I know that some of his views are rather contentious and some what perverse, but why ban him from a country for his political views? That's bull****.

Mhhmmmm

That's because when someone is feared, they attempt to get rid of it. Difference is feared, therefore they get rid of him in a sense of censorship, before he has a chance to voice himself and get other people to follow the way he thinks....it's a real cowardly tactic...

It's a pusillanimous act on the part of the British government; they're supposed to be one of the most lenient nations for freedom of speech, and they've degenerated to the point where they've made it virtually impossible to speak out against anything...especially anything religious oriented.

Don't even know who that is.

He's the third largest radio talk show host in America; he's very popular, especially in the metropolitan/industrialized areas of the country.

While I'm not particularly fond of some the traits associated with his personality-or what I would ascribe to him as a "filiopiestic veneration of Christianity," along with an extreme case of homophobia-I still agree with his political views for the most part.

It might be a bit extreme to ban a radio talk show host along with neo-Nazis and terrorists, but if he openly expresses homophobic views on his shows then he's a prick and it's his own fault. To be honest, he probably never even wanted to come to England and it's really no loss to us. And he's been quick to insult England with sterotypic views on another show. The transcript can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/t...hp?storyId=103819122. Where he says

"when I saw it this morning, my first thought was, darn, there goes the summer trip where I planned to have my dental work done. The second thought was, there goes my visit to the restaurants of England for the great cuisine."

He takes the piss out of the whole of Britian by making the assumption that we all have bad teeth and crap food. If he knew anything at all and wasn't just being spiteful he wouldn't be making things worse for himself.

And, yes, whilst the Home Secretary is generally a laughingstock, Savage isn't exactly helping himself by taking the p!ss even more. And he keeps going on about the First Amendment in that interview til he gets all p!ssy and hangs up. What he clearly doesn't realise is that Britain is not held by the same laws as America.

He may be popular in America, but there is a line that has to be drawn between free speech and spreading hate messeges and it's really no loss to England for him not to come here and I very much doubt he'd have wanted to anyway. He's only making a fuss about it because now, he cant.

quote:

It might be a bit extreme to ban a radio talk show host along with neo-Nazis and terrorists, but if he openly expresses homophobic views on his shows then he's a prick and it's his own fault. To be honest, he probably never even wanted to come to England and it's really no loss to us. And he's been quick to insult England with sterotypic views on another show. The transcript can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/t...hp?storyId=103819122. Where he says

"when I saw it this morning, my first thought was, darn, there goes the summer trip where I planned to have my dental work done. The second thought was, there goes my visit to the restaurants of England for the great cuisine."

He takes the piss out of the whole of Britian by making the assumption that we all have bad teeth and crap food. If he knew anything at all and wasn't just being spiteful he wouldn't be making things worse for himself.

Having a political opinion or being intolerant of a person's sexual orientation shouldn't be a precursor for having someone excommunicated or ostracized from a country, especially in regards to an occidental/democratic society, where the main prerogative is supposed to be upholding as much freedom as possible for people at home and abroad. It is precisely this characteristic of a democratic and western nation that is supposed to differentiate us, i.e. western civilization, from our counterparts in the poor and under developed/developing nations where the right to dissent is evanescent or conveniently misplaced. And as far as insulting or socially degrading the British people, and him 'not wanting to go there' is concerned...that's a pretty lame excuse to have him barred from the country.

I've already heard all of those segments on Michael Savage; I listen to his show almost daily, and I can tell you that that segment was taken out of context. Preceding that statement, Michael was applauding the English people for offering to pay for his case, for writing a letter of defamation to Parliament, and for impugning the woman who linked him to that list of hate groups and murderers. Not to mention, he gave acclamation to England for all of its historical achievements...such as saving the world and supporting the U.S. in times of crises.

"And, yes, whilst the Home Secretary is generally a laughingstock, Savage isn't exactly helping himself by taking the p!ss even more. And he keeps going on about the First Amendment in that interview til he gets all p!ssy and hangs up. What he clearly doesn't realise is that Britain is not held by the same laws as America."

I wouldn't say that, Savage has an overwhelmingly good case built up against that lilliputian known as Jacqui Smith. If anyone is socially incriminating themselves for being reckless, it'd be Jacqui for her lack of competence and disregard for freedom of speech. While there is a stark difference in the political systems and the modus operandi of the U.S. and the U.K., freedom of speech is still held under the protection of International Law and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"He may be popular in America, but there is a line that has to be drawn between free speech and spreading hate messeges and it's really no loss to England for him not to come here and I very much doubt he'd have wanted to anyway. He's only making a fuss about it because now, he cant."

That's a terrible cop out to be making. The issue isn't solely that Michael Savage can't go to England-the issue extends far greater than that-the issue is that this situation in particular can happen to anyone who just so happens to dissent or express an opinion that is in opposition of the status quo. To simply quash any political opinion and label it as hate mongering because one finds it offensive is a greater act of intolerance than anyone can hope to admit. In suppressing an individual's right to speak, one also suppresses that individual's right to self-determination. And in the process of crushing the individual expression of self-hood, one also puts a candlesnuffer over pluralism-i.e. diversity of thought and multiculturalism-making the state a bland composition of monolithic thought that is ubiquitous amongst all authoritarian states.

The true danger is presented in plain view: a person can be convicted of thought crime, of harboring a view that is contentious to the opinions of others, and a government can maintain the suppression of individualism and civil liberties under the pretext that what a person thinks is reflective of hatred or intolerance...A government that is bent on asserting its authority over its people is never a good thing.

I'm in complete disagreement with you: there should never be made a line from which a person cannot express an opinion, no matter how vulgar or grotesque that it might be in nature or content. Whatever happened to expressing discontent in a forum or a debate? Should anything that one values be made impervious to critique, or swept under the carpet because that critique or criticism offends somebody? That's reductio ad absurdum at its best. There is no justification for suppressing an idea, especially when that idea isn't advocating hatred or violence of any kind towards anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
Having a political opinion or being intolerant of a person's sexual orientation shouldn't be a precursor for having someone excommunicated or ostracized from a country, especially in regards to an occidental/democratic society, where the main prerogative is supposed to be upholding as much freedom as possible for people at home and abroad.

The keyphrase here is "supposed to be."

quote:

It is precisely this characteristic of a democratic and western nation that is supposed to differentiate us, i.e. western civilization, from our counterparts in the poor and under developed/developing nations where the right to dissent is evanescent or conveniently misplaced.

How comes? Western civilization has very deep intolerant roots. Our way or no way at all. Everyone who is different is wrong by default and needs to be saved from the errors of their own ways. Democracy is a very young superstructure for this old base. It is supposed to be promoted by economic security, but right now no one has that luxury - hence the result.

quote:

The issue isn't solely that Michael Savage can't go to England-the issue extends far greater than that-the issue is that this situation in particular can happen to anyone who just so happens to dissent or express an opinion that is in opposition of the status quo. To simply quash any political opinion and label it as hate mongering because one finds it offensive is a greater act of intolerance than anyone can hope to admit. In suppressing an individual's right to speak, one also suppresses that individual's right to self-determination. And in the process of crushing the individual expression of self-hood, one also puts a candlesnuffer over pluralism-i.e. diversity of thought and multiculturalism-making the state a bland composition of monolithic thought that is ubiquitous amongst all authoritarian states.

Right on, sans multiple ornamental embellishments.

quote:

The true danger is presented in plain view: a person can be convicted of thought crime, of harboring a view that is contentious to the opinions of others, and a government can maintain the suppression of individualism and civil liberties under the pretext that what a person thinks is reflective of hatred or intolerance...A government that is bent on asserting its authority over its people is never a good thing.

People who don't mind such a government are bad news too.

quote:

I'm in complete disagreement with you: there should never be made a line from which a person cannot express an opinion, no matter how vulgar or grotesque that it might be in nature or content. Whatever happened to expressing discontent in a forum or a debate? Should anything that one values be made impervious to critique, or swept under the carpet because that critique or criticism offends somebody? That's reductio ad absurdum at its best. There is no justification for suppressing an idea, especially when that idea isn't advocating hatred or violence of any kind towards anyone.

There is plenty of justification to all that. And it's still absurd. PC BS can't be anything but absurd. Even the most benign move is bound to offend some rare individual, and the majority will suffer in the name of satisfaction of that rare unreasonable someone.

"The keyphrase here is "supposed to be."

How is it that I knew that somebody would say this?


"How comes? Western civilization has very deep intolerant roots. Our way or no way at all. Everyone who is different is wrong by default and needs to be saved from the errors of their own ways. Democracy is a very young superstructure for this old base. It is supposed to be promoted by economic security, but right now no one has that luxury - hence the result."

I thought that someone might address this.

I wasn't suggesting that Western civilization is the "apotheosis of good," as it'd be naive to believe that a nation or civilization of any kind has never committed any atrocities towards another subculture, but rather that by contemporary standards Western ideals and customs have the propensity to allow more freedoms for an individual to practice or express a belief...though that seems to be quickly changing.

I wouldn't really label any of the nations as a democracy; there aren't really any true democracies today, especially since democracy isn't really compatible with a highly industrialized and highly populated state. And in regards to the U.S., this is especially important to keep in mind, since the founding fathers originally designed the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution to prevent the creation of a democracy in the U.S.

(This part isn't really addressing CoffeeOwl, it's more directed towards people who might be reading this who have the misguided notion that they live in a democracy)

"People who don't mind such a government are bad news too."

The truth behind this statement is revolting and unfortunate, because in my heart I know this to be true: humans are a subservient lot.

"There is plenty of justification to all that. And it's still absurd. PC BS can't be anything but absurd. Even the most benign move is bound to offend some rare individual, and the majority will suffer in the name of satisfaction of that rare unreasonable someone."

I'd say that you are right on an arbitrary level, but I think that social stratification, religion, and digression in personal morals and beliefs has proven that anything can be justified in Machiavellian terms.

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
I wasn't suggesting that Western civilization is the "apotheosis of good," as it'd be naive to believe that a nation or civilization of any kind has never committed any atrocities towards another subculture, but rather that by contemporary standards Western ideals and customs have the propensity to allow more freedoms for an individual to practice or express a belief...though that seems to be quickly changing.

I didn't take it that way - concepts of good and bad don't apply to societies.

quote:

I wouldn't really label any of the nations as a democracy; there aren't really any true democracies today, especially since democracy isn't really compatible with a highly industrialized and highly populated state. And in regards to the U.S., this is especially important to keep in mind, since the founding fathers originally designed the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution to prevent the creation of a democracy in the U.S.

(This part isn't really addressing CoffeeOwl, it's more directed towards people who might be reading this who have the misguided notion that they live in a democracy)

But they do. They live in an indirect democracy. Although a direct democracy isn't really any better, no matter where the country is at economically, and both sorts give people who don't pay attention an equally false idea of freedom.

quote:

"People who don't mind such a government are bad news too."

The truth behind this statement is revolting and unfortunate, because in my heart I know this to be true: humans are a subservient lot.

They are a lazy lot and would rather relegate the burden of making choices to someone else than take it upon themselves. Can't say that it saddens me any more than a persistently bad weather.

quote:

"There is plenty of justification to all that. And it's still absurd. PC BS can't be anything but absurd. Even the most benign move is bound to offend some rare individual, and the majority will suffer in the name of satisfaction of that rare unreasonable someone."

I'd say that you are right on an arbitrary level, but I think that social stratification, religion, and digression in personal morals and beliefs has proven that anything can be justified in Machiavellian terms.

Machiavelly wouldn't imagine the contemporary level of PC BS even in the worst of his nightmares. And besides, he was a practical man. PC is highly impractical.

quote:

But they do. They live in an indirect democracy. Although a direct democracy isn't really any better, no matter where the country is at economically, and both sorts give people who don't pay attention an equally false idea of freedom.

Yeah, we talked about this a lot in political science, the word democracy is more of a label than anything else; it makes us look nice on paper. I'd still refrain from calling any of us a democracy us a democracy in any sense of the word: an indirect democracy sort of circumvents the meaning of demos kratia by placing the will of the many in the hands of a few.

quote:

They are a lazy lot and would rather relegate the burden of making choices to someone else than take it upon themselves. Can't say that it saddens me any more than a persistently bad weather.

It irritates the **** out of me that people behave so sheepishly in the face of authority. Why not just throw the shackles on now and call it good?

What would you define as bad weather? I rather enjoy the rain and the clouds.

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
an indirect democracy sort of circumvents the meaning of demos kratia by placing the will of the many in the hands of a few.

Not in the least. It's a demos who puts the power in the hands of a few. The demos is supposed to excercise responsibility and generally pay attention. But it does not. Then it blames the few for everything.

quote:

It irritates the **** out of me that people behave so sheepishly in the face of authority. Why not just throw the shackles on now and call it good?

"to live in a society and be free from this society is impossible" (© by a very stereotypical marxist)

quote:

What would you define as bad weather? I rather enjoy the rain and the clouds.

The one that you don't like. Certainly not rain or clouds for me.

quote:

Not in the least. It's a demos who puts the power in the hands of a few. The demos is supposed to excercise responsibility and generally pay attention. But it does not. Then it blames the few for everything.

I speak in terms of the literal definition of demos kratia; having an oligarchy is not the same as having a democracy where a majority are in charge of running the nation. The majority are supposed to control and suppress the minority within a democracy, not the other way around. Having an oligarchy kind of defeats the purpose of labeling a state a democracy in the first place.

Our constitutional republic was deliberately designed to suppress and control the ignorant through the use of an intellectual and bureaucratic intelligentsia, so its not necessarily a system that could ever be labeled a democracy since it evolved directly from the stem of centuries of feudalistic rule and British/theological imperialism and mass indoctrination.