Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thus leaves the safe for work rating of this thread...

Relapse wrote:
Thus leaves the safe for work rating of this thread...

Is that NSFW?

Huh.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Have you read the article?

That does not appear to be a prerequisite.

 Ouze wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Have you read the article?

That does not appear to be a prerequisite.

I guess better over something like this than over a piece of legislation. Good thing that never happens.

 cincydooley wrote:
I see your Katy Perry and raise you a Kate Upton:

Spoiler:

Oh... it's ON!

I'll raise you some Jennifer Lawrence's... um... you'll see:

I’m still new here so I’ll go out of my way to tread as lightly as I can without getting too much heat drawn towards me because this is a hot button topic. Well that goes without saying to as with anything remotely political anymore in this country.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So why isn't GLAAD going after this SNL skit?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/575541

This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.

What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.

Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.

I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?

A solid point.

It does matter which team you’re on as now days if you tote a party or ideological line there will be those to take care of you if you frak up. The media anymore enjoys these little distractions by shining the spotlight on anything controversial just to get ratings. I notice many of you picked up on this whole “spoon feeding” routine the media is so keen on these days. I suppose there is still hope for this country yet. It does not help matters any when there are sudden knee-jerk reactions emanating from both sides of the political spectrum.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So why isn't GLAAD going after this SNL skit?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/575541

This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.

What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.

Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.

I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?

My guess? The SNL skit is comedy, not meant to be taken seriously.
Alec Baldwin used a small slur probably in the heat of a momeny
Robertson has an agenda, saying homosexuals are sinful and wanting us to turn our backs on our godlessness.

SNL is equal opportunity when it comes to comedy but I think this is debatable as their skits tend to learn towards attacking traditional Americans as of late than before. Jury is still out on that one.

Alec Baldwin makes an anti-gay slur and he was canned only because the pressure was too much for the mainstream media to simply blow it off. I guess his actions are catching up with him, who knows?. The man has anger issues and personally needs a royal kick in the fundament.

Robertsons have an agenda, wow that one made me laugh. So I guess A&E has an agenda too with all its reality shows too I bet? That last one was a bit ridiculous don’t you think? The Robertsons had their own thing going on before they were even considered to be on A&E. What agenda would that be? What is YOUR agenda?

GLAAD is one of these militant gay organizations that enjoy attacking any modicum of traditional American Christian values. They’re the first ones to scream “bigot!” in the same fashion these Jesse Jacksons and Al Shaprtons scream “racist!” for attention. Has anyone figured these GLAAD militants are about as bigoted for attacking the Christian tenets as the ones they blame for being bigoted for quoting scripture? Ask not yourself who is the bigot but who is the most intolerant and the most bigoted by proxy? In my experience the ones in this shouting contest on who is more bigoted the victor goes to the loudest and yet the loudest ends up being the most hypocritical.

We lost sense of having a debate anymore because one side wants to shut the other side’s argument down thus we can’t have a debate thus having the gnashing of teeth and flaring tempers. Both sides are equally guilty of these bully tactics only now the liberal side has the advantage of manipulating the argument better than conservatives at the moment. Take that as you may.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Its funny because he says liberals are the only ones assaulting free speech. It is a Two way street, conservatives do it aswell, like demanding companies say "Marry Christmas" not "Happy Holidays"

It is a two way street indeed however the liberals get away with it a lot more than their conservative counterparts for the most part. It still boils down to the reality I think people are getting burnt out on this political correctness being shoved down their throats. Sure people have been saying “Happy Holidays” for a long while now from the secular parts of society versus Merry Christmas but it hasn’t been really been pushed or enforced onto society until 10 or 15 years ago. That to me appears to be more agenda related than anything when it is “pushed” rather come about naturally some all walks of life.

There was a point and time in this country (the US in case you Euros and Canucks are listening in) we didn’t get so offended by these trivial matters. We didn’t have all “outrage factories” as one person stated back then to stoke the fires between two debating sides of these hot button issues such as homosexuality, illegal immigration, gun ownership, socialized medicine and what not. We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.

Crablezworth wrote:Fox news was really trumpeting free speech when Martin Bashir said someone should gak in Sarah Palin's mouth... oh wait they demanded he be fired and.. oh ya, he was fired...

If the first amendment guaranteed every american their own reality show I'd say his rights were being infringed upon. This is exactly like the Paula Deen situation, if you cost your employer money; they’re likely to fire you, pretty simple.

It’s all about money and imagery, however look how much pressure it took to pull Martin Bashir off the air versus Paula Dean.

Having said that it was stupid from both their parts for what they said only thing is Paula’s problem came from what occurred 30 YEARS AGO versus what transpired a month ago. Martin Bashir’s comments were out of pure malice while Paula’s was something coming from the times in the south many years ago. That isn’t the case today as that kind of language went away over time and people who still stuck on this whole “waah, the south is so racist or Jim Crow still exists there” needs to crawl out of the rock they’ve been living under or pull their heads out of their butts.

Phil Robertson’s first amendment rights weren’t violated as the knee-jerking Sarah Palins will have you believe. HOWEVER! It does not take away from the fact he is being persecuted for not only his freedom of expression but for his religious views as well from the opposite sides. Sure how he said the sin of homosexual acts (not homosexuality in general) was a bit crude and I disagree with the part of homosexuality is on par of bestiality and all the other things stated in the article but he still quoted scripture in some parts of the op-ed and his religious views are being persecuted. Don’t tell me A&E had no idea he would say such things. A&E knew dang good and well where Phil was coming from, heck there has been multiple cases of him quoting scripture and giving remarks regarding homosexuality in previous interviews before this controversy started. All it is a knee-jerk reaction from the cowardice and sycophants of A&E, nothing more and nothing less.

Ahtman wrote:I wonder what the response would have been if he had compared Fundamentalists or Evangelicals to terrorists.

Nowhere near the amount of manufactured outrage emanating from the media now, that’s for sure. It all seems a bit lopsided don’t you think? Believe me if the shoe was on the other foot the liberals will be screaming bloody murder that his freedom of speech was being violated and probably wouldn’t hear no more than a peep coming from the likes of GLAAD or other militant liberal organizations.

Kanluwen wrote:Sure the Liberals might have "outrage factories", but many of them are so blatantly obvious that they get ignored by sensible people.

Fox News on the other hand gets taken fairly seriously by their audience.

Fox News is another opinion versus what is projected by the mainstream. Then again that’s a personal preference since I find it hard to take CNN seriously anymore but still watch it for the sake of getting both sides of the issue. I’m afraid these sensible people are becoming far and few between these days.

cincydooley wrote:Honestly, I hope the Robertsons say feth A&E and go to either a Fox Affiliate like FX or Nat Geo.

Nothing's a bigger feth you than costing a station tons of money.

Agreed. Perhaps that will be the best move is to have DD tell A&E to eff-off. Make the network lose money for their stupid knee jerk reactions because the Robertsons have plenty of money, it won’t be a major loss to them versus what A&E will lose.

Monster Rain wrote:If I actually thought the social justice warriors in this thread weren't simply trolling I might engage.

What I've taken from this whole fiasco is that Duck Dynasty is apparently a much larger phenomenon than I had ever imagined. Apparently I don't go to walmart often enough.

Social justice is about as fake as the liberal agenda. It’s all about manipulating people’s emotions in order to get the response desired. Ironic when the social justice warriors outrage over an issue they actually bring more attention towards those they outrage over than hurting them which was originally intended. I still find it hard to believe they’re that stupid though.

Then again the ones the social justice warriors try to help they forget about those they hurt in the process then again they probably don't care as long as they get their agenda through or get whatever amount attention they desire. Who knows? I'm not inclined to get entrenched on the subject matter anymore than I have now.

What exactly is wrong with bestiality?

Looks like those branding attempts paid off, eh, Dogma?

 Ouze wrote:
Looks like those branding attempts paid off, eh, Dogma?

Who's branding whom?

Can't we go back to bouncing mammaries?

Heavy Metal wrote:
Having said that it was stupid from both their parts for what they said only thing is Paula’s problem came from what occurred 30 YEARS AGO versus what transpired a month ago. Martin Bashir’s comments were out of pure malice while Paula’s was something coming from the times in the south many years ago.

2007 is neither what most people consider to be "many years ago", and it's most certainly not 30 years ago by any math known to me*.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Looks like those branding attempts paid off, eh, Dogma?

Who's branding whom?

This is a little obscure at this point, but of those high noise, low signal types was apparently repeatedly using the phrase "social justice warrior" in the OT. Dogma pointed it out and asked "trying a little branding, are we?". Well, it appears to have paid off.

Hell if I know what it means, though. From it's use by Heavy Metal, it appears to encompass anyone who isn't saddened by the consequences suffered by someone who says something like:

“Well what I would really like is a bunch of little n***ers to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around,”

As Mrs. Deen is alleged to have said in a 2007 conversation, according to a sworn statement.



*although in all fairness very little math is known to me.

 whembly wrote:
Can't we go back to bouncing mammaries?

Some people may still actually want to discuss the topic.

 Ouze wrote:

*although in all fairness very little math is known to me.

Math? What is that? If you've ever receive any enlightenment on that, please send some morsels my way...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Can't we go back to bouncing mammaries?

Some people may still actually want to discuss the topic.

But... but... bewbs. They make the world go 'round.

Heavy Metal wrote:
We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.

America has never had a civil debate in all its history. Hell, the first debate we ever had ended in a war

 cincydooley wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Thus leaves the safe for work rating of this thread...

Is that NSFW?

Huh.

Where I work, old bean, that on a computer will land you in HR if the wrong person sees it. A good choice of vid on your part, though, this thread is the better for it.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.

America has never had a civil debate in all its history. Hell, the first debate we ever had ended in a war

I beg to differ sir, you forgot how the Civil Rights came about although there was voilence but did not end in war.

That is in the extreme cases which is indeed true what is happening now. The scary thing is the amount of animosity are at levels that were prelude to the war of northern aggression or the Civil War back in 1861. We had plenty of civil debates in the past that invoked voilence but not so much it shut down or led to massive bloodshed. Prohibition, Women's Sufferage, Worker's rights just to name a few that has been resolved. I know those aren't the best examples but bear with me here.

It seems to me now days one side is more interested in manipulating people's emotions to get them riled up to fuel an agenda benefiting their party and screwing everyone else than actually resolving the issue entirely. Take that as you may.

Ouze wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
Having said that it was stupid from both their parts for what they said only thing is Paula’s problem came from what occurred 30 YEARS AGO versus what transpired a month ago. Martin Bashir’s comments were out of pure malice while Paula’s was something coming from the times in the south many years ago.

2007 is neither what most people consider to be "many years ago", and it's most certainly not 30 years ago by any math known to me*.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Looks like those branding attempts paid off, eh, Dogma?

Who's branding whom?

This is a little obscure at this point, but of those high noise, low signal types was apparently repeatedly using the phrase "social justice warrior" in the OT. Dogma pointed it out and asked "trying a little branding, are we?". Well, it appears to have paid off.

Hell if I know what it means, though. From it's use by Heavy Metal, it appears to encompass anyone who isn't saddened by the consequences suffered by someone who says something like:

“Well what I would really like is a bunch of little n***ers to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around,”

As Mrs. Deen is alleged to have said in a 2007 conversation, according to a sworn statement.



*although in all fairness very little math is known to me.

This alledged statement that caused all the media rage back then was back in 2007? That's a new one on me.

Funny how people have short memories over things such as WWII, 9/11 and Benghazi but their memories are quite fresh over something trivial over what a (now former) cook show host said 30 years ago. Nevermind the person in question who brought this up was white and probably had more interest in getting money out of the law suit than being mentally distressed over racial inneundo. I mean, really?

I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...

Either way it is hard to bring any level of civility these days without someone diving head first into hysterics. A sad case indeed.

 whembly wrote:
Or another world, in which freedom of thought and expression is sharply curtailed and discouraged by the threat of economic coercion against anyone dissenting against this week's folly or whatever outraged-flavor-of-the-month?

But that's not even close to what we have here. This isn't a corporation intruding into an individual's private life and telling them what to say, it's a case of an employee giving an interview in their role as an employee and saying something that makes the company look bad. This is no different than firing a customer service employee for being rude to a customer.

Heavy Metal wrote:
GLAAD is one of these militant gay organizations that enjoy attacking any modicum of traditional American Christian values.

Poor traditional bigots. Maybe if they don't want to be attacked they shouldn't keep yelling so loudly about how you're going to be tortured for eternity if you do the "wrong" things in bed, or throwing tons of money at campaigns to insist that the only legal form of marriage is the one that obeys the commands of their god.

Has anyone figured these GLAAD militants are about as bigoted for attacking the Christian tenets as the ones they blame for being bigoted for quoting scripture?

This makes about as much sense as saying that someone is a racist and a bigot for attacking the KKK tenets.

Sure people have been saying “Happy Holidays” for a long while now from the secular parts of society versus Merry Christmas but it hasn’t been really been pushed or enforced onto society until 10 or 15 years ago. That to me appears to be more agenda related than anything when it is “pushed” rather come about naturally some all walks of life.

This is a joke, right? The whole "secular war on Christmas" is nothing more than a bunch of conservative media people generating fake (but very profitable) outrage every time someone doesn't celebrate the Christian version of the holiday loudly enough. The only time anyone is "pushing" a secular version on anyone is when it's a case of the government endorsing a particular religion, something that was banned all the way back when the country was first created.

HOWEVER! It does not take away from the fact he is being persecuted for not only his freedom of expression but for his religious views as well from the opposite sides.

I don't think you understand what persecution means. Nobody is trying to take his rights away, they're just declining to give him a paycheck or buy his products. You don't get to complain about persecution until you have real persecution, like throwing him in jail for what he said. Until then it's nothing more than yet another case of conservative Christians in the US inventing "persecution" so that they can feel like proper martyrs.

Believe me if the shoe was on the other foot the liberals will be screaming bloody murder that his freedom of speech was being violated and probably wouldn’t hear no more than a peep coming from the likes of GLAAD or other militant liberal organizations.

And they would be just as stupid if they did. Freedom of speech means that the government can't censor you or punish you for saying something. It does NOT mean that nobody can disagree with you or act differently based on what you've said.

I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...

I've witnessed cross burnings in Louisiana, but I've still seen more racism in St. Louis then I did there. It's just racism that's given a pass.

I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...

There is a difference between having an area with racists and having institutionalized racism, not that this is really a factor in what is happening in this particular scenario.

Edit: and sometimes you can have both of course.

Heavy Metal wrote:
This alledged statement that caused all the media rage back then was back in 2007? That's a new one on me.

Yes, it's readily apparent that you aren't familiar with the facts of the situation, and should perhaps reconsider using it as an analogy for the larger picture until you familiarize yourself with the details. The deposition (in May, 2013) in which this was revealed in was part of a civil lawsuit filed back in 2010; and recounted, among other things, that conversation from 2007. The deposition was leaked to the media about a month after it occurred.

The lawsuit covers a timeframe from 2005 to 2010, and actually was about sexual harassment; the racial elements were pretty secondary.

Heavy Metal wrote:
Funny how people have short memories over things such as WWII, 9/11 and Benghazi but their memories are quite fresh over something trivial over what a (now former) cook show host said 30 years ago.

No matter how many times you repeat the (incorrect) 30 years ago line, it's repetition does not improve it's veracity.

 Peregrine wrote:
This makes about as much sense as saying that someone is a racist and a bigot for attacking the KKK tenets.

Is it your position that the Duck Dynasty guy is as bad as the KKK?

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
This makes about as much sense as saying that someone is a racist and a bigot for attacking the KKK tenets.

Is it your position that the Duck Dynasty guy is as bad as the KKK?

No, I'm saying that the reasoning behind the accusation (the one Heavy Metal made about people calling anti-gay Christians bigots being bigots themselves because of that "attack") is just as bad. It isn't bigotry to point out that a bigot is being a bigot.

But is it bigotry to accuse someone of bigotry when they're displaying none simply because you dislike what they have to say?

 Seaward wrote:
But is it bigotry to accuse someone of bigotry when they're displaying none simply because you dislike what they have to say?

Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.

 skyth wrote:
Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.

I disagree. It's not bigotry to state that a given religion regards homosexuality as a sin. It's simply fact.

Most flavors of Christianity would consider me to be a sinner multiple times over, perhaps even a mortal one, depending on where it comes down regarding killing during wartime and the like. As an atheist, this does not affect me in the slightest. Couldn't care less, really. I remain deeply, deeply confused as to why others of an apparently like mind wind up in such a tizzy over what someone believes an imaginary sky-god said.

 Peregrine wrote:
.


This is a joke, right? The whole "secular war on Christmas" is nothing more than a bunch of conservative media people generating fake (but very profitable) outrage every time someone doesn't celebrate the Christian version of the holiday loudly enough. The only time anyone is "pushing" a secular version on anyone is when it's a case of the government endorsing a particular religion, something that was banned all the way back when the country was first created.

I mean, there was the "Take Christ out of Christmas" billboard in Times Square American Atheists, Inc funded the past two weeks. Not to mention how vile, belittling and condescending their Facebook page is. I realize they're not the official representation of Atheists everywhere, but they're loud and get a lot of press and a lot of my atheists friends seem to share their garbage on FB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:


Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.

No, it isn't.

I think smoking is gross and disgusting and would never do it personally, but I don't discriminate against my pals that do. Do I wish they'd stop so they smelled better and be healthier? Yeup. Do I occasionally tell them that? Yeup. Is it bigotry? feth no.

It's the same deal here.

 cincydooley wrote:

 skyth wrote:


Irrelevant as it was bigotry in this case. It doesn't matter if it's because of religious ideas, it is STILL bigotry and hate. If your religious views are that you shouldn't do something because of your religion, that's all fine and dandy. You are making a choice that is yours to make. If you start applying that to other people, then there is a problem. You don't get a free pass on bigotry just because the idea 'came' from your religion. It boils down to anyone saying that someone else being a homosexual is wrong IS bigotry no matter how you try to spin it.

No, it isn't.

I think smoking is gross and disgusting and would never do it personally, but I don't discriminate against my pals that do. Do I wish they'd stop so they smelled better and be healthier? Yeup. Do I occasionally tell them that? Yeup. Is it bigotry? feth no.

It's the same deal here.

No, not really. People choose to smoke. Generally, people don't choose their sexual orientation, any more than they choose their gender, height, or melatonin levels in their skin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is bigotry.

feeder wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

No, it isn't.

I think smoking is gross and disgusting and would never do it personally, but I don't discriminate against my pals that do. Do I wish they'd stop so they smelled better and be healthier? Yeup. Do I occasionally tell them that? Yeup. Is it bigotry? feth no.

It's the same deal here.

No, not really. People choose to smoke. Generally, people don't choose their sexual orientation, any more than they choose their gender, height, or melatonin levels in their skin. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is bigotry.

This. Also homosexuality is not dangerous to anybody's health, neither the gay man nor any straight person around them. There's no such thing as "second-hand gay."
Unless of course a religious person believes homosexuality is a detriment to the health of the eternal soul, but that is such a quagmire of utterly impossible debate and philosophy it seems like a good thing "eternal health of the soul" isn't something our government has ever seemed too interested in, or felt the need to guarantee as a right. There have been exceptions of course.

 Seaward wrote:
I disagree. It's not bigotry to state that a given religion regards homosexuality as a sin. It's simply fact.

But that religion also doesn't conflate homosexuality with bestiality or terrorism. If I said premarital sex lead to bestiality, or was akin to terrorism, I would be laughed out of the room, but you can say it about homosexuals.

Text removed,

reds8n

Heavy Metal wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
We can’t have a civil debate in this country anymore without someone or one side being so hostile the debate is shut down before it can be properly resolved.

America has never had a civil debate in all its history. Hell, the first debate we ever had ended in a war

I beg to differ sir, you forgot how the Civil Rights came about although there was voilence but did not end in war.

That is in the extreme cases which is indeed true what is happening now. The scary thing is the amount of animosity are at levels that were prelude to the war of northern aggression or the Civil War back in 1861. We had plenty of civil debates in the past that invoked voilence but not so much it shut down or led to massive bloodshed. Prohibition, Women's Sufferage, Worker's rights just to name a few that has been resolved. I know those aren't the best examples but bear with me here.

The joke went right over your head. And if you are not having a civil debate, then you are ot trying hard enough or debating with the wrong people
This alledged statement that caused all the media rage back then was back in 2007? That's a new one on me.

Funny how people have short memories over things such as WWII, 9/11 and Benghazi but their memories are quite fresh over something trivial over what a (now former) cook show host said 30 years ago. Nevermind the person in question who brought this up was white and probably had more interest in getting money out of the law suit than being mentally distressed over racial inneundo. I mean, really?

I've travelled nearly over the continental US and I hear more racial slurs in supposedly more liberal states like California than I have in the deep rural areas of Alabama and that was more than just truck stops too...

Either way it is hard to bring any level of civility these days without someone diving head first into hysterics. A sad case indeed.