A wet fish slap across the face of a Freudian slip!

[Soph0571]

Could that Freudian slip be anymore obvious? hehe

[unblock]

1. The hornets were Christian! What did they do to deserve this??

[crazytown]

13. If you or someone you know is feeling persecuted

dial the 666 helpline. 7000 years of experience.

[scrutineer]

2. Christianity is not the only religion that harbors bigots.

The sight of Muslims encountering those Hornets would be an aphrodisiac to some of these “Christians.”

[AZ8theist]

3. Where can I buy those pinatas?

Here, deep in the heart of Mormonville, I can make a few bucks selling them....

[defacto7]

14. Yes, and we do need the pollinators.

[paleotn]

4. Why is it...

that the concept of your rights end precisely at the point where they begin to negatively impact other people's rights is so hard for many to grasp? And it's not just the fundigelicals. It's the gun nuts, the free speech extremists, that whole libertarian idiocy. Ugh!

[cp]

10. Yes, exactly, and you said it so well

Thank you.

[reACTIONary]

11. As a civil libertarian...

... and an advocate for free speech, I'd like to point out to you that your post negatively impacts my rights. Would it be appropriate for me to ask you to remain silent?

[paleotn]

16. If my speech incites others to physically harm you

or otherwise directly infringes on your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yes. Otherwise suck it up, buttercup. My point is, Christian psychos religious rights end precisely where they begin to harm others. Or is LGBTQ folks being thrown out of their apartments or fired from their jobs simply for being who they are OK with you? Just asking.

[reACTIONary]

24. Great! Thanks! Now I know...

… how to respond to complaints about "idiotic free speech extremists"...

"Suck it up, buttercup"

[defacto7]

15. I'm confused about your statement...

What's a free speech extremist?

[paleotn]

17. Donald J Trump.

Inciting nuts to harm journalists is a bit too far, don't you think? Or do you espouse a similar logic as gun advocates who believe a few dead innocents is simply the price society must pay for their right to own firearms? My point being, all things have limits. And where rights are concerned, the limit is where your rights start to shit on mine.

[defacto7]

21. I see and agree with you.

Sometimes I take for granted the difference between what is free speech and what is downright illegal and unethical. But I know those lines are becoming more blurred all the time due to free lies which are misrepresented as free speech. I need a bit of clarification sometimes as to the intent of a term being used.

[reACTIONary]

27. Before you agree, you might want to review...

… some of the things that are said here on DU about repugs, rethugs, and the like. And some of the suggestions that are made about how they should be treated. It might be that we have quite a few "free speech extremists" right here on DU engaging in "downright illegal and unethical" free speech. I'm not sure I would advocate for a standard of behavior that would shut DU down.

[defacto7]

28. And what standard of behaviour that would shut DU down

has been overstepped? I'm serious. There are those who have said some pretty nasty things, but if it crossed an ethical barrier namely one that puts people in danger or is threatening it's taken down and the user is banished. Outside of that there's a murky area that has to be traversed either by judgement or by toleration. Sure, there's a lot of angry speech; some challenge it, some tolerate it in the name of free speech. But does it actually pose a direct threat toward an individual? It depends on the words and intent of course, but the resposibility can be multiplied by the power and influence the speaker wields. There's not much power wielding coming out of DU, but there's plenty in the real nonanonymous world right now let alone in the world of the guy in his underwear counting rounds in his mom's basement.

There have been credible threats on this site and they were dealt with, but what constitutes a site shuttering coment, I think no one has gone there to date.

[reACTIONary]

29. As a one of those "idiotic free speach" extremists ....

.... that paleotn seems to think is a threat to life and limb, I can assure you I think everything is fine on DU. But what standard is paleotn advocating? Presumably much less tolerant of others than what is allowed for now.

Why should someone who has "power and influence" be legally prohibited from saying anything that anyone else is allowed to say? And if such a person actually does have more "power and influence" than others, what practical means might exist for outlawing his speech rather than ours? In actual fact, it is those who are influential and powerful who would be deciding who can speak and what can be said - as a means of oppression to increase their power and influence. THEY wouldn't be the ones suffering.

As an example, consider our right to desecrate and burn an American flag in public as a protest. This is considered by many (quite possibly a majority) to be an incitement to violence that requires retaliation both immediate and legal. And, having burned an American flag, I can tell you that it is provocative - that's one of the reasons for doing it. BUT, even so, it is my RIGHT as an American to burn an American flag. Would you take that right from me?

Don't kid yourself, eroding first amendment rights won't work in our favor or help protect minorities and the oppressed. Quite the opposite. Loosening up those standards would be used as a pretext to shutdown sites like DU. I doubt it would be used against those who are opposed to us.

[reACTIONary]

25. Donald J Trump is certianly NOT a freespeach advocate....

…. in any reasonable sense of the term. He does exercise his right to free speech (as do we all), but that does not make him an advocate of free speech. The example you gave, inciting nuts to harm journalists, is evidence that that is the case.

[IronLionZion]

5. The innocent hornets don't deserve to be a part of this

[marble falls]

6. Poutrage almost always catches the pouter short.

[MontanaMama]

7. "Poutrage"

[Honeycombe8]

8. I don't get it. Except that it's wrong to harm the hornets w/o cause.

It's a bad thing to harm any creature w/o cause. That was actually one of the lessons I learned at my Christian Bible School class when I was a youngster. It made an impression on me, and I still live by that. I won't kill anything, unless I think it's necessary for my own health or safety. I just spent days trying to feed and coax a large lizard who'd gotten into my house...coax him to the window w/an open crack. I'd just given up on it, when voila! I got him outside, and he took off toward the blackberry patch! Yay!

[safeinOhio]

9. If God allows you to be stung

your are not a true Christian. Or, some other such nonsense.

[crazytown]

12. Chinese Hornets! Quick slap a tariff on them.

Horrible.

[MineralMan]

18. Curses! Foiled Again!

[calimary]

19. Excellent!!!

[TimeToGo]

20. (Do we know what the second poster's position is on other things?)

I ask, because on first read, I read it as a satirical response. In other words -- playing along and extending the joke.

Now, of course, I could be wrong and it could be simple stupidity.

I'm probably wrong.

[LudwigPastorius]

22. Self pWn of the Week, right there.

That brings to mind the quip, if Jesus came back today, and saw what his followers were doing in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.

[PatrickforO]

23. Pretty funny.

So...I wonder of she'd jump at that bait if we substituted racism, fascism, or hatred.

[Blue Owl]

26. That post is the bees knees!

n/t