What pissed you off today?

[KoPilot]

Thank you, Loverskitten. You said yes, and you gave me your reason why it bothers you. I appreciate that, and I apologise for the offense.


You are quite right; "Tranny" is very similar to the "N" word. Drag queens and cross dressers and their friends may use it among themselves. I am not and never have been a tranny, I am trans gendered. It's not a matter of cross dressing. Furthermore, I, and my friend, are trans MEN, not trans WOMEN. Most trans men, who have lived their lives in female bodies already-- feel about as far away from "tranny" as it's possible to get.


Maybe, calling people out when they use an offensive word is the best approach-- when they are the kind of people who care. People who believe that trans folk are sinners who will burn in hell and it serves them right-- they don't care very much about offending anyone. They are absolutely offended by the fact that we exist despite their big book. Remember, they also called my friend a whore.

There are real genuine reasons why so many minorities have become so thinskinned. The kinds of persecution trans people, blacks, gays, have faced and DO face, right now-- it's not just someone saying they think belief in god is unnecessary. "Tranny"and "faggot," like "Nigger" in the mouths of those who are not-- is as likely to be the prelude to a beating. Trans people get killed for being trans. Trans men, especially-- get raped, to teach them that they are still and always women.

(IMO, it's good that many comics walk on eggshells. Unfortunately, the ones that don't care-- they are the kind that think hatefulness is funny, and they cater to the hateful. They are the reason your comic friends walk on eggshells, and once more-- moderate comedians might think about speaking up, because otherwise we, who are the butt of these jokes, will. And we would rather not hear any of that shit from people who don't know us, who don't care about us. Laugh at yourself. You know and care about you.)


Now folks, you probably do not understand this, but I am not angry at these church members and their word choices. It's what they do. They get rewarded, by each other, for that kind of talk. I might as well be angry at jackasses for braying, at bulls for shitting, at pigs for oinking.

What made me angry was the way in which several other trans people rushed to defend themselves as Christians from an accusation which was not made about them as Christians. It was made about a particular subsect of Christianity. These people did not deny that fundies are likely to behave this way, they did not try to explain or excuse the fundamentalist church in question. However, self-protection from an adjacent opinion, so to speak, was their first impulse instead of, as Primalux pointed out, showing compassion and acknowledging what had happened, and frankly I find that appalling, that's my opinion about that kind of behavior. It pissed me off. So, I show up in this little backwater thread to vent for a moment.

And thus was born this stupid man's belief that I am a hater of everything and everyone.

No, I will not "shake hands" with DVS. My dislike of him is purely personal, though-- not because he is a member of any sort of group.

Even though watching an atheist duke it out with a christian is one of life's little pleasures, Stella is absolutely spot on here.

Oh, and if your friends are butthurt because they can't make actual persecuted minorities (no, the """war""" on xmas doesn't count, and yes I will spell it that way all I want because I was raised christian too and no one gave a fuck) the punchlines to jokes, which takes about as much intelligence and skill as shooting a caged game animal, then not only are they shitty comics, but they're assholes.

 

[KoPilot]

How come "I've got a black friend" or "I've got a gay friend" always seems to work to justify a not-black, not-gay person saying or doing something shitty to black and/or gay people, but "I've got a cishet friend" and "I've got a christian friend" is suddenly completely inefficient when you want to say or do something that they find slightly irritating.

omg, so heterophobic you guys

 

[Primalex]

They have a church and a cross and bibles and everything. They have the tax writeoff from the government. Truely, if they are NOT Christians, it's up to REAL Christians to put a stop to the imposters. Until that starts happening, it's no one else's job to differentiate.

This holds true für BDSM then, too, right?

It's completely okay for vanilla people to treat all BDSM people like they are abusive assholes and to take BDSM parents their kids away, as the BDSM community does not stop abusive assholes and therefore there is no need to differentiate.

 

[KoPilot]

This holds true für BDSM then, too, right?

It's completely okay for vanilla people to treat all BDSM people like they are abusive assholes and to take BDSM parents their kids away, as the BDSM community does not stop abusive assholes and therefore there is no need to differentiate.

We've been trying to get you to fuck off for a long time now, but it's easier said than done.

 

[ControlandDom]

How come "I've got a black friend" or "I've got a gay friend" always seems to work to justify a not-black, not-gay person saying or doing something shitty to black and/or gay people, but "I've got a cishet friend" and "I've got a christian friend" is suddenly completely inefficient when you want to say or do something that they find slightly irritating.

omg, so heterophobic you guys

"I've got a black friend" is one of the most ridiculed lines EVER. No one takes it seriously or as an excuse.

And if someone is disparaging gay people then it is unlikely their homophobia would have them admit to having a gay friend even if it would make it acceptable.

 

[KoPilot]

"I've got a black friend" is one of the most ridiculed lines EVER. No one takes it seriously or as an excuse.

And if someone is disparaging gay people then it is unlikely their homophobia would have them admit to having a gay friend even if it would make it acceptable.

Lots of people keep people around in their lives that they don't respect.

And the excuse works among others who would use it themselves. Those people are all over the place too.

Anyways.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This holds true für BDSM then, too, right?

It's completely okay for vanilla people to treat all BDSM people like they are abusive assholes and to take BDSM parents their kids away, as the BDSM community does not stop abusive assholes and therefore there is no need to differentiate.

Well that is a hell of a stretch. Non-Christians haven't made any laws that say Christians don't deserve civil rights. They don't teach each other to believe that all Christians are whores, they don't try to deprive Christians of their families, their loved ones, or their churches.

Come on. As a troll, you got nothing. You've become this little hoppy frog thing, trying to jump up and bite kneecaps and missing every time.

 

[SweetDommeSam]

Waking up late again, my sleeping patterns have been so messed up lately. Ugh I wish I would wake up earlier these days. Ugh...

 

[Netzach]

And I guess from the reactions of posts in this thread, the idea of trying to keep calm and rational with an opposing side isn't that popular. But, I was brought up certain phrases pounded into my head as a child.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

This is so intrinsic to Christian morality that you don't even know you're standing in it.

Justice. Restitution. Law. Some of us were raised with THOSE as the highest principles, but Christian morality likes to dismiss this with an "everyone will be BLIND if you keep track of the score" dismissal. You all DO realize that this is to play up the idea that anyone who isn't into the NT version of morality as a blood hungry savage in love with Angry Dad Bad God. The Folks Who Killed Jesus!

 

[Primalex]

Non-Christians haven't made any laws that say Christians don't deserve civil rights.

This has nothing to do with my question. My question was about BDSM. Would you mind to answer my question?

 

[Netzach]

I was at work when this escalated, got this far and I don't plan on reading the rest. But, yes, this is offensive.
I think you, Stella, spelled it that way on purpose because you were frustrated and angry. Not as an abrivation.
When I was a little girl, I made the mistake of abbrivating "Christmas" to "Xmas" and my Mom said I was "crossing Christ out" so now, yes, every time I see it, it bothers me.
But, I also am one of those advocates for "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" and I know too many comics (personally) who are tired of walking on eggshells, in this, too polically correct, thin-skinned world.
I also have many gay, cross-dressing, and drag friends who use the word "tranny" very freely. It's almost like the "N-word" used amongst black people.

LOOK!!!!! Lumping any group of people together is offensive to me. Why do that? Christians, Jews, black people, Gays, hetero-sexuals, women... Etc. we aren't all the same. Just stop it, PERIOD.

Either offended everyone or no one, you can't pick and choose

I learned to write G-d. I realized not everyone else does and I got over it myself.

 

[Netzach]

Seriously, it's possible to live without making your religious needs and reverences everyone else's problem. Some of us have kind of had to do it a lot.

Christians are mistaking the right to be left alone to do what you want with the right to have everyone else treat your silliness with kid gloves and the same awe that they have.

 

[Primalex]

Christians are mistaking the right to be left alone to do what you want with the right to have everyone else treat your silliness with kid gloves and the same awe that they have.

It's the Non-Christians that want something from the Christians and can't leave them alone. Christians get the votes, Christians make the rules. Go to Syria if you don't like democracy.

 

[midwestyankee]

Seriously, it's possible to live without making your religious needs and reverences everyone else's problem. Some of us have kind of had to do it a lot.

Christians are mistaking the right to be left alone to do what you want with the right to have everyone else treat your silliness with kid gloves and the same awe that they have.

There's no privilege quite so valuable as the one that is slowly disappearing because it was't in society's best interests in the first place.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I'm still trying to understand the apology thing.

If my co-workers ever did anything like that, I don't think the idea would enter my mind, that I should apologize for their behaviour unless I were their boss.
In that case I'd apologize for not keeping them in line better.
I'd probably say that it makes me sad that something like that happened. It's no apology and not meant that way either.

 

[Netzach]

It's the Non-Christians that want something from the Christians and can't leave them alone. Christians get the votes, Christians make the rules. Go to Syria if you don't like democracy.

A state where no minority has protection or recourse from a majority isn't a democracy, dumbass. Democratic government isn't some kind of might-makes-right numbers game.

If you think straight majority vote on everything is a good system, there are plenty of legal backwaters for you to go swim in, Syria might be a good destination. We have a hybrid system of democratization for precisely this reason.

Democracy is EVERYONE playing by the same rules at work, including Christians. Acommodations being made within reason, unreasonable needs meaning find a job outside the secular environment if you can't take it. (eg.) Praying 5x a day might be a problem if you're in an ER environment, HAVING to spread the good news on every sales call might mean you need a job in a religious bookstore.

 

[Primalex]

A state where no minority has protection or recourse from a majority isn't a democracy, dumbass. Democratic government isn't some kind of might-makes-right numbers game.

Oh, yes, it is.

The only reason why a minority can have protection is because the majority thinks that it is a good idea. When the majority thinks it is a bad idea to treat you like a human, you end up in Guantanamo.

You are not trying to deny facts, are you?


I can simplify the example for your female brain, too:

You can vote for a party that says:"We will allow homosexual marriages" and you can vote for a party that says:"We will not allow homosexual marriages".

Now who decides whether there will be homosexual marriages? The gays and the lesbian? No. The majority. And all your pouting and denying does not change this.

 

[Dyslexicea]

It's the Non-Christians that want something from the Christians and can't leave them alone. Christians get the votes, Christians make the rules. Go to Syria if you don't like democracy.

Your ignorance is showing, you don't live in a democracy you live in a republic, the distinction is major not minor. A republic which happens to have a constitution. If we lived where votes actually counted the Republican party would be nowhere to be found in our present Federal government, as they lost the popular vote for the Presidency, Senate and also the House. That's right babe they had fewer popular votes in the House than the Democrats.

This is my recent response to a fundamentalist who also was uniformed as to the country he lives in.

This is another response to the same fundamentalist, who like most fundamentalist doesn't know the first thing about following his savior Jesus Christ. It's pathetic when an atheists knows more about what Christ taught than many Christians.

 

[Primalex]

Your ignorance is showing, you don't live in a democracy you live in a republic, the distinction is major not minor.

Why? WHY? Why do you have the urge to write about topics that you have not even the slightest clue about? Is it for the humiliation? Does it arouse you when you are outed as stupid person over and over and over and over again?

I really don't get it.


US has a democracy and is a republic.
UK has a democracy, but is not a republic.
Saudi Arabia is neither democracy nor republic.
China is a republic, but is not considered to be a democracy.

 

[Netzach]

Oh, yes, it is.

The only reason why a minority can have protection is because the majority thinks that it is a good idea. When the majority thinks it is a bad idea to treat you like a human, you end up in Guantanamo.

You are not trying to deny facts, are you?


I can simplify the example for your female brain, too:

You can vote for a party that says:"We will allow homosexual marriages" and you can vote for a party that says:"We will not allow homosexual marriages".

Now who decides whether there will be homosexual marriages? The gays and the lesbian? No. The majority. And all your pouting and denying does not change this.

You're so good at being completely irrelevant.

The majority of Americans say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" interchangeably, go to church for weddings or funerals and manage to work without being total twats to the people they work with, happily not liking to even consider what their co-workers do on Sunday, Saturday, or at seven PM.

So self-id'd "Christian" douchebags who are creating a persecution complex would be a minority who needs to suck it all up. A larger minority than Jews, maybe, but a minority compared to the largely secular person who doesn't give a shit. They are OUTSIDE the mainstream, and thus have no more claim to the mainstream than Jains or worshippers of Amun-Ra.

Jews have been sucking it up and coping, working Saturdays AND working Christmas (you're welcome) laughing self-referentially at the oddity of being unable to have a lobster for a long fucking time. Hardcore Christians who disapprove of their gay co-workers can learn to STFU, really.

 

[Primalex]

You're so good at being completely irrelevant.

The majority of Americans say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" interchangeably, go to church for weddings or funerals and manage to work without being total twats to the people they work with, happily not liking to even consider what their co-workers do on Sunday, Saturday, or at seven PM.

Yet only 1/3 of the states have same-sex marriages and 29 states explicitly decided to bar them. Why? Because "Meh, I don't care" people might not throw rocks at you, but they are terrible in changing things. And so we've come full circle - you need the majority of the people to support your cause.

 

[njlauren]

It's the Non-Christians that want something from the Christians and can't leave them alone. Christians get the votes, Christians make the rules. Go to Syria if you don't like democracy.

Really? So it is non Christians fighting to get evolution taken out of the schools and replaced with some sort of mishagosh that teaches the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago as it is today, that dinosaurs lived in the garden of Eden and that God's law is meant to be above man's law, and so forth. Almost 30 million people in the US identify as Christian Dominionists, who want biblical law to be the highest law, for example..and Non Christians want something from Christians? What, to not have their faith ensconced as law? To not have to listen to wailing to Jesus in a classroom? To have the right to decide if we want to marry the person we love? Show me how the non Christians are forcing anything on Christians, other than making sure that whatever someone's beliefs are don't infringe on basic rights the others have.

It is precisely because the US is not Syria that makes your argument fallacious, Syria is like many countries, the dominant religion often decides what goes on. It is because the US is not a democracy that many religions have flourished here, if we had a democracy we wouldn't have a lot of Irish or Italian americans, since they would have been kept out of the country when the mass migrations happened in the 19th and 20th centuries (since Catholics were a despised minority at the time of the founding and beyond), what are today are the evangelicals/fundies would not be free, in colonial times and even in the first 50 years or so of the US, they were persecuted as well by the dominant Anglican church. The reason that all those groups flourished is because the US is not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, and deliberately so, both legislators and the constitution were there to stop mob rule, which is what majority rule often turns into with rights, and the founders knew it, the constitution is all full of things that don't respect majority rule, the electoral college, appointed senators, house terms short, and judicial review all were there to protect from majority rule. It is only one of the biggest of ironies that orthodox Catholics and evangelicals now claim that 'majority rules' , because the fact that it doesn't is the only reason their faith gained the way it did, otherwise they would be all but nonexistent.

And if majority ruled, then we would have same sex marriage in all 50 states, because right now a majority of Americans support same sex marriage, but only because we have a supreme court whose right wing (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) are strict catholics first and judges second, and because the GOP is in the thrall of the religious droolers claiming they are Christian, we don't have it.

The whole war on Christians is a joke. In places like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and most of the mideast, it can be deadly to be Christian, even in a relatively peaceful country like Indonesia Christians are targeted for violence and worse, in Europe and the US, the only thing Christians are 'targeted' with is ridicule, primarily aimed at the evangelicals and orthodox Christians, who see 'attacks' on Christianity meaning they can't force their beliefs on everyone else, they can't roll on the floors praying to Jesus in public schools, asshole football coaches can't force players to pray (which they did in my high school in NJ back in the late 70's, believe it or not), they can't make having sex with a partner a crime if they don't like it (don't believe me? In the Lawrence decision, a 5-4 ruling, consensual acts between adults in private are a matter of privacy, Scalia argued and the other 3 morons from the Catholic right agreed, that the state had an interest in regulating private morality, and that religious based morality was a valid reason for doing so...how, pray tell, is that different than the mullahs in Iran?)....what Christians in the US claim as a war on Christians is basically that type of Christian is no longer allowed to bully others; When Bill O'Reilly goes on about how prayer was vital in the public schools, he doesn't bother to see how that could be offensive to others, since of course everyone was Christian (I am sure in his neck of God's little acre on Long Island, it was, the area he lived in when he was growing up had few Jews, let alone any other faiths, and Jews would have a hard time buying into houses there). The problem is that type of Christian looks back to where Christian culture and morality was de facto assumed for everyone, and thought it was great, are too narrow minded and stupid to realize that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't so good for many people.


Someone used the analogy with abuse versus BD/SM, and compare that to the situation with "Good Christians' and "Bad Christians", and it is a teaching moment. There is one fundamental problem with that analogy, and it is key. People who openly support BD/SM, groups like NCSF, for example, and open BD/SM people, are careful to make the distinction between abuse and BD/SM, and also are the first people saying abusers should be prosecuted, whether they claim to be into BD/SM or not. Groups and people have spent years educating people to the differences, law enforcement, and have made clear they have no toleration for abuse or abusers, they don't argue for the right of the abuser to abuse, don't make excuses.....

In Christianity, that isn't true. Yes, it is unfair to those who are Christian who aren't bigots, who don't want to force the OT on people and such, when they are lumped in with the fundy morons, but this is where the analogy with BD/SM and abuse fails. The "Good Christians", who come in a wide gamut from traditionalists who believe the whole bible, lock stock and barrel, to progressive Christians who have challenged much of Christian 'teaching', have one major failing, when they look at the haters, the bible thumpers and so forth, their standard response is for the most part to stay silent. When a douchebag like Rick Warren or Joel Osteen make idiotic statements, where is the response saying "That isn't Christianity"? When a fundamentalist asshole at a rally talks about putting LGBT people in concentration camps, where is the putrage? Where are the voters, who vote GOP because they like them for their stance on other issues, who otherwise are repulsed, threatening not to vote if they keep supporting the redneck Christianity that is a major part of the GOP platform? Where are Catholics, 80% of whom are cafeteria Catholics, almost 60% of whom support same sex marriage, and 80% support Enda (federal protection for gays in employment and such), when their troglodyte Bishops, appointed by two fascists, one from Poland and one from Nazi Germany, have turned being Catholic into being anti gay and anti abortion (and for the record, the US association of Bishops formally has condemned ENDA as supporting sin)...how come the good Catholics don't withold the money that supports the Bishops and the Vatican? There is an old expression that comes to mind, that for evil to triumph, all good men have to do is nothing.....more importantly, Bill Shirer, who was a witness to Nazi Germany and the attitudes of the German people, said something about the rise of Hitler, he said that while the many "Good Germans" had no love for hitler (keep in mind Hitler never had a majority of the people in Germany vote for him), they also for whatever reasons didn't feel strongly enough to try and do something about him, and that allowed him to seize power. The Good Christians, whoever they are, might dislike what the knuckle draggers are doing, and be insulted to be lumped in with them, the problem is they do nothing to challenge the idea that the evangelicals or Mel Gibson represent what Christianity is, to the point that the 'wrong' Christianity has become the de facto standard that politicians and such kowtow to..because they know offending "Good Christians" has little downside, but supporting the 'bad ones' has big upside.

I ran into this as a member of a very, very liberal Episcopal church, and it is one of the reasons I couldn't stomach it, despite claiming to be supportive of LGBT people (put it this way, this was suburban, staid, pretty conservative area, and the church had around 6 trans folks as members, lot of gays and lesbians), was hearing how it was our duty to respect the faith of the knuckle draggers, how we had to understand their beliefs, why they were as they were, and then claim the answer was 'gentle persuasion', which is idiotic.....it hit a high point with all the fuss about the Episcopal church having a gay Bishop, and the fuss in the Anglican communion, especially with the jackwads from Africa, and hearing how you have to understand, the africans were converted during colonial times by evangelicals, how they were corrupted (bullshit, but whatever), and that we 'needed' to be part of the communion because of the aid and such the communion gave to the churches in Africa and charity work and so forth......I basically snorted when the rector said that, and said the EC could pull out of the communion and support aid groups and such, and not support African churches, keeping them running, who thought myself and the other LGBT people should be put to death, and he could take his liberation theology and apologies for hate and stick them up his south end (he almost got a toe from my point toed boots up there, too...).

Again, it is patently unfair when Christians who aren't haters are lumped with the haters, but much like BD/SM and abuse, they have to recognize that if they don't make it clear the haters are not Christian, and more importsntly, that the "Good Christians' will not tolerate the haters being seen as representative of Christians and Christianity, they need to look in the mirror. If the droolers put up an amendment to make it illegal to hire gay teachers, or permanently ban same sex marriage and any rights of marriage to gays (North Carolina, anyone, so much for them claiming to be a 'progressive' state) and it passes because the "Good Christians" didn't feel it was important to defeat the measure, then you are going to be judged.

One of the big ironies is that many of the Good Christians, when people defend Islam, that not all Muslims are crazies, will retort "well, where are all the good muslims fighting the crazies, speaking out against them?", and they don't realize they are just as guilty, that they are being seen as crazies in part because they refuse to criticize or fight the morons.

As far the X, as in Xmas, it is not derogatory. The X is the Greek letter Chi, which is the symbol of Christos, Christ, and it was used in many religious writings in early Christian history as a designator for Christ, and I believe it was used in the greek texts of the NT (for anyone who doesn't know, the NT wasn't written in English, it was written primarily in Ancient Greek)...so it is not inherently disrespectful, it doesn't indicate X Christian, it is an indicator of Christ...I think personally it is silly, but to decide that means taking christ out of christmas (ie Xmas), is a bit idiotic.

 

[Primalex]

Really? So it is non Christians fighting to get evolution taken out of the schools and replaced with some sort of mishagosh

Yes.

Non-Christians are also Islamic fundamentalists, aren't they? Life's a bitch if you take a completely inhomogeneous group of people and try to argue about what they would do or would not do. It doesn't make sense, but I've given up on meeting common sense here somewhere.

Show me how the non Christians are forcing anything on Christians, other than making sure that whatever someone's beliefs are don't infringe on basic rights the others have.

As I never said that non-Christians tried to force anything onto others, I have no clue how this would prove or disprove anything. Maybe you didn't notice, but we (at least I) are not discussing, whether Christians are good or evil. It's (unfortunately!?) completely irrelevant. This discussion is about power. Whether you are the beautiful good, the ugly evil, the ugly good or the beautiful evil is really irrelevant.

It is precisely because the US is not Syria that makes your argument fallacious, Syria is like many countries, the dominant religion often decides what goes on.

And in the US, the dominant religion, the Christians, do not decide what goes on? Interesting. Well, if they don't decide what's going on, why all the bashing?

(don't believe me? In the Lawrence decision, a 5-4 ruling, consensual acts between adults in private are a matter of privacy, Scalia argued and the other 3 morons from the Catholic right agreed, that the state had an interest in regulating private morality, and that religious based morality was a valid reason for doing so...how, pray tell, is that different than the mullahs in Iran?)

Thank you very much. And if it would have been 4-5 instead, a completely moronic ideology would have become fact, just because of the rule of the majority! Hey, don't look angry, it was your example, not my fault that you are proving me right.

There is one fundamental problem with that analogy, and it is key. People who openly support BD/SM, groups like NCSF, for example, and open BD/SM people, are careful to make the distinction between abuse and BD/SM, and also are the first people saying abusers should be prosecuted, whether they claim to be into BD/SM or not.[...]

In Christianity, that isn't true. Yes, it is unfair to those who are Christian who aren't bigots, who don't want to force the OT on people and such, when they are lumped in with the fundy morons, but this is where the analogy with BD/SM and abuse fails. The "Good Christians", who come in a wide gamut from traditionalists who believe the whole bible, lock stock and barrel, to progressive Christians who have challenged much of Christian 'teaching', have one major failing, when they look at the haters, the bible thumpers and so forth, their standard response is for the most part to stay silent.

And that's wrong. Of course there are Christian organizations that are against the Christian right-wing fundamentalists, as much as the NCSF is against abusers in BDSM. In example:

http://www.christian-alliance.org/
http://progressivechristianity.org/
http://www.thechristianleft.org/

The problem is more that left-wing Christians get as much airtime on Fox News as gay Islamic hate preachers. It's a problem of perception, not a problem of reality. The same kind of perception problem, as when you are viewed as mentally ill for enjoying BDSM.


I'm telling you what the real difference between those two is: There is no group out there that is saying 'Abuse is great'. The NCSF does not have to fight a structured, organized, well-funded, vocal and seriously connected group that chants:"Abuse is good for BDSM!".

As far the X, as in Xmas, it is not derogatory. The X is the Greek letter Chi, which is the symbol of Christos, Christ, and it was used in many religious writings in early Christian history

Then 'bitch' is not derogatory either. I can live with that, bitch. Anyway, I didn't say that it is derogatory. I said it offends me.

 

[Primalex]

I'm extracting this:

more importantly, Bill Shirer, who was a witness to Nazi Germany and the attitudes of the German people, said something about the rise of Hitler, he said that while the many "Good Germans" had no love for hitler (keep in mind Hitler never had a majority of the people in Germany vote for him), they also for whatever reasons didn't feel strongly enough to try and do something about him, and that allowed him to seize power.

You think you need to look at the past? At another country?

Then tell me, what would you do, if the FBI arrests your neighbor and sends him to Guantanamo? What would your neighbor do, if they would arrest you or another neighbor?

Did you plant a bomb recently to kill Obama? Well, he is killing US citizens without a trial right now and doesn't intend to stop.

No, you don't need the past to find out how societies tick.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As someone above just pointed out, Primalex is so good at being completely irrelevant.