us out here if you like, but I would refer you back to the general ideal being expressed in this particular letter, that being the issue of free speech. Should I, and the others here be silenced? Should just some of us be silenced because our 1st amendment speech might offend the delicate feelings of others and those "others" left unmolested because their ideas are "politicially correct"? Interesting dilemma, no? IF so, what do we start censoring next here, the word "Chevy"? (that would work for me!!)
Follow Ups: