Watch this woman take on a politician who wants to allow freedom to hate in their community — she calls his bluff.
Most astonishingly, he backed down and withdrew his proposal.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Thank you Ms. Raintree for exposing Webb’s bigotry.
How nice of her. She’s giving him a chance to practice his religion in public, just what all the xian fundies are demanding. I guess he isn’t as devout as he claims. Isn’t that an offence punishable by applied geology?
I love trans* women who are stroppy, smart, and political.
Fucking classic.
Godsdamn. Way to go, Ms. Raintree! You are fabulous, and you have improved the lives of many. Heh, talk firmly and carry a big stone.
Let’s not make a titan out of a toddler: I think applied mineralogy should be sufficient.
That’s a chickenshit christian, fancy not applying the rules of his babble! It’s almost as if he realises the laws of the land trump his religious beliefs..
That was excellent. “I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case your bible talk isn’t just a smoke screen for personal prejudice”. Past epic.
Ouch. You know that had to sting. Way to go, Ms. Raintree!
Game, set, match.
*applause* She’s ten thousand times awesome. I’m gonna go get the fire extinguisher, cause he just got burned!
The Pullet Patrol™ just added a new hero to their wall of fame, Ms Raintree.
Ahem…
I really liked the phrase, “a smokescreen for your personal prejudices.” Yes, that’s what the bible-quoters in my area do. They use it as a smokescreen. Nice to see the screen torn down.
Wonderful.
Day saved.
Lithology. Obviously. :-)
The reference specimen for lithology is the “hand sample”, exactly the size of the stone Ms Raintree brought.
I would say he just lost any Christian backers he may have had. Everyone knows he should have said
” Leviticus was Old Testament and Christ brought a New Covenant.”
And then quote from Romans, or Timothy, or Corinthians. You know…. to keep up ““a smokescreen for your personal prejudices.”
I think we have a winner for Ka-Zing of the New Millennium
Brava! Well played. :)
Gutsy. Calling someone out on their bluff like that sometimes would be inviting death for someone like her.
@ck – When you are trans* and living in a state like Louisiana, merely existing is inviting death. Some days, the only thing one can do is yell defiantly, “If I’m going down, I’m taking as many of you with me as I can!”
While I support what you were getting at, PZ, I don’t like the way you said it. “Freedom to hate” is of course a fundamental human right, closely related to privacy and free speech, and luckily no one was talking about trying to establish a though police to find and punish the haters.
Good for her. Her courage is going to help a bunch of people. Not just the people of Shreveport, but people inspired by her courage.
Only if kept private, not exposed by trying to pass laws allowing hate. That is a public act, and should be criticized for the bigotry it is.
They’re (were?) trying to bring a fairness ordinance to Danville, Kentucky. Guess who opposes it. That’s right! Christians! This is another front I see the evangelical right-wing trying to poison at the local level.
“This is a nationwide agenda of the extreme gay rights agenda, trying to pave the way for gay marriage and other things like that.” said the homophobe from my linked article in 23… I am curious what the “other things like that” refers to…
And not just gay rights, but extreme gay rights.
Sorry for the triple post, I’m just happy to have something relevant to say for a change. ;)
kinem:
Golly, you must have missed the part about turning bigotry and hatred into law, eh? Either that, or you’re willfully ignoring it, which would make you quite the asspimple.
Wrong! Horribly, dangerously, disgustingly wrong!
Not having to keep a thought private is called freedom of speech. It is a fundamental human right, one if the most important. One worth fighting for.
Of course it should be! That’s adding more speech, not banning the original speech.
Hate is always allowed. Making that hate public is always allowed. Denouncing that hate is also always allowed, and in this case, also a good idea.
You must have missed the part about me agree with what PZ was getting at but not how he said it.
Learn literacy. Who gives a shit what the bigot thinks in private.
Whose banning speech? SINCE WHEN IS PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE FREE SPEECH, NOT TRYING TO MAKE A POLICY OFFICIAL?
Nope, you are the idjit not understanding what was said and why. And still don’t get it.
well, box turtle marriage, for one.
@kinem
What, exactly, are you taking issue with here? That PZ used the word “hate” to mean not just an emotion or an opinion but also discriminatory actions and laws? Because that’s a perfectly legitimate use of the word. People with power have never sat by and merely thought negative thoughts at the targets of their hatred or kept things to words. They do tangible, measurable harm to their targets. This isn’t an issue of combating speech with more speech; it’s one of disarming bigots when they use the law as their cudgel.
Or perhaps you’re not keen on PZ’s use of “freedom.” In which case, I’ll point out that it was ironic. It references how people like this politician keep trying to claim their religious freedom entitles them to restrict the freedom and trample the equality of others.
kinem:
I didn’t miss a thing, Cupcake. You be careful with those precious frozen peaches of yours, they’re leaching your brain cells, leaving you with nothing but one dog whistle after another.
Chas:
:clicks link:
Oh for the love of turtles! What. An. Idiot.
@ A. Noyd:
I’m responding to you but not (beyond this note) Caine or Nerd of Redhead because they’re nothing but rude idiots, looking for a fight, while you seem to be commenting in earnest.
PZ’s use of “want to allow freedom to hate” may have been meant ironically, but it’s still a terrible way to characterize the situation. In the worst countries throughout the world where you can get jailed or killed for saying the wrong thing, the oppressors commonly defend the practice by saying that Western countries also ban speech they don’t like and are hypocrites for criticizing those who are merely doing the same thing. Insult the prophet? Die. Why? You had no freedom to hate.
kinem
Yeah that’ll work.
Whereas you’re a rude idiot avoiding the hard questions by looking for an easy way out. The fuckwit is free to hate. He is not free to have his hate ignored.
Freeze Peach. You are entitled to your opinion, and nobody can criticize it.
Free Speech. You are entiltled to your opinion, but everybody else can tell you it is full of shit.
You appear to believe in Freeze Peach, not free speech.
kinem (#34)
*bzzzzt* That’s not what I said. I said the word “freedom” was meant to be ironic. In other words, you’re supposed to substitute in the same thing the bigots mean by that word when they’re referring to “religious freedom,” but the phrase as a whole isn’t ironic.
How so!?
Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension and knowledge of this blog understands PZ is characterizing the situation as “special privilege of ruining lives due to religious bigotry” when he says “freedom to hate.” I invited you to explain what’s wrong with that, and all I got was some dumb equivocation about actual people facing oppression at the hands of religious bigots with, uh… Mohammed??
(And if you’ve run afoul of Nerd and Caine before, it’s gotta because you’re a fucking idiot. Don’t you fucking dare play that “you’re one of the good ones” game with me.)
Bravo, Pamela Raintree. That was glorious!
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult haters to practice whatever bigoted perversions they like in the privacy of their own home, but it is also necessary to protect the innocent.
Now that was a beautiful act of defiance. Bigots hate to be called out.
Kinem @34
Funny, I admire them, and I don’t think I’ve ever got into a fight with either one.
People get cross with you when you discuss issues that impact on their daily lives as though they’re some abstracts of political philosophy. Doubly so when you claim superiority because of detatchment and the ability to ignore real-world consequences. Civilised jurisdictions have laws against hate speech. (This is a difficult area, and such laws are open to abuse, but flying to one extreme and claiming it has no negative effects is intellectually dishonest.)
A. Noyd:
I haven’t come across them before, at least not under the nym ‘kinem’. Apparently, they are such a sensitive soul as to take massive offense over people seeing all those dog whistles. Tsk and all that.
stripeycat:
Yes, the common nasty attitudes towards trans*people isn’t at all important, nor is the appallingly high rate of trans*people who are murdered, nor all those attempts to legislate bigotry, not what with those evil thought police and all.
My response to kinem in Thunderdome:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/23/thunderdome-39/comment-page-2/#comment-740657
I leave this thread to the wonderful Pamela Raintree. Kinem is not going to make it about themselves.
Slightly off topic, can someone please explain this tic of putting an asterisk after the word “trans”? Haven’t noticed it before.
Sorry, belay previous, it turned out to be easier to google than I’d thought…
On topic, this woman wins the internet for January 2014.
On the subject of “Jesus brought a new covenant, that Old Testament stuff doesn’t apply any more” arguments, one has to wonder, if none of that is relevant since Jesus, why pretty much every Bible I’ve ever seen (except those ones in hotel rooms) has all that stuff in it.
It’s like the Haynes manual for my car still telling me how to shoe the horses or something.
Sonofrojblake
It’s a short form to acknowledge all varietis of trans*, be they transgender, transsexual and I’ll stop here before I put my foot into my mouth ;)
Extreme gay rights are, of course, the rights of homosexuals to perform bike flips, skateboard tricks, and just totally grab some sweet air anytime they like.
But how do you pronounce the closing syllable(s) in trans*?
sonofrojblake:
That argument doesn’t hold, and the type of xians who attempt to legislate bigotry on religious grounds don’t buy into that nonsense anyway. Jesus states in many places in the NT, that the old laws are in place, and he abides by them. The relevant verses can be found at SAB.
Kinem, here’s a story of someone who used their freedom to hate. It’s ugly.
Pierce, it’s pronounced like this
@Pierce R. Butler #49 – “But how do you pronounce the closing syllable(s) in trans*?”
It is silent, like the 3 in Hen3ry (a quarter if you get the reference.)
Tom Lehrer called, he wants his quarter so as to double the royalties on his 3rd album.
Goddamn, she is badass and wonderful.
@ stripeycat 41:
Caine & NoR jumped right into personal attacks and potty talk. They also displayed a complete lack of reading comprehension. I will not be responding to anything those idiots post; both squandered any chance of dialog already.
I have to say, if this is how FtB regulars welcome those who may be new or infrequent visitors to the comment section, it will hinder growth of the community. The one time I met PZ, he seemed nice. I don’t know that I can say the same for the commenters his blog attracts, though that is likely a selection effect common on the internet.
Regarding your comment: If people have one view of an issue in the abstract, and another when their own interests are in play, then they are nothing but hypocrites.
Freedom of speech may be an abstract idea but there is no shortage of examples of real world consequences when it is restricted, and as I said, oppressors always justify their restrictions on it by saying everyone does it. In particular, the European restrictions on hate speech are often cited by middle eastern regimes. Those are terrible laws that need to be repealed ASAP and they are human rights violations. I consider this a very important issue.
@ A. Noyd 37:
As I said twice already, I agree with what PZ was getting at but not how he said it.
It’s a terrible way to characterize the situation because it’s open to misinterpretation and quoting out of context. It’s giving ammunition to anyone who wants to attack PZ, and to anyone who wants to use “liberal ideas” to justify restrictions on free speech, as the middle eastern theocrats do. If he says (ironically) that he wants to take away people’s freedoms, why should the enemies of his views say any different?
kinem:
Oh heavens, potty talk. Maybe it’s because your inane, impertinent threadjacking is annoying?
This either displays your complete lack of self-reflection or a big load of projection. Those are our two options.
You’ve already been told multiple … times how you’ve very obviously misconstrued what PZ meant. There is no fundamental human right to make hateful laws violating others’ rights. That is very clearly what “hate” means in this context, and there is no serious case to be made that it meant anything else. So when are you going to shut the fuck up and show some fucking respect for this woman and everyone else in this thread? (I won’t mention respect for yourself yet — if you’re really that confused, maybe that isn’t the problem. But I doubt it.)
“Idiots”: a personal attack. So is it that jumping-right-in is the problem, or is it that they supposedly did it to you rather than vice versa, you silly hypocrite? Or is obvious troll being obvious?
Before I squander my chances of further dialog with you, please consider listening (a major component of any dialog which you’ve failed at so far) when I say “shut the fuck up.”
kinem (#56)
Oh no, potty talk!! Shall I charge the defibrillator for you, dear?
And we all know that’s only excusable in Middle Eastern theocrats (and people with the nym “kinem”).
It’s not. It’s how people respond to dishonest fuckwits. Hardly the people we’re worried might not stick around to grow the community.
No one is talking about restricting free speech, you fucking moron!
NO ONE. IS TALKING ABOUT. RESTRICTING. FREE SPEECH.
It’s not “freedom of speech” to fire someone or deny them a job just because you think gay or trans people are icky and evil. You can still think and say gays and trans people are icky and evil, just not in a way that impedes equal access to jobs and resources.
Well, I was asking you what it is about it about the language PZ used that supposedly makes it soooooo easy to misinterpret. But here’s the thing: you can’t keep dishonest assholes from misinterpreting or quoting out of context if that’s what they’re determined to do.
PZ is writing for a particular audience, nearly all of whom can figure out his meaning (while, excepting you, the rest just don’t care). What you’re suggesting is he should tailor what he writes to be proof against misinterpretation and quotemining by a different audience, one made up of irrational people who are religiously motivated to go out of their way to twist the meaning of things.
What the fuck is wrong with you that you think that’s in any way a reasonable expectation? If he was addressing such people, sure, he should be careful to communicate in a way they’ll understand. But on his own blog, writing to a sympathetic audience? Really?!
Why should they say different?! Well, because it’s a false equivalence. Because what they’re doing is flagrantly dishonest. You’re saying, in essence, “As long as you don’t tailor your words to the sensibilities of religious nuts, they’re justified in lying about what you said.” Your position is the one that hands ammo, or excuses, to the enemies of liberal views.
Instead of complaining to PZ, go spend your time haranguing the people doing the misinterpreting and quotemining, if that’s such a problem. Point out to them what people like PZ are really saying. Point out that anti-discrimination legislation does not restrict freedom of speech or of anything else. Point out how the rights of real people, like the woman in the video, are diminished when bigots get special privileges over them, and that what PZ is saying is the rights of marginalized people come before the special privileges of religious bigots. Compare that situation to how the theocrats you’re talking to are also trying to give religious believers special privileges at the expense of marginalized people. Point out that liberals quite reasonably don’t stand for the “freedom” to hurt other people through the exercise of self-granted special privileges.
Just don’t be a hypocritical, useless fucking nitwit by coming here and handwaving about the dangers of PZ exercising his free speech.
Well, that tells me all I need to know.
I’m curious. Does the use of “fuck” count as potty talk? I figured we’d have to talk about piss and/or shit. Just to be safe, I’ll give a go: kinem’s pissing in the wind, and their comprehension/honesty is shit.
Kinem, this is you:
CR:
Technically, no. I think shitfuckpiss might, though. Maybe.
Sure, I get that. If you’re into that sort of thing.
Cue kinem, quotemining me as saying “you’re into that sort of thing.” Then warning that other dumbassess will quotemine it that way. And just for laughs, let’s switch it up a bit and say that sort of thing is destroying Freedom™ itself. And eating babies. And being vaguely un-American and suspicious. But I repeat myself.
Congratulations, Kinem, you’ve managed to make this thread about you instead of a trans* woman standing up to a bigot. Given the choice between talking about Ms. Raintree and talking about you, you come in at 47th place behind her and there aren’t 45 people between you and her.
Well put, Al D.
Ms. Raintree is amazing. That video put such a smile on my face.
Jackie:
Mine, too. Ms. Raintree is one fabulous, courageous woman. And oh man, what a way to make your point! Sweet.
I’m really glad the councilman didn’t take her up on her offer.
Also, I think my heart just grew two sizes today. While my faith in humanity hasn’t been fully restored, it’s no longer running on empty.
Avo:
You’d think he was afraid of being arrested or something if he did.
Avo @68
“Also, I think my heart just grew two sizes today. While my faith in humanity hasn’t been fully restored, it’s no longer running on empty.”
Never lose faith in humanity, it will turn you into an arrogant self-important libertarian sociopath. I nearly did myself, but thanks to the grace of people like those in this site I was able to avoid it. :)
Caine:
Stand your religious ground.
It is a little surprising he withdrew the proposal, though. It shows one or more of shame, intelligence, or self-awareness. I’m not used to seeing that in politicians.
adobo:
How about a keyboard warning before posting this? You owe me both a paper towel and a swig of beer.
Considering how much you made me laugh, I think I still owe you an internet in change.
Avo:
I’m not either, and I expect it was political savvy, nothing more. Or perhaps he was a afraid of that stone. Nothin’ like getting biblical on someone’s ass, eh?
Adobo, to quote people, use <blockquote>Place Text Here</blockquote>
@15:
So is the Old Testament like a cell phone you keep around for the contact info and naughty pictures of old lovers you have stored in it? I’ve never gotten a good answer for why it’s still a part of the Bible.
nich:
The answer is quite simple, which I pointed out upthread. In the NT, Christ points out, more than once, that the old laws (OT) is still in place, and he upholds them, completely. One example, from Matthew:
Christians still hold onto the OT because originally Christianity was a reformation or heresy (depending on who you talk to) of Judaism. Early Christians argued about whether or not they still had to keep kosher and obey all the other OT edicts. As shown by Caine @75, Matthew claimed they should. Paul, particularly in Galatians, said that Christians did not have to follow the OT rules, specifically Paul said Christian men did not have to be circumcised.
A lot of the OT was retained because of the “prophesies” that a Messiah would come. Since Matthew, Mark and Luke made a big deal about Jesus fulfilling these prophesies, the prophesies had to be kept. Plus there’s always inertia. “If the Old Testament was good enough for granddad then it’s good enough for me.”
I always figured the OT was kept around because it’s so damn handy in justifying atrocities. There are plenty of passages in the NT that can be used to justify them, too, but there’s more explicit permission for the big stuff (like genocide) in the OT, and you don’t need to squint at it quite as hard to find a rationale for why your horrific actions are just in the eyes of God.
That woman is the absolute best, and I have a little bit of a crush. I came back to watch the video again because I needed the uplift.
Oh! Just wait there, Mr. Webb, while I fetch you some after-sun for that burn!
Just have to pile on to say, Fucking Awesome! What courage, what intelligence. I’m am entirely impressed.
I like how she slammed it down with conviction. Way to go.
Actually it would have been more symbolic if she had slammed it down on top of the Bible.
@ Al Dente 64:
I made a short post to express a point that needed to be brought to PZ’s attention. If people didn’t want to discuss that point, they could have just left it alone.
All other posts I’ve made here, including this one, have been simply defending myself against misinterpretations and attacks. I have in no way been trying to detract attention from the video, but I could hardly have not responded without seeming to concede to the idiotic things being said about me.
It is clear though that the community here is not interested in discussion, just in reinforcing shared views. I see little point in wasting more time trying to talk sense into many of the people here.
@ A. Noyd 58:
[blockquote]go spend your time haranguing the people doing the misinterpreting and quotemining, if that’s such a problem[/blockquote]
Oh, I spend a lot more time doing that sort of thing than I do posting here. So, yeah, it is a problem.
Here’s a clue for you idiots: I am a moderate-to-liberal Democrat and an atheist. I have gay friends and support gay rights. I also place a high value on free speech, and was just pointing out a simple point that PZ might have wanted to hear.
Talking about yourself again? I am unimpressed with your self-justification and your idiocy.
kinem:
A discussion was had.
You said something stupid.
People responded to that.
Your point was shit, and like every vapid concern/tone troll before you, once you were challenged you went straight into Whine Mode, saying that We Will Never Grow if We Don’t Coddle Idiocy, and all the same tired shit I am already tired of reading, let alone people who have been here for longer than me.
I am not a troll, so probably there were others who had similar experiences. Is there a website where they tend to migrate to?
Have you tried the domain of the slymey ones? They rather like to exercise their right to hate.
@15: to counter the new covenant: