What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[dsheinem]

I think its a bit of a slippery slope w/the likes of Kacyzinksi or Manson, don't you?

Sure, outspoken serial murders with an ethos are a bit of a far out example, but what about Westboro Baptist or the Klan? My point in citing serial killers is that sometimes the distinctions between crazy speech and hate speech and extremist speech are very hard to judge. If you admire people just because they are outspoken at the margins and consistent on their message over a long period of time, you aren't really making those distinctions clear.

What certainly can be admired is the way that these groups/individuals represent the limits of a certain important freedom (free speech), and that they remind us of how protected our speech is. But that is very different that admiring the groups/individuals themselves.

I think its incredibly easy to dogpile on someone like Santorum or Farrakhan, to me, that is naive and simplistic.

I don't know that "dogpiling" is fair. Again, are people unnecessarily "dogpiling" on neo-nazis, extremist animal rights groups, or cults that preach destructive behaviors? I think that, for the most part, these groups deserve all the shit they get and that it isn't just a "simplistic" or "easy" attack as much as a impassioned outrage at people whose rhetoric is violent and can influence their followers to commit violent acts against themselves or others. Many see Santorum or Farrakhan in the same light, given some of their statements.

People, loud people, loatheful people are needed on all fringes to present what can happen if we as society do not stay on our guard.

I think they are a necessary evil byproduct of free speech, but that doesn't mean we need to appreciate or tolerate them.

I'm not just referring to the few comments in this thread, but rather multiple comments on this forum over the couple years i've been on here. Calling someone a douchebag or a dickhead does not further debate, it is kindergarten semantics, attacking a person and not a position.

Not sure where you are going here or what you are referring to, as the regular folks on here who are worth paying any attention to don't engage in debates on these kinds of topics by throwing around ad hominem attacks or kindergarten semantics. There are probably some who are guilty, but really this is usually the most level-headed forum I have been on when it comes to debating politics, religion, etc.

Naive as I may be :/

I said the position was naive, not you personally. I think you have started to explain it a little better, but I do contend that admiring someone just because they are consistently outspoken is a very under-thought premise.

[mjmjr25]

^ I'm not good at the multi-quote thing, sorry.

My original contention was to point out that while his (Santorum's) views may be controversial at best, and hateful/bigoted in the opinion of many - is that he has not hid in the bushes and dropped something upon the people of Pennsylvania (and now the greater electorate), rather that he has said this is what he believes: that abortion is murder, that gay marriage is an abomination, that the pledge of allegiance should/must contain "under God", etc consistently, and while many don't like him, he has not abandoned his principles for votes or gone in pursuit of a populist agenda, much like Mitt Romney is doing right now. Who would I vote for if given the choice of those 2, Romney. Whom do I respect and trust more is a different matter - I would trust Santorum more. And that is precisely what I was stating, that I have respect and admiration for someone like him and frankly wish there were more politicians who said exactly what they believed, consistently. Again, that being the source of my respect for him. Geez, Harry Reid changed positions on state income taxes, federal income taxes, federal healthcare, border fencing, and truth in sentencing within 1 year of each other, all to get re-elected. I'd rather see someone like that get bashed, someone who cares more about getting the job (of senator) more than their own beliefs, to me that is much worse than anything Rick Santorum has said.

I think admiration for a character trait can be done with out saying you love that person, or more importantly love what they say. If that were the case, I couldn't admire Bill Clinton, but I do, and I think he is also a loathesome person. I couldn't admire Jack Nicholson, but I do, and I think he is a loathesome person. Same with Michael Jordan, etc. Admiring a trait or characteristic is not supporting and embracing the whole of someone. My life experiences have led me to respect courage, particularly courage under fire, it is something very easily said and very rarely done.

[elmagicochrisg]

As for the definition, quite frankly, I think it's disgusting. It doesn't make the gay community look very mature if you ask me. A combination of semen, shit and lube coming out of your partner's back door after intercourse?... Seriously, it doesn't make them look any better than Santorum...

[mjmjr25]

^

[Hobie-wan]

elmagicochrisg was referring to Dan's redefinition of Rick's last name, which is what Rick is all upset about since in the 8 years since this started, Google hits on his name go to the horrible redefinition first, before his political site and whatnot.

[BoringSupreez]

elmagicochrisg was referring to Dan's redefinition of Rick's last name, which is what Rick is all upset about since in the 8 years since this started, Google hits on his name go to the horrible redefinition first, before his political site and whatnot.

I think Google should fix that. I'm sure most people who google "Santorum" are not looking for gay stuff.

[Hobie-wan]

I think Google should fix that. I'm sure most people who google "Santorum" are not looking for gay stuff.

Well, Google just indexes what's on the net. Lots and lots of people have referenced it so it has more hits than anyone that has nice things to say about him, so Google reflects that. I'm not looking for information on Rick or intimate fluid definitions which might be the result of mixed or unmixed couples. So lucky for me I probably won't come across either of these things more than I already have on blogs. There's nothing to fix unless you mean censorship which isn't cool. Free speech means Rick can say all the dumb bigoted things he wants and people can make horrible jokes at his expense and that's fair.

[mjmjr25]

^ I thought a fee was paid to be in the top 10 or however many it is, listings?

[Hobie-wan]

^ I thought a fee was paid to be in the top 10 or however many it is, listings?

You will sometimes get the paid for stuff above your results. For instance if you google for juke, you get an ad for the Nissan site in a colored box at the top as well as the stuff on the right. But then you get normal results under that. If you search for Rick Santorum there is no such colored paid ad at the top of the results. You get the funny/horrible definition site first, then the Wiki page, then His actual campaign page. His campaign page also shows in the right side.

From there the results are mixed political things and other news and blog sites talking about the google 'problem'. People are posting about and reading about this, so it is high in the hit results.

[CFFJR]

For the second time this year, my 360 has red ringed.

I don't get it, this launch 360 has worked perfectly since 2005, and now I have two failures within a few months of each other.

This is of course, hot on the heels of my PS3's spectacular hard drive crash.

I'm keeping one eye on the Wii now. I'm waiting for it to burst into flames.

Damn it all.