Gary Oldman Apology (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If society decides that bigots deserve to be shunned it has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Practically criminalized? What does that even mean?

It means that it feels like we're inching closer and closer to criminalizing speech.

Actually what this is is just the latest example of an actor that should just stay on script and leave the political commentary to someone else.

without criminalizing speech, which would violate the first amendment, society has found a way to "ex-communicate' anybody who speaks out of turn.

There was a thread in these parts a few years ago on this trend, but community dismissed it saying, well the first amendment remains intact....

And it has always been so. Why just a few years ago admitting you were gay could cost you your job, your family and your friends. So society for a long time was fine with enforcing no gay. Now it's changed a little bit and society has decided those that would disparage someone based on their sexual connotation, their race, etc. are the ones who belong in the closet. Times change.

But neither of them are right.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But neither of them are right.

Here on planet Earth being gay and promoting hatred of gays aren't actually considered the same thing.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

But neither of them are right.

Here on planet Earth being gay and promoting hatred of gays aren't actually considered the same thing.

See? We jumped to "hatred" just that fast.

 

[NCCommish]

Practically criminalized? What does that even mean?

It means that it feels like we're inching closer and closer to criminalizing speech.

Actually what this is is just the latest example of an actor that should just stay on script and leave the political commentary to someone else.

without criminalizing speech, which would violate the first amendment, society has found a way to "ex-communicate' anybody who speaks out of turn.

There was a thread in these parts a few years ago on this trend, but community dismissed it saying, well the first amendment remains intact....

And it has always been so. Why just a few years ago admitting you were gay could cost you your job, your family and your friends. So society for a long time was fine with enforcing no gay. Now it's changed a little bit and society has decided those that would disparage someone based on their sexual connotation, their race, etc. are the ones who belong in the closet. Times change.

But neither of them are right.

Society is a blunt instrument not a scalpel.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Society is a blunt instrument not a scalpel.

And isn't that unfortunate...

 

[NCCommish]

Society is a blunt instrument not a scalpel.

And isn't that unfortunate...

It is.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But neither of them are right.

Here on planet Earth being gay and promoting hatred of gays aren't actually considered the same thing.

See? We jumped to "hatred" just that fast.

If you want to argue Oldman doesn't have the same views as the bigots he's defending -- go for it. There's no way of knowing. (But why pick those examples otherwise?)

But the guys he's defending? Pretty cut and dry.

No one's suggesting Mel Gibson and his fellow travelers shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want. But arguing that the rest of the world doesn't have a right to decide they're scumbags or that there shouldn't be consequences for that kind of behavior is goofy. Especially when the 1st Amendement gets brought into it.

 

[NCCommish]

But neither of them are right.

Here on planet Earth being gay and promoting hatred of gays aren't actually considered the same thing.

See? We jumped to "hatred" just that fast.

If you want to argue Oldman doesn't have the same views as the bigots he's defending -- go for it. There's no way of knowing. (But why pick those examples otherwise?)

But the guys he's defending? Pretty cut and dry.

No one's suggesting Mel Gibson and his fellow travelers shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want. But arguing that the rest of the world doesn't have a right to decide they're scumbags and that there shouldn't be consequences for that kind of behavior is goofy. Especially when the 1st Amendement gets brought into it.

Free speech doesn't mean consequence free after all.

 

[Zow]

"The first amendment is not the issue here"

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Going back and reading my first post...I didn't make my point very well. And even if I had, this wasn't the best thread to make the point in.

 

[Apple Jack]

It's mind-boggling how many people don't seem to get the difference between being ridiculed for idiocy by society and being censored by the government. It's a little disturbing.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's mind-boggling how many people don't seem to get the difference between being ridiculed for idiocy by society and being censored by the government. It's a little disturbing.

Of course there's a difference.

What's also mind boggling, or better categorized as short sighted, is the reluctance to accept that it's often a short leap from being a societal norm to a government law.

 

[jon_mx]

But neither of them are right.

Here on planet Earth being gay and promoting hatred of gays aren't actually considered the same thing.

See? We jumped to "hatred" just that fast.

If you want to argue Oldman doesn't have the same views as the bigots he's defending -- go for it. There's no way of knowing. (But why pick those examples otherwise?)

But the guys he's defending? Pretty cut and dry.

No one's suggesting Mel Gibson and his fellow travelers shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want. But arguing that the rest of the world doesn't have a right to decide they're scumbags and that there shouldn't be consequences for that kind of behavior is goofy. Especially when the 1st Amendement gets brought into it.

Free speech doesn't mean consequence free after all.

Unfortunately, instead of finding a happy medium where Christians can be tolerant and adhere to their views, we are to the point where many want to condemn Christians. Certainly there are many Christians who condemn gays still and act like it is a huge crime against humanity. But many are tolerant, accept and love gays but do not think it is correct to approve their lifestyle. Too many people here want to lump those two groups together and call them all bigots. IMHO, they have crossed the line and are acting as bigots.

 

[Koya]

But neither of them are right.

Here on planet Earth being gay and promoting hatred of gays aren't actually considered the same thing.

See? We jumped to "hatred" just that fast.

If you want to argue Oldman doesn't have the same views as the bigots he's defending -- go for it. There's no way of knowing. (But why pick those examples otherwise?)

But the guys he's defending? Pretty cut and dry.

No one's suggesting Mel Gibson and his fellow travelers shouldn't be allowed to say anything they want. But arguing that the rest of the world doesn't have a right to decide they're scumbags and that there shouldn't be consequences for that kind of behavior is goofy. Especially when the 1st Amendement gets brought into it.

Free speech doesn't mean consequence free after all.

Unfortunately, instead of finding a happy medium where Christians can be tolerant and adhere to their views, we are to the point where many want to condemn Christians. Certainly there are many Christians who condemn gays still and act like it is a huge crime against humanity. But many are tolerant, accept and love gays but do not think it is correct to approve their lifestyle. Too many people here want to lump those two groups together and call them all bigots. IMHO, they have crossed the line and are acting as bigots.

Agreed that there are shades of all grays... but I think part of the underlying issue here is the important subtlety of "lifestyle" - do you, for example, live a "straight" lifestyle? Or were you simply born attracted to women and act accordingly?

It's the concept that it's not a choice or behavior that is "wrong" but who and what someone is, at their core. And if you want to say that the idea is not the person but the behavior, it's not that big a jump to say that how can you condemn someone to a life of being alone / never having intimacy, as that person can only legitimately have a partner, sexually, in marriage, etc, with someone of their own gender?

Personally, I respect the right of everyone to have their own opinion, even if I don't respect the opinion itself. However, my tolerance ends when someone looks to prohibit (directly or by law) others from having freedom and equality. If you think it's "wrong" so be it, if you wish to reduce other people's freedom/equality because you feel it's wrong, that's where I really draw the line - and believe many others do, as well.

 

[Greggity]

:facepalm:

There might have been a better way to articulate his point.

Agreed....he is just pissed off and old school.I think Mel Gibson is a total racist. Gary Oldman? Naaaaa he is just pissed off about how

ridiculous society is becoming.

Except that society is less ridiculous than it's been in probably a long time.

Are you kidding me? You cant say anything that doesnt offend someone, somewhere. Its absurd....They certainly dont make men like they used to thats for sure...

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Agreed that there are shades of all grays... but I think part of the underlying issue here is the important subtlety of "lifestyle" - do you, for example, live a "straight" lifestyle? Or were you simply born attracted to women and act accordingly?

It's the concept that it's not a choice or behavior that is "wrong" but who and what someone is, at their core. And if you want to say that the idea is not the person but the behavior, it's not that big a jump to say that how can you condemn someone to a life of being alone / never having intimacy, as that person can only legitimately have a partner, sexually, in marriage, etc, with someone of their own gender?

Personally, I respect the right of everyone to have their own opinion, even if I don't respect the opinion itself. However, my tolerance ends when someone looks to prohibit (directly or by law) others from having freedom and equality. If you think it's "wrong" so be it, if you wish to reduce other people's freedom/equality because you feel it's wrong, that's where I really draw the line - and believe many others do, as well.

That argument holds no water. People are able to have homosexual relationships, and all the intimacy that comes with it, without legal recognition of their relationships.

People don't say "Well, since it's not legal, honey, I can't love you."