?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Say hello to Sue and Gunny John who, apparently, run Warriors for Innocence.

First, say hi to Sue:

March 17th is the day the liberal anti-war protesters have chosen to meet at the Vietnam Memorial Wall and march to the Pentagon. Those of us who are true Americans find this site to be sacred, and many will travel to the wall to stand guard and prevent the protesters from defacing or damaging the wall.

My husband is a Vietnam Vet, my Brother is a Marine, my Dad is a Vet, my Father-in-law is a Vet, my brother-in-law is a Vet, my Uncle is a Vet, my cousin is a Vet. I have a personal stake in this.

It's a disgrace to choose a war memorial dedicated to our fallen heroes as a location for this protest.

I'll end it there because I pretty much said it all in a recent post. Go here.

Cindy "I hate Bush" Sheehan and Jane "traitor bitch" Fonda will be there along with their liberal friends. Here's a list of the sponsors:

~Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who offered his services to defend Saddam Hussein)
~Ultra-liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters
~Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
~Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author of “Born on the 4th of July”
~Mahdi Bray, executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
~Waleed Bader, vice chair of the National Council of Arab Americans and former president of Arab Muslim American Federation
~Medea Benjamin, co-founder, CODEPINK and Global ExchangeFree Palestine Alliance
~Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
~Islamic Political Party of America
~FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front)
~Islamic-National Congress
~Gay Liberation Network
~Muslim Student Association
~Jibril Hough, chairman, Islamic Political Party of America


Why didn't she bold gay? Or liberation for that matter?

Anyhow, here's Gunny John:

"There are minority factions who have the ears of some very high Career Politicians. The homosexual faction wants any mention of how their lifestyle is against someone's religious beliefs to be considered "hate speech" and a "thought crime." The drug culture wants their use and abuse of narcotics and controlled substances to be accepted and no longer punishable by law.

These people, instead of working to keep this country a model of a representative republic, want to have an "anything goes" attitude. Smoking dope? That's cool. Drinking and driving? No problem. Rape, assault, murder? Fully acceptable in the land of the liberal mindset. Having limits, rules, regulations, is what allows a civilization to thrive and grow. When the rules and regulations are ignored or altered to favor one group over another, then there is no longer a mindset of "All men are created equal" - there is the onset of the "victim mentality," where the individual is no longer held accountable for their own actions, but any wrong that befalls them is a direct result of events in their past; events they have no control over, and events that they will allow to control the rest of their lives.

Everything is not perfect anymore. The time has come for We the People to stand up and be heard. It's time for We the People to let the Career Politicians know that we are no longer going to allow them to rule according to how they want to fill their pocket; they need to put the United States of America back at the forefront of their dealings and negotiations."


Yes, they're fucking crazy.

Of course they're fucking crazy. They're self appointed guardians of the internet on the prowl for pedophiles, for fucks sake. Like they weren't going to be.

In fact, some people are going as far as to say that they're part of a larger organised bunch of insane fuckers: "In other words, with the "Warriors for Innocence" scandal, we may actually be dealing with part of a fairly extensive network of neo-Confederate, militia-sympathiser (if not flat out militia-member) "Christian Patriot" God-warriors-with-guns "Joel's Army" nutcases on our hand...one that potentially makes Focus on the Family or even the American Family Association look like the friggin' Society of Friends in comparison."

Now, I know some people don't see the thing here since, in one way, it's a lot of slash incest underage fiction being killed, and that Six Apart is a commercial website, and thus have a right to say and do what they please, which was said in the comments of the previous post. Also, it's pedophilia, which a lot of people fear being tagged with like it's cancer. Which is fair enough, to a certain level: I'm not wanting to be tagged with it, either, and I'm certainly not weeping over the loss of Harry and Draco fucking each other, because that's never appealed to me. I'm also smart enough that I can see the contradiction of telling Six Apart they can't do this while claiming it's a freedom of speech thing. The freedom to say something also means the freedom to stop saying something. However, even though I am aware of this, I am motivated by that freedom of speech thing, because freedom of speech is not something you support one day of the week, and then don't support another. Yesterday, for example, I found out about a reality TV show that plans to have three dying people compete for a woman's liver--a morally reprehensible, ugly idea, which I think is simply foul in relation to my morals, of which God plays no fucking part in shaping at all. I am, in short, disgusted that it exists. But--and here's the important part--I don't think that it should be shut down, tossed away, and silenced. Let it exist. Maybe something good will come out of it, in that more people will donate organs. Me, I'm already up for donating what I've got when I'm dead, so I won't watch it, and I'm going to think of it, truly, as a foul piece of work.

It seems to me, and perhaps here I am alone, but still, it appears to me that in recent years Right Wing Groups of all Shapes and Size have been on the rise. It seems that every day they gain a little more ground in making their voices louder. Is it a perception on my part? It could be. Maybe these extreme religious views of all shape and size have always had loud voices in the world. Yet it remains that the fact that these voices can have a say over my life, and more importantly, the lives of my friends and family, when they have no idea who these individuals are, and that they base it on some kind of idiotic logic such as 'It's Not Right', then these people need to have their voices minimalised, or at least competed against. The voices of idiots, such as the pair above, with their racist, homophobic driven agendas, need to have their power stripped away. Let them speak. Sure. I got no hassle on that, though I could quite easily see their tongues removed and fingers cut away, but like I said, Freedom of Speech is for everything on every day. What is wrong, however, or perhaps it is more correct for me to say, what offends me, is that such small minded fucks could have any power, anywhere, especially when I know perfectly rational and sane people who have faith of all kind (and those who, again, do not).

My posting on this topic, then, is related to that. It's just a voice being added to the no that needed to be said, originally, to these two fucked up retards, who get nothing but disrespect from me.

And lastly, if someone reading this can provide a definition of pedophilia that covers all situations, and which also addresses the slightly complex issue of it being a sexuality within itself--which some quarters do argue--I'd be most appreciative. I'm curious to see what people have got.

Comments

( 63 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
girliejones
May. 31st, 2007 05:53 am (UTC)
I always thought that the problem with pedophilia is acting on it. Like, it's gross to think old Uncle Charlie is sitting ont he couch looking at his niece's friend Sheila as she's playing and getting off on it. But you know ... women in society have been seen as objects for all time and we have to deal with it. its where the thought becomes action that its a problem, isn't it?

I mean .. we don't want *thought* police do we?
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 05:58 am (UTC)
no, unless you're an insane religious right faction, apparently.

but, to take the act thing further: what ages are you talking here?
girliejones
May. 31st, 2007 06:01 am (UTC)
under age
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 31st, 2007 06:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 06:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 31st, 2007 06:04 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 06:06 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 31st, 2007 06:13 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 06:24 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 31st, 2007 06:28 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 06:36 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hollowpoint - May. 31st, 2007 11:47 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 11:49 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hollowpoint - Jun. 4th, 2007 06:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - elenuial - May. 31st, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - Jun. 1st, 2007 01:13 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ashamel - May. 31st, 2007 07:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 11:21 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ashamel - May. 31st, 2007 11:43 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 11:48 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ashamel - May. 31st, 2007 11:56 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - Jun. 1st, 2007 01:10 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ashamel - Jun. 1st, 2007 05:06 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - benpeek - Jun. 1st, 2007 06:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - elenuial - May. 31st, 2007 04:13 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - elenuial - May. 31st, 2007 04:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
To further the info dump - elenuial - May. 31st, 2007 04:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: To further the info dump - benpeek - Jun. 1st, 2007 01:06 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: To further the info dump - elenuial - Jun. 2nd, 2007 06:41 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: To further the info dump - benpeek - Jun. 2nd, 2007 09:18 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 11:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
ataxi
May. 31st, 2007 05:57 am (UTC)
I find the belief that freedom of speech should enjoy the highest priority amongst human rights a bit nonsensical to be honest.

I don't deny the importance of fighting censorship, particularly when it comes to political and artistic expression, but I don't think every protection of those things should also extend to allowing the criminally addicted to get together and reinforce each other's addiction.

I'm also not sure that the fact that a bunch of crazy crazy wingnuts are the moving force behind Six Aparts sudden, partly (but no one has yet argued, mostly) misdirected crackdown on paedophile communities is really a relevant detail.

It stretches credibility to describe this as "extremists setting policy". If Sue's Views was really setting policy this would be a pretty different blogging service.

On the whole, however, I do agree that the crazy crazy wingnuts seem more organised now than they were a decade ago, and possibly to have wider support. And I'm all for fighting them on the beaches and campaigning to keep them out of any position of influence.
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 06:01 am (UTC)
I find the belief that freedom of speech should enjoy the highest priority amongst human rights a bit nonsensical to be honest.

and yet, i think it's one of the most important things. go figure, huh?

i'm not entirely sure these are the people behind it, either, but unless someone says otherwise, these are the people. we'll see. at least i'm not the only one thinking they're more organised, though.
ataxi
May. 31st, 2007 06:12 am (UTC)
"and yet, i think it's one of the most important things"
One of, yeah. The most, no.

When I look at the UNHDR and make an ordered list of the rights I have that I'd least like to be violated, speech isn't up there with some of the others. Sure, speech is a meta-right whose support tends to intrinsically lead to support for many other basic rights, but ... e'en so.

The worst that has really happened here is some pretty nasty sorts got told they couldn't blog about their nasties on one specific website, some innocents got caught in the cross-fire but will no doubt be allowed to resume normal service shortly, and some really fucking crazy political campaigners got a moment in the sun for everyone to go "wow, you guys really are fucking psychos!"

There's no fundamental challenge to freedom of speech going on, any more than The Australian's hopelessly unbalanced editorial content is such. The internet remains, and everyone's still free to use it for whatever they can get away with.
(no subject) - benpeek - May. 31st, 2007 06:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hollowpoint - May. 31st, 2007 11:57 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ataxi - May. 31st, 2007 12:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - hollowpoint - Jun. 4th, 2007 06:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
girliejones
May. 31st, 2007 06:08 am (UTC)
i think also it needs to be established if, and what are, these are pedophile communities.
ataxi
May. 31st, 2007 06:23 am (UTC)
Absolutely. Speaking for myself, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of Six Apart deleting communities and journals that deal with paedophilia regardless of whether "those urges" can be proven to have been acted upon by the relevant posters. I think they'd be within their rights to do so.
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 06:24 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ataxi - May. 31st, 2007 06:32 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 06:47 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ataxi - May. 31st, 2007 07:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - girliejones - May. 31st, 2007 07:12 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 06:02 am (UTC)
just another day in the world, dear :)
jack_ryder
May. 31st, 2007 06:14 am (UTC)
Isn't the issue that Six Apart folded so quickly to a dubious pressure group?

Sure "Warriors for Innocence" or "Fuckers for Virginity" are an extreme right wing hate group (and the debate I've read about this does sound that they were hoping that LGBT communities would also be closed down as collatoral damage) but if it was a librarians group say (using an example that will get me into trouble later) would Six Apart have caved so quickly?

In fact, if it was a government agency or something like the MPAA (see the Digg-fight over the HD crack) wouldn't they have publicly fought it, rather then backing down immediately?

My ambivalence has shifted into deep suspicion.
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 06:17 am (UTC)
Isn't the issue that Six Apart folded so quickly to a dubious pressure group?

for some, i'm sure it is. for me, i'm seeing it as part of the larger picture.

also, i find the larger picture debate more interesting.
jack_ryder
May. 31st, 2007 06:16 am (UTC)
Correction: Digg did back down, but their users rebelled and they decided to fight.
kaolinfire
May. 31st, 2007 06:23 am (UTC)
well ranted.
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 09:20 am (UTC)
thanks.
(Deleted comment)
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 09:19 am (UTC)
:)
mattdoyle
May. 31st, 2007 09:14 am (UTC)
the freedom of speech thing
i'm big on the freedom of speech thing too, but what we've got to realise is that this sometimes means "people are entitled to their ignorance." And, in some ways, they are. However, ignorance, as we can see by people's reactions to this thing, is very quickly marginalised and so it should be.

the idea that sometimes accompanies "freedom of speech" is that you have to weather and respect other people's opinion is the biggest load of bullshit. if an ignorant person opines flagrantly ridiculous bile, i am not going to respect it.

it may sound intolerant, but i can't respect their opinion, and i won't! i won't even respect their right to say it, because people like this are willfully ignorant; these are the sort who issue a command to kill authors for being blasphemous, without even reading the author's work, the sort of people who get their fucked up morality from an ancient work of fantasy, and who (you kinda showed there ben) often equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

for good or ill, people in the western world have a right to say whatever they want, but i refuse to take ignorant people seriously.
benpeek
May. 31st, 2007 09:19 am (UTC)
Re: the freedom of speech thing
who (you kinda showed there ben) often equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

if you're implying that i said that, then that is most definately *not* what i said, and nor would i.


mattdoyle
May. 31st, 2007 09:46 am (UTC)
Re: the freedom of speech thing
no no, that's not what i was saying...i was saying that you kinda indicated that that was what *they* were saying, by listing the gay lib thing with other "enemies" that she listed.
Re: the freedom of speech thing - benpeek - May. 31st, 2007 09:50 am (UTC) - Expand
burnin_tyger
May. 31st, 2007 07:53 pm (UTC)
Re: the freedom of speech thing
the sort of people who get their fucked up morality from an ancient work of fantasy

If by this you are referring to the Christian Bible...um...I'd have to argue with you on that one. The idjit-militant-fundaloonies are expressly NOT, at least in the opinion of this admittedly liberal Christian, getting their morality from the Bible. Maybe from their stupidly-fucked-up misinterpretation of it, sure. But not the thing itself.

And just for your info, it isn't exactly a work of fantasy. Complex, multilayered, from many authors, composed mostly of myth and poetry, with some bits of admittedly biased hagiographical history mixed in. But that doesn't necessarily make it "a work of fantasy" in the manner you implied.

Then again, I know a lot of people who get their moral codes from Star Wars or the Lord of the Rings. And it helps them through their lives and to be good people. So go figure.
mattdoyle
Jun. 1st, 2007 09:30 am (UTC)
Re: the freedom of speech thing
well, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks they get their moral codes from star wars or lotr are no less deluded than people who get them from the Bible. But that's a bit off topic.
Re: the freedom of speech thing - benpeek - Jun. 1st, 2007 10:53 am (UTC) - Expand
chu_hi_reads
May. 31st, 2007 09:36 pm (UTC)
Ouch, that's some pretty offensive boldfacing.
benpeek
Jun. 1st, 2007 01:01 am (UTC)
isn't it just?

btw, hi, welcome to the blog. don't think i've ever seen you here before :)
chu_hi_reads
Jun. 1st, 2007 01:47 pm (UTC)
Hi! A short while ago I added so many friends at once, based more on their profiles than their journal content, that I'm still discovering them all. You're published! How exciting! =)
(no subject) - benpeek - Jun. 1st, 2007 02:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
( 63 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )