i just kicked a drunk woman out of my hotel for calling my gay coworker a fag

You own a hotel?

the hotel at which i work.

i thought it said hotel ROOM which would have been better (sorry)

wait a minute. i'm not sorry. it would have been better.

Sorry, I be drunksed. Was that the only thing she said, or were there other joyful obnoxious statements? (I'm aware that this is enough on its own to kick someone out for, but am merely trying to tease out some details, seeing as UK time it is almost 3.30am and this thread will be teh slow.)

xpst

Righteous indignation is my favorite thing - details pls!

"i just kicked a drunk woman out of my hotel for calling my gay coworker a fag...i better run to my computer!!"

I stand at a computer for 8 hours a day, Chaki.

"i just kicked a drunk woman out of my hotel for calling my gay coworker a fag...i better announce it on the computer!!"

good work.

damn chaki, chill son.

Context:

Private graduation party with buffet is going on by our bar. Someone mistakes Drunk Woman for extended family and invites her to chow down. As she takes a bite of her sammy, someone else tells her that this is a private party and that the food is for "family ONLY." She sheepishly puts her food back on the buffet and storms over to my desk in rage.

As I deal with the massive line in front of me (it's fucking Memorial weekend and they schedule me ALONE?) she's slur-ranting to her friends that it's SO FUCKING RIDICULOUS that no one had the FUCKING COURTESY to tell her that there was a private party going on. It was SO FUCKING EMBARASSING to have to put that food back, she wants to talk to a fucking Manager on Duty NOW.

I step to the side of my line and advise her that I'll be with her in just a moment, I just need to attend to these people in line.

"WELL HURRY THE FUCK UP CAUSE I NEED TO TALK TO SOMEONE ABOUT THIS HUMILIATION."

She continues her noisy protests as she makes her way through the line, leering at the people at the party and demanding to know what the FUCK they're looking at, "TURN AROUND YOU BITCH IN THE WHITE! TURN AROUND!" People are already muttering that somebody needs to call the police.

Finally gets to the front and (after a recap of everything she's already said) berates me some more. I explain to her that there was a large sign announcing that the buffet was for the Gonzalez Graduation Party, and that we presumed the signage would be enough to make the private status of the food clear. Now she wants to know "Why your bartender, that fucking FAGGOT bartender of yours, didn't tell me there was a private party going on? That FAG etc etc"

Without raising my voice I tell her "M'am, I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

"WHAAAAT?!"

I radio maintanence to bring down her bags (which I accurately guess are still unpacked because I just checked her in half an hour ago) and start serving the people behind her. She wants to know why she's being asked to leave etc etc, answer being

"M'am, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. My bartender, myself, and my general manager will not tolerate your hate speech on our property. We have not and will not charge you a cent and you're free to take your business elsewhere. I'd rather not call the police, but if you insist on continuing to disturb our guests I will. Please leave."

I get the sense my gay General Manager will not mind losing her dollars.

ill response, HOOS.

http://www.leadership-tools.com/images/Leadership%20E-Card%20-%20Great%20Job_lrg.jpg

Yes, very professionally handled.

chaki loves homophobia

Hear hear, sez I.

hells yes HOOS

u fighting the good fight

Very smooth and decent of you! Sorry that your holiday weekend sounds so... ick.

HOOS mah HERO

gay people and the straight people that defend them

When does your shift end? I'm basically around the corner, and would like to buy you a drink.

this week I had to talk to some crazy old lady on the phone about how dirty stoners who were always drunk and high were probably not the reason her computer and her friends' computer (he also hates the idea that marijuana should be legalized) got all fucked up and additionally I don't care about Goerge Soros giving money to said dirty stinky hippies on the radio shows etc. call the FBI field office thank you g'bye

A coworker had to talk for like a half hour to some lady who had decided to sue Oprah for stealing her book off HER computer so I guess I made out okay

we hereby give u this medal of honor and a key to the internet and this day shall be known henceforth as BIG HOOS day

"TURN AROUND YOU BITCH IN THE WHITE! TURN AROUND!"

i keep imaging this in the "ok 'cuz see, they don't know me, DELICIOUS, do they know me?" voice

ah i'm sorry, that's not appropriate.

good work, HOOS.

The other day some guy comes back to return a ring. He starts yelling and screaming - after my husband, who doesn't realize it was sth he had bought and gave (according to the client) a low price. He screams his head off even on the the street. He says he will call the police and blabla. The next day he comes back. He had thrown the ring or done something to it, cause it was almost broken. How he had done this, I do not wanna know, cause it would require either a bulldozer or a hella of lot of strength. I manage to solve the problem saying he can have his money back (but without the VAT, shit I need to repair it, there's no clear reason why he wants to give it back) or he can have something else. He gets two rings (for higher prices but he doesn't need to pay anything extra). He then proclaims that he had just heard from the doctor he had a lump behind his lung and that this was the second time, after three years, he's sick again, the first time being his liver. He thinks he will die, he has to wait to hear when he will do chemo. He also adds he is sorry.

I get scared when people act crazy but I always try to remain calm and solve it without any more hassle. I try to think there must be sth else going on in their lives.

People are already muttering that somebody needs to call the police.

great story hoos. i mean, i have to say, sometimes i kindof enjoy witnessing people that fucking out of the loop, cuz you get to just look at them and think/say, damn, ur a big fucking moron, and i am so much fucking better at life than you. of course, you say it politely. if you're at work.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99sep/images/9909lincoln.jpg
"M'am, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. My bartender, myself, and my general manager will not tolerate your hate speech on our property. We have not and will not charge you a cent and you're free to take your business elsewhere. I'd rather not call the police, but if you insist on continuing to disturb our guests I will. Please leave."

yea you big fucking hero, if anyone acted like she did even without the homophobic remark it would be fair grounds.

Also i think the quoted dialog is a fucking lie.

that was not a fun argument.

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:17 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Link

vs

Without raising my voice I tell her "M'am, I'm going to have to ask you to leave."

"WHAAAAT?!"

I radio maintanence to bring down her bags (which I accurately guess are still unpacked because I just checked her in half an hour ago) and start serving the people behind her. She wants to know why she's being asked to leave etc etc, answer being

"M'am, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. My bartender, myself, and my general manager will not tolerate your hate speech on our property. We have not and will not charge you a cent and you're free to take your business elsewhere. I'd rather not call the police, but if you insist on continuing to disturb our guests I will. Please leave."

I get the sense my gay General Manager will not mind losing her dollars.

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:27 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Link

are you asking ilx for a raise?

You done good, Hoos.

your favorite hate speech couplets of the moment, you contrarian-ass mutha!

Yay, 300 post thread here we go!

SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE GAY!!!!!

none of my general managers are gay

none that I've been able to uncover so far anyway

well believe it or not people like do still exist and a good little hero speech like that is definitely called for.

I just pulled some people out of the WTC towers and saved their lives (193 new answers, last updated September 11th, 2001)

http://i14.tinypic.com/5zmhx1t.jpg

Ethan and JW hate when ILXors get self-righteous.

there's something to be said for not being self-righteous about not being self-righteous.

i mean if ur gonna be self-righteous it might as well be for a good cause, like swatting away the stupid fucking trash of America

i'm glad that no-one on ilx is an asshole when drunk.

American trash >>>>>>>> Eurotrash

http://www.geocities.com/zijin/eurotard.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/zijin/eurotard.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/zijin/eurotard.gif

defensive

condescending

assumptive

http://www.scborromeo.org/images/assumpt.jpg

don't think Surmounter is euro

homophobes seriously need to quit rocking the private graduation party buffet thing

The buffet is for "family", wink wink.

we're all euro :(

i'm lebanese but my personality is amerrrican. i like america, just not american trash. american woman jabbing ppl and screaming "faggot" in a hotel cuz she got embarrassed = american trash. faggot shouldn't be treated lightly, and neither should arguing against it - because wherever you or i may live or whoever we may know, there are still plenty of ppl living in plenty o places that do use the word faggot and the like to great detriment.

though the plain and simple notion of human equality shouldn't need a medal to encourage it (self-righteousness etc.), still these days, as a gay man, i find it worthy of praise.

did you find ILX through oink invites?

plain and simple notion of human equality... except for trashy people.

true or false: lebanese is the euros of the middle east?

I just kicked a drunk woman out of my hotel for calling my female co-worker a bitch

was she pregnant drunk woman?

i think this thread needs a bit of the ol' tuomas magic.

The shit that goes down on ILX while I sleep.

that was not a fun argument.

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:17 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Link

vs

Without raising my voice &c...

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:27 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Link

-- and what, Sunday, 27 May 2007 13:36 (5 hours ago)

Ethey-poo:

I edited out her various protestations and our back and forth because it was unclear and repetitive. Should I clarify that my hands were shaking a little from nervousness as I kicked her out? Perhaps that extra bit of pussin out on my part will help you make sense out of this.

BIG HERO aka the homophobe sonner

I bet "Shakey-Hands Hoos'" would be too much of a limp dick to throw out a group of well dressed sober dudes who made a homophobic remark.

I'd like to think not, but it's possible.

Though I don't see how "well-dressed" has anything to do with it, I don't work at a fuckin Motel 6 dude.

good job Hoos

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/edwardiii/thanksbighoos.jpg

i know! motel 6 doesn't have a buffet line

yes, TRUE, lebanon is very euro. lebanese women tend to look like decorative pin-cushions.

plain and simple notion of human equality... except for trashy people.

-- That one guy that quit, Sunday, 27 May 2007 19:22 (23 minutes ago) Link

yeah, that was the point I was making: you have your rude woman yelling "faggot," and you have your Hoos. Rude woman yelling faggot, Hoos. Guess who doesn't get the human equality ribbon today!

oh the hoosmanity

http://thirdrate.com/misc/surprise_party.gif

hoosamasexual

Noize bitches be hatin.

xpost

is that for me? u shouldn't have ; ) xxpost

I think black people would either be more or perhaps less likely to kick a drunk woman out of a hotel for calling a gay coworker a fag. Does ILX have an opinion on this?

big hoos' medallion swings from the human equality ribbon.

http://www.y2kyouth.org/Nickole/Awards/colage00.jpg

crazy xxpost

ps the ribbon is yellow

what if big hoos was an agnostic black woman and overweight, and also drunk, and the drunk woman making the scene was in fact Colin Powell in a tuxedo, with his family, how would it have gone down

Colin Powell SMOOVE B

if this had happened in europe how big a tip would she have left for big hoos?

http://www.siliconeer.com/past_issues/2006/november2006_files/nov06_the-right-to-know.jpg

http://www.nataliedee.com/011107/license-and-registration-please.jpg

http://www.americanhungarianfederation.org/images/lantos1_lg.jpg

http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/bellhop_lg.png

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b361/tapestore/whereisthelovequestionmark.jpg

Hey Hoos, I think it's perfectlty ok and not at all assholeish to want some validation/assurance that you were in the right after a nasty scene like that, but for future reference, ILX isn't a good place to get that. You shoulda called a friend or something. :)

Point taken, it was just closest and easiest when I was stuck at the workplace.

[radio tuning]

It's still bigger than hip hop hip hop hip hop hip

It's bigger than hip hop hip hop hip hop hip hop

[Verse 1]

Uhh, uhh, uhh

One thing 'bout music when it's real they get scared

Got us slavin for the welfare

Aint no food, clothes, or healthcare

I'm down for guerilla warfare

All my niggas put your guns in the air if you really don't care

Skunk in the air, make a nigga wanna buck in the air

for my brother locked up in the jump for a year

Shit is real out here don't believe these videos

This fake ass industry gotta pay to get a song on the radio

Really though, DP'z gon' let you know

It's just a game of pimps and hoes

And it's all 'bout who you know

Not who we are, or how we grow

I rap 'bout what I know, what I go through

What I been through, not just for no dough

Even though the rent due, what I'm into aint for no dough

Or just no fame, everything must change, nothin remains the same

Sick of the same ol' thang, it's bigger than "Bling Bling"

HOOK:

If I, feel it I feel it, if I don't, I don't

If it aint really real then I probably won't

Rollin with my soldiers, live soldiers, ready to ride

For this real hip hop y'all I'm ready to die

Uhh, hip what hop what hip what hop what hip what hop what hip what

Hop c'mon, c'mon, my soldiers, live soldiers, ready to ride

For this real hip hop y'all I'm ready to die

[Verse 2]

Hip hop means sayin what I want never bite my tongue

Hip hop means teaching the young

If you feelin what I'm feelin then you hearin what I'm sayin

cause these fake fake records just keep on playin

What you sayin huh DP bringin the funk

Let the bassline rattle your trunk, uhhh!

Punk pig wit a badge wanna handcuff me cuz my pants that's tend to sag

Hip hop means throw up your rag, soldier flag

Whether ridin on the bus or you stole a jag

M-1 mean freedom, burn the cash

Revolutionary love til the day we pass

Will they play it on the radio

Maybe not, maybe so we gon keep it pumpin though

Everybody know we headed for the whoa, fo sho

[Verse 3]

Ay dogg that label is that slave ship

Owners got them whips and rappers is slaves

If you really wanna eat you gotta hear the same thing

With the football, b-ball, or if you slangin that dope

Aint never seen no hope, brainwash video shows be foolin my folk

What the hell a brother gon do though, huh

When the rent due, when the lights and the gas gonna get cut off

Drop them raps or cock them gats

Aint never had shit ever since we came to this bitch

Why I gotta feel pain to get rich

'Stead of stackin chips, finna pack them clips

hoos is real out here

i'm lebanese but my personality is amerrrican

^^ WTF?!?

http://www.paramountcomedy.com/image_library/shows/main/136.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/sevenxviii/hardforahoos.jpg

HOOS the boss
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1262/hoosbz4.png

lotta people bein assholes on this thread

north american scum

Yeah, but it's ILX. It's like saying "damn this burner is hot."

xpost

Or maybe I'm just on ILM too much.

Kicking the woman out = classic

Boasting about it on ILE = dud

Ripping into the naive dude = lazy

HOOS on first?

I honestly wasn't boasting, I was venting; I can see where the distinction would be blurry though. Lesson learned.

xpost

for future hoos ventage please use this thread

UK Watercooler 26: I Want More (And More, And More, And More...)

shoulda slapped the bitch

Ethan and JW hate when ILXors get self-righteous.

-- da croupier, Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:21 PM (Yesterday]

Ethan and JW hate when ILXors get self-righteous.

Way to go Hoos - I'd like everyone here to post when they kick anyone out of anywhere for hatespeech.

we can have a rolling hatespeech kick-out thread!

here's a thread

He should have kicked her out for being a drunk asshole not for the hate speech.

TS: Censorship vs. Hatespeech.

is it ok to censor somebody just cos they aren't saying something nice, or that the majority of people would disagree with?

i don't like the notion of hatespeech. and the quoted dialogue sounds like bad stephen king.

Haha, yes, censorship in family buffets is a real hot topic right now.

WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN, IF ONLY WE BELIEVE ENOUGH DANIEL

He should have kicked her out for being a drunk asshole not for the hate speech.

maybe, but JW on a PC tip smells like teen butthole.

i refuse to even acknowledge the term 'hate speech' which as a concept i find more offensive than a million god hates fags

anyway, what if god really hates fags? i mean, a LOT of people are gonna be feeling pretty sheepish if that turns out to be the case..

'we can never be sure the opinion we are trying to stifle is false, and if we are sure, stifling it would be evil still'

maybe, but JW on a PC tip smells like teen butthole.

-- kenan, Monday, May 28, 2007 11:36 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

is this good or bad?

God Hates Flags- Theists against Nationalism

'hate speech' is a dumb term but if it just equates bigoted abuse how is that an 'offensive concept' as a term?

wish this thread was about race.

big hoos better get workin on that

yawn. does it matter if abuse is bigoted or not? i don't see why certain forms of abuse are more acceptable than others, if the abuse is unjustified to begin with.

'we can never be sure the opinion we are trying to stifle is false, and if we are sure, stifling it would be evil still'

-- and what, Monday, May 28, 2007 1:04 PM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

An intriguing perspective, coming from the guy who posts more threads ridiculing religion/creationism than anyone else. Not that I disagree with ridiculing creationists, but how is telling a pain in the ass to fuck right off 'stifling their opinion'?

i don't think creationism is a matter of opinion..

but then again, that's the point, i suppose.

does it matter if abuse is bigoted or not? i don't see why certain forms of abuse are more acceptable than others

i'm assuming you'd class any abuse based solely on bigotry as unjustifiable?

in america the term 'hate speech' is synonymous with advocating laws to make 'hate speech' an imprisonable offense, which is what disgusts me

xpoxt

no, i'm a horrible horrible person and i don't like gays, minorities, or whatever.

sir, we reserve the right to refuse posting to anyone. My oink administrators, BIG HOOS, and myself will not tolerate your hate speech on our thread. we have not and will not charge you a cent and you're free to take your posting elsewhere. i'd rather not call the police, but if you insist on continuing to disturb our HOOS i will. please leave.

*throws a rose with shining eyes*

in america the term 'hate speech' is synonymous with advocating laws to make 'hate speech' an imprisonable offense, which is what disgusts me

interesting. people in the UK have already been imprisoned for 'preaching hate' (a couple of Islamist 'preachers') and taking the act to what has been deemed a step too far. levels of punishment to fit levels of severity of what is being said (with inevitable inconsistencies).

i think they were locked up on incitement charges, not hate speech charges. i'm not sure where the new laws about discriminating against religions takes us though.

If you threaten violence/killing against another individual or group, or exhort others to do so, then you get nicked, in the UK.

WAHT EVEN WHOOPI GOLDBERG?

No. If you threaten her then you have to marry Ted Danson!

Pre-Frasier Ted Danson!

now that's waht i call haet speech

If you threaten violence/killing against another individual or group, or exhort others to do so, then you get nicked, in the UK.

-- suzy, Monday, May 28, 2007 3:10 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you do in theory, yeah.

i don't think saying or thinking anything should be a crime.

darraghmac is darramous, right?

i don't think saying or thinking anything should be a crime.

-- darraghmac, Monday, May 28, 2007 3:49 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

really? i mean, if ran a newspaper and printed a headline every day saying you were a paedo/rapist/murderer, would that be okay?

umm, nope. but i may yet be j0hn d@rnielle.

kidding, that's just something my cat told me to say.

xpost

not by me, obviously. but should it be illegal?

um, can't think why it should be, tbh. convince me.

what do you think should be illegal, darraghmac, and why?

darraghmac what if because of believing quitney's headlines people started attacking you on the street?

throwing someone out of a hotel has nothing to do with legal rights

we're moving on

Racists should be allowed to speak their mind. When they do, the rest of us should be allowed to throw them out of hotels, post on the internet about it, and expect our peers and compatriots to buy us a beer or at least offer a congratulatory pat on the butt. This one's for you, Hoos.

Ironically, if Hoos had just walked in on a drunk lady getting it in the ass from some dude and told them to stop it everyone on ILX would have been fine with it.

God forbid he should ask what tip her tho.

"darraghmac what if because of believing quitney's headlines people started attacking you on the street?"

then their behaviour would be clearly illegal, and they should feel the force of the law.

"what do you think should be illegal, darraghmac, and why?"

actions, not words or thoughts.

isn't speaking, writing, and publishing "words" an action?

sry i just don't really see where you get to make the distinction between "actions" and "words." or "actions" and "thoughts" for that matter.

i mean its not the THOUGHT of libel thats illegal--its the ACTION of publishing it.

i think you just clarified the distinction for yrself

i'm not sure what i can add to that, actually- in a libel case, you have to prove material loss, as far as i know, certainly you have to bring more to the table that 'oh, i didn't like what he said"

btw, i don't condone racism, homophobia, nor that particular woman's behaviour.

and it's pretty irritating that i should feel that i even have to post that last line, but i guess that's the way threads are going today on ILX.

do you think people should be allowed to deny the holocaust in Germany, Austria and other countries where that's illegal?

sure!

don't mean this to be so interrogative, just curious to see if an exception can be found (xp)

i wasn't kidding

in america the term 'hate speech' is synonymous with advocating laws to make 'hate speech' an imprisonable offense

Ethan is often right about a lot of things, but he is not right about this. I can't think of any serious community of people trying to make speech itself illegal -- only groups of people who want to be sure that

(a) when bigotry is aggressively directed at a particular person, it's firmly considered a form of abuse/harrassment and not tolerated, plus sometimes

(b) organized hate crimes are differentiated from random casual crimes, because they have an extra element of threat or "terrorism" to them (e.g., spray-painting Q-bert on a synagogue is just unsightly vandalism, but spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue creates an atmosphere of worry / threat / harrassment that's slightly more serious).

criminalising holocaust denial had its roots in specific historical circumstances though, ie post-ww2 in certain countries the risk of neo-nazi groups using it as a strategy of rebuilding support (and in the process assuaging national guilt) was too great. i may have imagined this but wasn't there a debate in austria recently over whether it should be decriminalised? along the lines of "as a nation we have clearly moved past this, everyone knows holocaust deniers are loonies, we should not need such an arcane law any more"

xps

"do you think people should be allowed to deny the holocaust in Germany, Austria and other countries where that's illegal?"

oh for the love of god- i'm irish, non practicing catholic. i have absolutely nothing against the hebrew people as a whole.

i am not a nazi, neo-nazi, sugar-free nazi or sunday nazi.

but are you really asking me if an historian (however controversial) should have been jailed for holding conferences (even ones in biker bars) and writing his beliefs that the holocaust was exaggerated?

that is a crazy, and dangerous law. people should be allowed to deny the holocaust if they like. would you like GWB to introduce a law making it illegal to deny God?

the terms "fag" and "faggot" are manifest of ego gone awry. they are symbolic of the American propensity for competition, and like some of the intense reactions to this thread, they are shorthanded attempts at superiority. that "fag" and "faggot" are still abused today, and that standing up against homophobia can spur such ridicule as demonstrated here, points to the Western sacrifice of sensitivity to an individuality troubled with small-mindedness, ignorance and spite.

xpost

spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue creates an atmosphere of worry / threat / harrassment that's slightly more serious

i see and kind of agree with your point, but i would still be uneasy of making grafitti more or less of a crime because of the who the targets are. i'd find it extremely difficult to draw the line.

every crime has to have a victim, i just think that an action should be judged consistently, not on the identity or sensitivities of the victim/target. and I know that's not a perfect point, before i get nailed.

darraghmac you've being needlessly defensive here (altho understandable on a thread where hoos is accused of boastfulness/smugness/whatever)! you don't have to qualify your views with 'i don't condone this btw' and 'oh for the love of god'.

the trouble is, darraghmac, not everyone is as 'enlightened' as you. to you, people who deny the holocaust or use hate speech are loonies, no one takes them seriously surely? but these laws are all predicated on the fact that if unchecked, historical lies and derogatory words aimed at dehumanising minorities will proliferate

xps

every crime has to have a victim, i just think that an action should be judged consistently, not on the identity or sensitivities of the victim/target

it's not about the sensitivities of the target (or only partly), it's about the wider social consequences of hate speech/historical lies

Hey, wow, I get to say "LEX OTM!" Hi-five! Cause once again, like basically NOBODY EVER in the U.S. has seriously advocated criminalizing Holocaust denial, and yes, nations that have those laws tend to have them as remnants of de-Nazification programs and political reconstruction and whatnot.

Seriously, freaking out about the alleged potential for abstract political speech to be criminalized in the US is every bit as frantically ridiculous as thinking there's a "war on Christmas" or that all black people are plotting to rape and kill you.

xpost

i would still be uneasy of making grafitti more or less of a crime because of the who the targets are

It's not the TARGET that makes the difference in that example, it's the CONTENT. And you already live in a nation where the content makes the difference: if I spray-painted "I am going to kill you" on your front door, that would be a rather more serious offense than spray-painting my name.

xpost

standing up against homophobia can spur such ridicule as demonstrated here

i'm really not trying to take a stand here on abuse of homosexuals, but i think any ridicule was aimed at the self-congratulory and (possible) complete dramatisation of the event as breathlessly relayed here.

i am fully aware that this may make the guilty parties look a bit arseholish, myself included, but can we not be so po-faced all the time?

i'm sitting on the fence but i am at least facing darraghmac's direction.

what...opposite him?

numerous xposts

hey, i did say that i wasn't making perfect points- and regarding being over-defensive, i think you'll agree that even on ILX it's hard to even play devils advocate on racism/homophobia kind of issues without getting completely and unneccessarily ripped to shreds.

i think nabisco's point about content is otm, but that content isn't made any different by the fact that i may be homosexual/jewish/a woman/a clown or whatever.

what things is it okay to be self-congrtulatory about on ILE now?

being drunk
maybe finding some sort of unbelievable bargain in the sales

anything else?

liking shit 80's music i think

Spelling "self-congratulatory" right? (Kidding, kidding.)

P.S. Darraghmac has just fallen into the great lie/fear that's at the center of people fearing this stuff -- this bizarre leap to assume that things are being dealt with based on the identity of the victim, as if someone's being offered "special protection," or it's suddenly "more of a crime" to harm a minority than it is to harm a white person. And this very, very obviously isn't the logic: it's that some crimes carry an element of terrorism and threat. If you beat up every Latino who comes into your neighborhood, you're not just committing assault -- you're engaging in systematic intimidation against all Latinos. (Cf a black man in -- I think -- being prosecuted recently under hate crimes provisions for throwing something through a woman's windshield while complaining that too many white people were coming to the local mall.)

"enlightened"

yeah, it's pretty outlandish to argue for hate of any kind, even if it's a word - not as small as it may seem.

xxxpost self-congratulatory = pride, and there's nothing wrong with being proud of being open-minded. it's not as common a characteristic as it may seem. and whether it be pride or homosexuality, the crux of the issue involves ridicule, a small but biting form of hate, both unnecessary and unjustified.

You can't have a thread about free speech without the fire thing, you know.

i just think that an action should be judged consistently, not on the identity or sensitivities of the victim/target.

It's not so much about the target as it is the context, which sometimes includes the target. <trope>You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, after all</trope>.

Sub-questions for D: Do you think that death threats should be criminal, or warrant criminal investigation? Do you favor throwing out intent in considering levels of murder/manslaughter? Do you think systematic intimidation and harrassment should be legalized?

If someone goes around burning crosses on black people's lawns, do you think the extent of his crimes is trespassing, having a bonfire without a permit, and reckless endangerment?

(If he digs a moat and sandbags around each cross, should we knock off reckless endangerment?)

see, now, surmounter- that was exactly what i was talking about. well done. end of this thread for me.

anyway, stet and nabisco were winning anyways.

see you on another thread, i'm really not going to get into personals, i find established ILXors always seem to come out on top for some reason.

Threats are a weird area. I don't think I've ever taken them seriously, although I know a lot of people do. It's just that, in my experience, people who make threats to harm or even kill other people very rarely actually carry them out. But some do, of course, so... And if threats carry a racial or sexual aspect, they seem more insidious. Criminal, though?

(I'm on the fence wrt hate laws. We have them here in Canada, but I'm unsure what I think about them.)

Dude, nobody's getting personal, and you strike me as a pretty established ILXor yourself! I'm just trying to see if you acknowledge that there's a line where speech becomes harrassment, intimidation, or threat. We accept that they do when we say stuff like "I'm going to murder you"; are there no criminal acts you see working the same way?

L+F: w/r/t hate crimes, consider that if someone's actually assaulted someone for reasons of bigotry, he's kinda already proved himself willing to follow through. I dunno, I can understand arguing that these laws aren't necessary, but I don't quite see how people assault the logic or philosophy behind them. If we were looking at an actual successful 60s-style campaign to, say, intimidate some group of people and keep them out of a neighborhood, I think we'd all see how an individual assault wasn't just an assault -- how it was part of a conspiracy toward racial injustice and a mild, localized form of terrorism, you know?

I need to think this stuff through more.

nasbisco, I worked with street kids for a long time and I've heard every threat under the sun and just learned not to take them seriously, so even "I'm going to murder you" means little to me. But if you tack on "you little fag" or "you fucking n****r" to the end it does get a lot darker (okay, that's a big "duh" isn't it), but if the person making the threat calls out to bystanders, say, looking for support or solidarity it gets worse still. I suppose I'm wondering where the real world line gets drawn.

Or, my first sentence in this post!

There is no hard and fast line, that's why it's left up to judges/prosecutors/juries in indidiual cases to decide whether or not it's been crossed.

And I haven't really answered you, have I?

Instead of laws, however, couldn't bigotry (during the commision of another crime) be an aggravating factor for individual courts to decide on a case-by-case basis, though? Hate crime is too close to thought crime, maybe. But I can't really argue with you scenario of someone already with a history of assault against a minority. Just trying to get this straight in my head.

Ha, xpost with Eppy.

(With a reminder that it's not that way in Canada, though. We have hate laws here.)

Instead of laws, however, couldn't bigotry (during the commision of another crime) be an aggravating factor for individual courts to decide on a case-by-case basis, though?

That's what "hate crime" MEANS in the U.S.!

I mean, geez, I'm just going to paraphrase a bunch of crap from Wikipedia so we at least all know what we're talking about here, at least in US FEDERAL terms:

-- a 1969 law that makes it a federal case if anyone "by force of threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with ... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin," specifically with regard to federally protected activities including voting and going to school -- the Civil Rights context of that one should be absolutely obvious

-- a 1994 SENTENCING act that increases penalties for crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, etc.

-- various state laws, both criminal and civil

All approved by the Supreme Court in 1993 on mostly the same basis I'm outlining above -- Rehnquist's opinion sez: "This conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

so what we really need is federal precedent classifying the word 'faggot' and 'retard' as hatespeech?

(P.S.: The fact that lots and lots of Americans ALREADY imagine these laws are one step away from throwing people in prison for being racist or insulting one another is one very good reason we will never actually have laws that involve throwing people in prison for being racist or insulting one another.)

but are you really asking me if an historian (however controversial) should have been jailed for holding conferences (even ones in biker bars) and writing his beliefs that the holocaust was exaggerated?

that is a crazy, and dangerous law. people should be allowed to deny the holocaust if they like. would you like GWB to introduce a law making it illegal to deny God?

-- darraghmac, Monday, May 28, 2007 7:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

yes i fucking am because he was a fucking nazi who addressed nazi rallies. he did not say the holocaust had been 'exaggerated', he denied it ever happened.

speaking as somebody who falls into no less than 3 constitutionally protected minority groups (4, if you consider a college stint as endangered waterfowl) it's difficult to reconcile the forbiddenness of "intimidating or interfering with...' [because of race, religion, class] with the experience of having been intimidated and interfered with because of non-race, non-religious, non-class issues for many, many, years.

as i see it, in any incident where the motive or aggravating factor in a crime is raw bigotry – acted prejudice with malevolent intent - it should not matter what the particular bias is for/against. it shouldn't matter if one agrees or disagrees with the premise: torching a pedophile ex-con holocaust denier's car is (and should be) as criminal as torching a charitable convent's nun-wagon-comissary truck.

our moral and ethical sympathies notwithstanding, any behavior that seeks to harm based on intolerant judgement of a group or bloc's politics, beliefs, or lifestyle is dead wrong. case-by-case action against individual members, if necessary, is exponentially more preferable, just, and in line with the underlying principles of the constitution & bill of rights.

AT WORK, I like to say, "That's not [name of business] language." And then if they continue it, "That's not [name of business] language. Leave now."

It sounds so kindergarten techer but somehow most people take it seriously.

its the battle of this thread and big hoos for which is more self-indulgent

-- and what, Monday, May 28, 2007 9:13 AM

http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/696226_catbag.jpg.html

fuck you internet

its the battle of this thread and big hoos for which is more self-indulgent

-- and what, Monday, May 28, 2007 9:13 AM

http://www.filenanny.com/files/44f7b9c9f14e0/cat-bag.jpg

it's all so crazy

u know u have a ways to go as a gay man when dude gets ripped apart for posting an anti-homophobia agenda, and the woman yelling faggot in the hotel is defended.

i think the self-indulgent thing is being mistaken as such when it seems to be a matter of plain surprise. if i ran into a woman like that, i would honestly be rather fucking shocked, and i'd sure as hell vent/post a thread about it.

hmm, weird, my internet browser has taken away all of the posts defending the drunk woman.

big hoos didn't post an 'anti-homophobia agenda'. he chucked someone out of his hotel for getting drunk and calling someone 'faggot' and then posted about it.

xpost

ur really "surprised"?

Some people need to brush up on "speech act theory" around here. It seems that the idea that "speech is not an act" is getting people tied into all kinds of weird conceptual knots. Surely heterosexuals, of all people, ought to be familiar with performatives, since the absolutely classic example of a performative speech act (a use of speech which also creates consequences in the real world and thus constitutes an act upon and within that world) in the texts of Austin and Searle is the chaplain saying "I now pronounce you man and wife". Speech is action. "Hatespeech" is a use of language which doesn't just "exemplify" or "reinforce" external contexts of harm: it is itself an act that harms, given certain "conditions of satisfaction" (i.e. external circumstances in which it can function effectively). When straight people call each other faggot as a joke do they harm each other? No, because the conditions of satisfaction haven't been met. They know that they aren't faggots and so the wrongness of fit between word and world ensures that no harm is done to each other. But when it becomes de rigeur to call people faggots in the public sphere, queers don't just "feel" threatened, they *are* threatened. If such statements are treated as acceptable, this maintains straight privilege. Note that I am not discussing the legality or illegality of these acts: within certain bounds, it's perfectly legal to say things that inflict harm on other people. Couples and families do this all the time. Apparently message boards do too.

HOOS, would you have been so professional and courteous if you weren't being paid to be as such?

really surprised, though i know what u mean in that i shouldn't be.

i thought we were just talking about how it might not be wrong to blast the word faggot in public? pretty sure there was an argument about something like that just now? to me the fact that that argument happened defends that woman.

and not tolerating the use of the word faggot constitutes an anti-homophobia agenda, duh

thnks drew for saying what i was trying, and failing, to articulate above thread

i just think this thread is kindof ridiculous? some guy gets upset about some stupid fucking bitch, posts a threads about it, and what's the reaction? he gets a bunch of shit and the stupid woman spurs Vassar-worthy ideological debates regarding the validity of her behavior. i guess i like debates like that but it seems slanted, hard.

what's wrong with a, damn hoos, that woman's an idiot and it sounds like u played it cool, rock on

If I hadn't been on the clock at my workplace it's quite possible it's quite possible I wouldn't have said anything at all. I asked her to leave because I knew (as an employee and acting manager) that I reserved the right to do so. I'm generally not a confrontational guy.

xxpost

xpost to alisa, that was.

totally woulda bitched her out even if i didn't work there, r u kidding. that's just not acceptable

I'm just being honest, man. My mother's gay and I know she'd be ashamed of me if I didn't stand up to that shit, but I can't make a promise that I would.

lol no i wasn't like blaming u at all, i'm just channeling the anger i would've felt were i there

i also think there are 2 ways to react to an issue like this, 1 way is if you are familiar with homosexuality, ie ur gay or close to someone who is, and the other way is if you're not. it does make a difference, it just hits u harder, it becomes personal. and that lends itself to a no-tolerance attitude.

Obviously I'd like to think I would, but I can't say for sure until I'm there on the spot. None of us can, I think. xpost to self

omg xpost to self, classic

hoosteen has two mommies

ps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

I think the thread took an interesting tangent into the whole topic of hate crime and hate speech, over and above what people thought about HOOS' actions. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me I was just interested in that bigger picture issue and didn't really comment/dwell on what HOOS did. For what it's worth, I think he did the right thing given the information we have. Also, thanks to nabisco and Drew I'm leaning that way in the argument.

In other words, I wasn't thinking we shouldn't confront bigotry when we encounter it.

Hi Ethan I've got a poster of Debs on my wall, I know what the Alien & Sedition Acts were. What's your point?

ps I've got a step-mom too so its 3.

Are you really suggesting that punishment for hate speech against racial or sexual minorities is tantamount to punishment for political reasons?

It is political reasons.

Well I mean if you can decipher the terrible english there you get what I'm meaning.

It is political reasons

you mean as in "everything is political"?

Political in the broad sense, perhaps, but punishing someone for using a pejorative term referring to an entire biologically-determined group is markedly different from punishing someone because of their stance on a particular government action.

xpost

can_o_worms.jpeg

It may be markedly different but in essence it's the same thing.

No that isn't a koan it's just too late for me to express myself in a way that makes any sense.

Political in the broad sense, perhaps, but punishing someone for using a pejorative term referring to an entire biologically-determined group is markedly different from punishing someone because of their stance on a particular government action.

"biologically-determined" goes against the gist of your argument. unless you're actually claiming that it's worse to be denied employment because of skin color, say, than because of religion, class, or what-have you. i don't see you can make an argument either way without sounding a total fucking fruit-loop.

also, arguments that use biological determinism for support always end up venturing dangerously close to eugenics territory.

I HEREBY SUMMON THE POWERZ OF THE SCOTT SEWARD IMAGE BOMB.

xpost

Point taken, definitely should have chosen a better phrase there. Race is socially constructed anyhow. When I said 'biologically determined' I was going for 'out of one's control.'

My essential point being: I'm not suggesting this drunk idiot be thrown in the tank for using the word fag. I wouldn't support throwing her in the tank if she'd called the bartender a nigger, darky, etc either. Social controls balance this sort of thing out.

I wouldn't support any 'hate speech' laws any more than I'd support the Alien & Sedition Acts, if that's what you were after BIG E.

spray-painting Q-bert on a synagogue

:O

You should've showed 'em to THE GRABEYARD hoos.

yo Ethan

Memorial Day is a time to chillax, bbq, grab a brew and enjoy the company of friends and loved ones.
you chose to spend this weekend trolling HOOS and making wack JPGs with fake airquotes.
that's how you chose to spend your weekend.

just marinate on that for a minute

1) you know, rather than image bomb, you can just let the people who wanna have the discussion have it & stop clicking on the thread yrself - just a thought
2) umm, nope. but i may yet be j0hn d@rnielle. just for clarification, no, I'm posting under my own name again
3) ethan I could be wrong about this, it wouldn't be the first time obviously, but isn't it the case that you don't think people slinging the word "fag" around is a particularly big deal? and if that's the case, shouldn't you put that card on the table face up in a discussion like this?

Drew Daniel, you talking about Austin and performative speech there really made my day. "How to Do Things with Words" is one of my favorite books.

also, i don't really see why people are calling this self-indulgent. i don't think hoos was asking for a ribbon or a handjob, he was merely relating a story. better than blathering on about how FUCKING AWESOME Super Roots 6 is, in my opinion.

oh wrinklepaws, you just got an 8080.

captain-save-a-HOOS

otm xxpost

better than blathering on about how FUCKING AWESOME Super Roots 6 is, in my opinion.
Well 6 isn't all that to be fair. 5 and 7 are the shit.

ILX is very hyper-aware - u can't just have a conversation about prejudice, it has to be a conversation about the gluttony of open-mindedness. hi guys, i'm so open-minded, i wanna scream it on the highest mountaintop! jabs, that kindofa thing.

you can't have a conversation about hate, it has to be a conversation about the loopholes to hate. how wrong is hate, really, if it's just a word, one syllable - what defines hate contractually?

but a little meta-awareness goes a long way: telling a story is just telling a story, and hate is hate.

hi fake wrinklepaws i didnt make any jpgs & posted to this thread like 5 times

The Pastor's Ass

The pastor entered his donkey in a race and it won.
The pastor was so pleased with the donkey that he entered it into another race, and it won again.

The local paper read... PASTOR'S ASS OUT FRONT.

The bishop was so upset with this kind of publicity that he ordered the pastor not to enter the donkey in another race.

The next day the local paper headline read... BISHOP SCRATCHES PASTOR'S ASS.

This was too much for the bishop so he ordered the pastor to get rid of the donkey.
The pastor decided to give it to a nun in a nearby convent.

The local paper hearing of the news posted the following headline... NUN HAS BEST ASS IN TOWN

The bishop fainted. He then informed the nun that she would have to get rid of the donkey, so she sold it to a farmer for $10.

The next day the paper read... NUN SELLS ASS FOR $10

This was too much for the bishop so he ordered the nun to buy back the donkey and lead it to the plains where it could go wild.
The next day the headlines read... NUN ANNOUNCES HER ASS IS WILD AND FREE

The bishop was buried the next day.

The moral of the story is . . . being concerned about public opinion can bring you much grief and misery and even shorten your life.

So be yourself and enjoy life. Stop worrying about everyone else's ass and you'll be a lot happier and live longer!

fuck you table.

Does anyone seriously think this woman hadn't already crossed "the line" before she dropped the homophobic bomb?

the 1994 US hate speech laws have affected the sentences of minorities - especially working class minorities - more than those of white people. the way most cases go down is that dudes get hauled into the station for fighting with each other: "yo i know you didn't just look at my girl" "i wouldn't look at your girl if she was the last sad-ass ho on earth" "come over here and say that" "i'll stand right here, cause she smells too" BAP BAP FIGHT FIGHT "blah blah fuckin n*gger" "blah blah wetb*ack motherfucker" CHA-CHINGGGG: HATE SPEECH! note who does not end getting hauled in for altercations like the above: educated people, rich people, white people: people who do not tend to get into chest-bumping macho street theatrics

it's similar to saying that some criminal act is "terrorism" and then attaching extra consequences on that basis. to my mind, blowing up a building is already a crime, so why complicate things? why accept the spin that the perp wants to put on it?

in answer, nabisco says, "spray-painting Q-bert on a synagogue is just unsightly vandalism, but spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue creates an atmosphere of worry / threat / harrassment that's slightly more serious"

my answer to that is a question: are judges not supposed to weigh evidence and argument when determining the significance of the central acts in a case? can they not distinguish between q-bert and a symbol designed as a threat? it's disingenuous to claim that without hate speech law a burning cross on a black family's lawn would subject its perps only to prosecution for arson blah blah. a recognition of racist speech and how it functions as harassment can and should be built in to the law's understanding of the world, just as the law knows how to recognize other kinds of intimidation, harassment and threat.

re the big hoos backlash, the explanation is simple and sadly all to common: he forgot to phrase his first post as a question

http://www.werecactus.com/funkystuff/mw.jpg

But the 1994 law doesn't regulate hate speech. It regulates hate crimes:

"crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person" 28 U.S.C. 944 note Sec. 280003

The situation you describe above doesn't fall into that category. While I'm sure that there are instances where hate crime penalties - like ANY laws - have been unjustly applied, can you cite where hate crime laws have had increased negative effects on the sentencing of minorities in a way that is really disproportionate from the sentencing of majorities?

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ART/ART327/MED031.jpg

xxpost holy nipples

I don't think there's anything holy about 'em.

Just to derail an already railless thread:
Did Big Hoos AKA the steendriver ever explain the provenance of that moniker?

They're like slices off a hairy sopresatta.

http://img01.picoodle.com/img/img01/8/5/29/alkiecat/f_hoosbz4m_abd3106.jpg

thank you, surmounter. your posts strike me as being one of the few eloquent voices of reason on this thread. i mean, wtf, guy has an obviously stressful, fucked-up experience at work (during what for many is a leisurely three-day wknd, no less), and then, omg, decides to post about it here, with the result that he ends up being vilified seemingly more than said obnoxious drunk woman who got booted from the hotel.

it seems to speak to the apparent compulsion for various posters here to have someone to pile up on at any given time...in some weird bullying fashion. i don't get it at all. i don't understand the weird culture of petty cruelty that occurs here. it's similar to some of the responses to the "hey" suicide threat thread, or even (and granted, maybe i didn't follow those particular threads closely enough) the recent banning of manalishi. surely there are better ways of handling that kind of shit. (and for the record, i think that much of what manalishi spewed out was fucked-up, but banning him seems kind of extreme and weird to me. like, there are people grumbling over the whole concept of "hate speech" on this thread who probably were among the first in line to demand that manalishi be banned for his particular brand of reactionary-ism)

generally i appreciate reading stuff here because there is often a great deal of intelligent, articulate, witty discourse that rivals so much of other stuff to be found on the web, but at the same time, i am perplexed by the weird brand of hyper-antagonism that seems to occur here (and often it's the same people whose various posts fall into both categories, so it's doubly perplexing to me!)...i honestly haven't witnessed people so ready to jump down someone's throat at the slightest perceived gaffe since i was in junior high school (or middle school, or whatever it's called these days).

so i guess i'm maybe yearning for a, erm, "kinder, gentler" ilx, or some bullshit like that. and, while i do realize that the participants who post along such lines outnumber the more exasperatingly aggressive, snarky ones, regrettably, as is i guess the case in "real life", the bullying type personas seem to overwhelm by virtue of being the noiseiest (no pun intended).

kingkongvsgodzilla - you're right, it's both hate speech and hate crime law that i'm talking about, not just the 1994 law

i'm basing this on several long conversations i had with a reporter who has worked in both texas and new york on various stories about how the law affects immigrants and minorities; i can't find any of her stories online about this, but i'll find it for you 2morrow, deal?

http://forum.physorg.com/html/emoticons/cool.gif

Well, I'm confused by your phrasing:

you're right, it's both hate speech and hate crime law that i'm talking about

Is there a U.S. law that specifically targets "hate speech"? I was trying to point out that federal law only targets crimes, not speech. I could be wrong.

Also, the FBI stats show that there doesn't seem to be much of a descrepancy in the demographics of hate crime offenders in the last decade:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hate96.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/offenders.htm

This is just from a cursory glance at the statistics and I'm sure real life might be more nuanced. At any rate, I'm going to sleep. Post the articles if you find them.

Peace.

a drunk woman just kicked the fag out of me at a hotel :(

note who does not end getting hauled in for altercations like the above: educated people, rich people, white people: people who do not tend to get into chest-bumping macho street theatrics

people who act in a violent and intimidating manner in public get called up on it? i'm fine with that! i don't think any sort of "chest-bumping macho theatrics" are defensible really.

you could equally say, note which demographic gets punished for breaking anti-discrimination employment law, rich white people. well...yes!

I didn't get hired to dance at scores guise ;_;

i hear ya, dell... it's very strange to me, the disavowal of kindness on ILX. you're absolutely right, i could have sworn i was walking the halls of junior high school this morning. of course, it only points to a more widespread, culturally bound dog-eat-dog mentality. and to ask for kindness, to expect it, is what, dense and unreasonable, right? cuz that's JUST not how ILX is, and we should all like, know that?

bizarre. i have never understood the reasoning behind hyper-antagonism, as you aptly put it. just like in junior high when being called a faggot was as commonplace as going to the orthodontist, i prefer my relationships without a side of snarky. and if getting ahead means participating in the cool olympics, i'd much rather lag behind.

When did anyone call anyone a faggot on this thread, assmunch?

lol i didn't say anyone did, but thanks for just proving my point ; ) assmunch, no less

like what is that? ur propensity for name-calling and the like? does it make u feel better, to put other people down? kindof sad, dontcha think?

Oh the ironing.

i mean to me, assmunch/put-downs in general are simply a sign of like, intelligence having left the building. no offense, shite fer brains

gasp! now i'm a hypocrite. my apologies.

it's honestly almost comical, i mean if it weren't 5am i'd be hysterically laughing right now

"yah i don't really get meanness, i like being kind"

"what the fuck are you talking about, ASSMUNCH?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. when did humanity become so crude?

dell OTM. i didn't know manalishi was banned. if he were that's fucked up and due to a few vociferous regulars not being comfortable with pluralism.

where did our innocence go?

http://basketballdiaries.immortal-memories.net/link/tbbdlay.jpg

if he were that's fucked up and due to a few vociferous regulars not being comfortable with pluralism.

Or due to him being a disingenuous cunt obviously trolling.

"I don't understand why this horrible crime perpetrated by some black people on some white people wasn't reported more widely. Could there be some sort of reason for this? I honestly can't see why."

jim otm

Does anyone seriously think this woman hadn't already crossed "the line" before she dropped the homophobic bomb?

-- Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 02:47 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I agree that her behaviour had crossed the line, yeah.

I don't see the problem w.hoosteen posting his account of his experience here - shit like this can get you really wound up & it's good/useful to vent off.

Anyone who works a "customer-facing" job gets to deal w/obnoxious shitheads from time to time, I doubt I'd have been so polite/professional in his place, TBH.

I don't see the problem w.hoosteen posting his account of his experience here - shit like this can get you really wound up & it's good/useful to vent off.

Right but its the way he framed it. Its pretty easy to be righteous when the person you're chiding is already looked down on by pretty much everyone present.

Mat 6:5-6 (Jer) "And when you pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street corners for people to see them. I tell you solemnly, they have had their reward. But when you pray, go to your private room and, when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in that secret place, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you."

^ :-/

Its pretty easy to be righteous when the person you're chiding is already looked down on by pretty much everyone present.

what, you mean hoos? because if anyone else had posted this (bar louis perhaps) i can't imagine it getting the same reaction from you and ethan.

and this is meant as no slight on hoos

Oh don't you turn around my words! ;-)

I meant the woman. Don't be obtuse!!!

Seriously, where exactly does the name"BIG HOOS aka the steendriver" come from? This is bothering me.

Also Louis actually has shown a fair bit of class and grace dealing with the ILX pileon in the past.

one of us!
one of us!
one of us!
one of us!
one of us!

http://www.world-guides.com/images/houston/houston_map.jpg

Or due to him being a disingenuous cunt obviously trolling.

but is it really trolling if the person expresses his true beliefs and argues for them, however mordantly, in a calm and collected way? i guess it can be. but if so the decision over who's a troll and who isn't is an ideological one, and that's the problem i have with the banning of Manalishi. i get the sense that it wasn't so much his opinions that bothered people but the intellectually vigorous way in which he argued for them. as Mark G tellingly writes on the now locked moderator request thread, "One thing worse than racism is 'reasonable' racism." if some topics are too ideologically sensitive for the frail ilxor hivemind to debate fairly why not say so outright?

I agree in theory but ILX mirrors our society in general by being far more intolerant of racism than sexism, homophobia and cultural prejudices (the ones that don't get interpreted as racism, that is).

o rly i'd not noticed

xposts. I can't believe you just used "mordantly" and "intellectually vigorous" to describe the posting style of Roger Adultery.

And really you're missing the point. He was being disingenuous in order to bait people, to put the cat amongst the pigeons to try and see what kind of reaction he would get from "liberals". If he had came out and said "I believe this story was underreported in the media because of liberal media bias which wishes to hide reporting of crimes which may reflect badly on black people" people would have disagreed with him, but he wouldn't have been banned.

It was the posting style rather than the ideological content of the posts that got him banned.

I think.

pay more attention g-kit...unless...you're being sarcastic...

well duh

worthwhile

don't dwell on it, you daft bastard. the world continues to spin.

i get the sense that it wasn't so much his opinions that bothered people but the intellectually vigorous way in which he argued for them. as Mark G tellingly writes on the now locked moderator request thread, "One thing worse than racism is 'reasonable' racism." if some topics are too ideologically sensitive for the frail ilxor hivemind to debate fairly why not say so outright?

-- Jeb, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 12:58 (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Um, thanks (I think...)

What I meant by that statement is one heck of a long story I was sort of involved in:

Short version:

I was on holiday in Jersey after a long illness and the surgery to make me well (fully successful). In the hotel was a group of lads, a bit rowdy but seemed to be alright, good music tastes and so on. Anyway, it turns out they're all card carrying members of the N F. Which did not square with the music or anything else, save that 2 of them had skinhead haircuts. We discussed things in a rational manner, about how GB did hve a repatriation allowance but that it was so small as to not be worth taking up, and they were campaigning for it to be raised. OK, what else? Oh, that it wa a disgrace that sikhs were allowed to be police and not have to wear the helmets in favour of a turban with a badge on it. And various other disagreeable (as in you could agree to disagree sort of thing) matters of opinion. Oh, and how in South Africa, it was the dutch who were the original population and it was the black people who moved in...

Anyway, all this was happening (the discussion I mean) in a Jersey nightclub, which was all fine and good fun in it's way. So, on leaving, the 'leader' says to me "Well, we don't reckon you'll want to join us, but we're off to do some paki bashing now!". One of the other lads says "no, he's alright if he wants to tag along, he doesn't have to get involved", a third one says "Oy, if I'm getting my head kicked in by a pakki and he don't come in to rescue me, I'm kicking his head in later"... anyway, I just sort of say "um, I think you;ll have a job locating a pakistani community in St Helier, actually", and left them to it (i.e. nowt).

So anyway, the rest of the holiday (1 day), we sort of were on pure nodding terms, and that was it.

g-kit don't bother responding to my posts unless you have something useful to say you clueless moron.

:)

xposts "the way he (HOOS) framed it" = just another xcuse to jump down someone's throat, for like no reason

if i were in HOOS' shoes, i woulda been taken aback by this incident, and it's far better to not take the time to worry about how to frame a recount for the sake of ILX's snarky alpha-males.

you can't fucking open ur mouth without an inquisition? or you have to be so bland you're barely saying anything? personality should be welcomed, not intimidated.

wow. . .how did I know this thread would've turned into a shitfest by a dozen posts in.

hello? Can anybody hear me?

"i think to start i'll have the attention-seeking bore, for the main course the tactless creep and for dessert the obnoxious jerk."

"tres bien, monsieur!"

the defense of Manalishi here is ridiculous, shows no sign of having read any of the things he said. "intellectually rigorous" give me a fucking break

"Jeb"

i never read that thread really. he was banned for 'persistent trolling' (not filling his free pass form out properly), not for being racist right?

both

hooray!

can we get an ip check on 'jeb'

We discussed things in a rational manner, about how GB did hve a repatriation allowance but that it was so small as to not be worth taking up, and they were campaigning for it to be raised.

Really? A repatriation allowance? Is that a real thing?

can we get an ip check on 'jeb'

i'd rather retain my privacy, thank you very much, but if you suspect that i'm the second coming of Manalishi you're wrong.

if i were in HOOS' shoes, i woulda been taken aback by this incident, and it's far better to not take the time to worry about how to frame a recount for the sake of ILX's snarky alpha-males.

you can't fucking open ur mouth without an inquisition? or you have to be so bland you're barely saying anything? personality should be welcomed, not intimidated.

yes yes yes!

i still haven't found the articles in which she explores the disparate impact on minorities of hate crime law.. i honestly will try to find them and i understand wanting to know more about it although i do detect an edge of "i don't believe you so back it up" - if there's any of the latter in your question i really can put your mind at rest that i am telling you the truth.

i'll also admit to confusing, in my own mind, the issue of hate crime and hate speech; it's probably because hate crimes are so often "shown" to be in that category by virtue of speech that is used in commission of it.

if somebody beats the crap out of you should they get a longer sentence because they call you "n*gger" while they're doing it? i'd argue it depends on how they said it. so often people will use these words just to pile on, just because they know it's something else they can try to hurt you with.. "your sister's ugly" etc. like this woman in the hotel - is that hate speech? a hate crime? if she was just trying to pile on, is that the same as the message sent by a burning cross in someone's yard? i just don't see why a burning cross needs to be designated with this "hate" status, as if judges or juries are really so completely idiotic that they have no idea what symbols mean

accentmonkey: I have no idea. The whole argument seemed to be based on a whole load of skewed history and fantasy, any or all of it could be total bollox.

xpost

Tracer, I'm having a REALLY hard time believing your wide net there about application of hate crime sentencing -- but even if I were to believe it, I would still class that as flagrant misuse of the law by prosecutors and judges (and sometimes juries), not any philosophical flaw in the laws themselves. (Whether a misapplied law is worth having is another discussion to have, obviously.) It should be fairly clear that the intent of the laws -- really clearly, in the case of the 1969 one calling out voting and education -- is to prevent systematic intimidation, not to keep people from using racial slurs when fighting with one another; using a racial slur in an argument doesn't even fill the legal requirement of race being a primary motivation for the action; and any prosecutor tacking that on as an aggravating factor just to pump up the sentences -- any any judge who cooperates with that -- are making really poor use of not just their own discretion, but of the whole legal system.

if somebody beats the crap out of you should they get a longer sentence because they call you "n*gger" while they're doing it?

See and misapplication and misinterpretation are perfectly good accusations against this crime category, but note that the above is not strictly the intent of the law -- the intent is to sort out motivation, because if someone's beating the crap out of you for that particular reason, they're creating a social threat outside of your individual ass-beating interaction.

basically, it's more cut and dried that the victim had not contributed to the 'aggravated situation' (?)

Tracer, you said:

are judges not supposed to weigh evidence and argument when determining the significance of the central acts in a case? can they not distinguish between q-bert and a symbol designed as a threat?

and

as if judges or juries are really so completely idiotic that they have no idea what symbols mean

the reason these laws are on the books is that judges and juries (or "the law" if you want a quasi-abstract personification) can't be trusted on these things. they don't (or refuse to) make distincitons between qbert and a swastika, they are so idiotic they don't get the symbols or don't want to convict anyone based on them ("oh, just a symbol") laws like this are a political intervention in the "natural" decision making process of the law-in-practice, but... that's ok, right?

^^^ potentially, i mean

And just re: this bit --

as if judges or juries are really so completely idiotic that they have no idea what symbols mean

I mean, judges, juries, and prosecutors are all deemed intelligent enough to know the difference between different kinds of murder and assault -- but that's precisely why they're given categories of murder convictions, aggravating factors in assault, etc. The basic shape of the 1994 sentencing law is that of an aggravating factor, really, and I think the Supreme Court logic upholding it is perfectly valid, and this shouldn't seem any stranger than considering premeditation in a murder trial -- so I'd be careful to separate prosecutorial misuse shenanigans from there being anything so ethically flawed about the law itself.

P.S. gff is totally and utterly wrong here -- giving people discretion on these topics is the opposite of deeming them idiotic. The reason we provide aggravating factors is precisely so that people can weigh them as appropriate, because IF NOT for having that option, the legal system would have to say "we all know it was worse than this, but technically the only law you've violated is XXX, so the max sentence is XXX."

It changes what the sentencing guidelines are, dumbass.

Oops, xpost to gff.

I mean, Tracer is the one reporting here that prosecutors and judges have been idiotic / opportunistic enough to game the law to get bigger sentences out of ordinary assaults and such.

Yeah, some people here seem to be confusing the American justice system with, like, things they saw in comic books.

nabisco beyond whether you agree or not with the concept of making "hateful" (yet not specifically threatening or harassing) speech illegal (i don't) i think it's worthwhile to consider what effects the extra sentencing due to hate speech has had so far in the US, and in one way of looking at it, the upshot of these laws are that more minorities are behind bars for longer than before they were introduced. you can say this is because of "prosecutorial misuse" and that such misuse may be intellectually separable from the law itself but that's what some people say about the death penalty too. "just because some public defenders do a bad job doesn't mean the principle of the death penalty is invalid!"

minorities behind bars .... servin' drinks!

How is any of this really about hate speech? The irony is that this is really about the hotel's right to police it's ambiance and its guests' behavior - someting more akin to a libertarian attitude than some do-gooder policing of people's morals. A hotel probably cares about minority x's money and patronage more than the politics of the thing and if it feels that expelling people who are hating on minority x is a good way to insure that it continues to enjoy the patronage of said minority, it'll probably do it, unless it's a boutique hotel for bigots or racists or crackpots or something. Frankly, I would have kicked the lady out regardless of what she said; her behavior prior to the homophobia was disrespectful, dyspeptic and disturbing enough and Hoos merely made use of her egregious speech to help make an obviously soddenly drunk woman understand that her behavior was unacceptable.

accentmonkey: I have no idea. The whole argument seemed to be based on a whole load of skewed history and fantasy, any or all of it could be total bollox.

Ah right. I thought it might be some amazing post-war legislation loophole or something. But of course it is probably makey-up.

xpost But the death penalty is invalid because it's the death penalty.

(I would also like to see yr article(s), Tracer, as it's something I've been curious about ever since the hate crimes laws were introduced.)

accentmonkey: Who knows? I believe that they believed it, for what it's worth!

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99sep/images/9909lincoln.jpg
"Fuck manalishi"

captain save a hoos >>> captain save a manalishi

I just wanted to point out that Jeb can go fuck himself.

I have to admit that my version of Hoos' speech might've ended "Please leave, cunt."

if i were the minority behind the bar, i would've pretended to sneeze in her face.

I just wanted to point out that Jeb can go fuck himself.

how charming. ;-)

no far more charming was your assumption without reading any of the relevant threads that somehow I am part of this delicate hivemind that can't handle 60 posts a day of nothing more than bigoted flamebait, as if that's something we should all aspire to.

mine would've gone something like, "do you have a male traveling companion? so I can punch him in the throat before kicking you both out?"

I worked in an upscale hotel for a while. It was most definitely not a good idea for me job-wise.

xxxpost

no far more charming was your assumption without reading any of the relevant threads that somehow I am part of this delicate hivemind that can't handle 60 posts a day of nothing more than bigoted flamebait, as if that's something we should all aspire to.

my impression was that most of his posts were more substantial than that, but point taken.

So ridiculous that this thread turned into such a shitstorm. If you work in an establishment that serves booze, it's your goddamned job to remove ANY patrons that are disturbing others.

i kindof love it when i get a fresh opportunity to tell some stupid person off. u just get to be all calm - oftentimes i find if you're calm enough, you can reflect their stupidity back to them and they end up digging their own grave

OKAY, removing the initial post entirely from the context of what's happened since, my own personal reaction to it is that it errs a tiny bit towards the side of self-promotion, BUT that there's no real problem with this, because if as I believe it's a true story, then he has every right to post about his life experiences on here. HOWEVER, I believe that given the nature of this board, he might have thought twice before posting it, and then refrained, because it isn't a particularly rich tale, more an open-and-shut case, and so the devotion of an entire thread to it comes across as a little more self-aggrandising than it actually is. The potential for flaming so far outweighed the potential for decent discussion that I believe Hoosteen was rash in starting this thread. I myself have been guilty of this countless times in the past, so I reckon I have a fair stance from which to make such a judgement.

1) nobody is clowning hoos for kicking some drunk bitch out the hotel, its for manufacturing a heroic captain planet slamdunk about it - id do the same if any other smug goober had posted this thread

2) the thread is about hate speech laws now because ppl kept using the term 'hate speech' as some kinda valid description & i said its something i associate with ppl who are interested in restricting speech - homophobic bigotry has a name already and theres no need to get on some orwellian newspeak 'hate speech' shit about it unless youre defining it legally

i would do the same if somebody started a thread complaining about 'homicide bombers' or 'the democrat party', and i would not actually be defending any of those things either

Leaving it up to judge and jury opens up why we have degrees of murder and such.

Darraghmac has just fallen into the great lie/fear that's at the center of people fearing this stuff -- this bizarre leap to assume that things are being dealt with based on the identity of the victim, as if someone's being offered "special protection," or it's suddenly "more of a crime" to harm a minority than it is to harm a white person. And this very, very obviously isn't the logic: it's that some crimes carry an element of terrorism and threat.

Way late, but this seems off from the typical justification of hate-crime laws afaik, which actually says that 'yes, special protection and yes, they need it.' Maybe that is a harder sell though.

here's the article i was thinking of, by debbie nathan. and - my bad - it just talks about new york, not all of the US. it's long but it is really really good.

http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3069

"After 9/11, many New Yorkers feared hate crimes were a new epidemic. But what's happening on the streets may be more familiar stories: fights over girlfriends, mugging easy marks and rumbles between revved-up teenagers."

um yeah but it's pretty ridiculous to have to stop and wonder what you all are gonna think of a story. if posters did that all the time, no one would ever say anything.

and again, i don't think HOOS was "manufacturing a heroic captain planet slamdunk." he was telling a story, something that affected him. that we have to berate him for his maybe intentions instead of thinking about the story seems so silly to me. picking apart other people should not be a hobby, and it also just seems like a blatant missing of the point.

if you don't have any reaction to the story of interest, why even post at all?

because on ILX you are JUDGED by what you say :-D

honestly when did being so cunty become a way of life?

"hi guys, i just had a weird run-in with a drunk homophobe and i told her off"

"you fucking idiot!"

it's like, what?

You're OTM, but I think you're arguing a lost cause on this board.

rock otm via surmounter

'bitch' is as bad if not worse than 'faggot', when you get down to it, except that it's effect has been dulled by over-use. it's almost saved by directing it at men and women in equal measure just as readily but ah, not really. [/pc plod]

That quote is very romantic (!), Tracer.

In a way I actually really like the fact that ILX is so quick to pounce on the merest perceived error; it means that any bullshit statement (of which I have written more than a few) is generally corrected/ripped to shreds within a very short space of time, and one's argumentative technique is honed. You've gotta be on your toes here, which is something I appreciate. I'm not saying that Hoosteen is a bullshitter, far from it, and some of the treatment he's gotten here is harsh, but this harsh treatment is a pretty inevitable by-product of the sharply intellectual, skeptical culture that prevails (and long may it prevail) here.

"hi guys, i just had a weird run-in with a drunk homophobe and i told her off"

"you fucking idiot!"

it's like, what?

no it's more like:

"hi guys, i just had a weird run-in with a drunk homophobe and i told her off"

"so what you want a medal? quit showing off how righteous and valiant you are"

"uhh waaaht? *cries*"

but really only a couple of people did that anyway.

same difference.

newsflash: negativity is not a good thing.

Non Aeon Flux discussion - prejudice charged taboo words within a society.

Just got offed: i see your point, but like everything, balance is key.

i salute Surmounter for defending the humanitarian cause. however, i think we have to live with a few grizzle-pots soiling threads now and then as that's just the way impersonal internet communication works sometimes. which is not to say that such remarks shouldn't be reproofed.

negativity is much, much funnier than self-righteousness

Haha, ILX sucks

also surmounter wasn't your first thread about how you don't tip bartenders or something? IS THAT ANY BETTER THAN CALLING THEM NAMES??

also, there's a way to challenge people without being obnoxious.

i love how that's just taken as a given: that impersonal internet communication is just nasty. why? it's just a reflection of the people behind the screens. are people with computers nasty?

that was hilarious when you said that it sucks. ghost rider OTM. (xpx2)

my first thread was a long while before the tipping thread, i just don't usually post on ILE, i post on ILM a lot. i think i know why.

and no it wasn't about how i don't tip bartenders, it was about how i don't like tipping in general. i'm a pretty generous tipper as a rule.

and no, negativity isn't funny. sorry. that's a really sad thing to believe.

nabisco beyond whether you agree or not with the concept of making "hateful" (yet not specifically threatening or harassing) speech illegal (i don't)

Good f'ing lord, why do we keep circling back to this ridiculous idea that anyone anywhere in the US is talking about making speech illegal? Why are we even mentioning it? For the record, I am AGAINST painting a giant penis on the surface of the moon.

you can say this is because of "prosecutorial misuse" and that such misuse may be intellectually separable from the law itself but that's what some people say about the death penalty too. "just because some public defenders do a bad job doesn't mean the principle of the death penalty is invalid!"

I'd agree -- there's a difference between moral objections to the whole notion of capital punishment and objections to it's being poorly administered to the point of harm. (There's also nothing inconsistent or silly about the position you've made up there, assuming someone believed that the court system could be reformed to administer capital punishment properly!)

But I'm not here to argue whether the laws are well administered, or whether they can be made to be well administered; I've been arguing that they're philosophically sound, because whenever they get mentioned there's this sudden upswell of people on ILX saying "but they make SPEECH/THOUGHT ILLEGAL" and "BRAIN POLICE" and a bunch of ridiculous stuff that has zero to do with the laws' intents or how they function.

Way late, but this seems off from the typical justification of hate-crime laws afaik, which actually says that 'yes, special protection and yes, they need it.'

Whose justification do you mean? I'm talking largely about the legal rationale, which was why I quoted Rehnquist upthread: the idea is that crimes of racial intimidation -- especially when applied in areas like voting, school attendance, seeking employment, etc. -- have broader social harms than whatever the nugget of crime is (assault, arson, etc.), and that the state has a legitimate interest in countering that.

maybe the save-a-hoos brigade doesnt know that most ppl clowning him here have also been clowning him in ilm rap threads for like 8 months now instead of just happening to read this thread & feeling the spontaneous urge to defend a homophobe

surmounter pls send me jpg for addition to sassiest boy in america contest

negativity is much, much funnier than self-righteousness

Not the kind of predictable, formulaic negativity seen on ILX. It's about as funny as a bunch of white teenage boys giving some schmuck cigarette burns in the toilet.

I mean, I suppose the very fact of thinking up and implementing such laws is necessary a result of someone needing it (namely black people in 1969) -- haha and I'm ironically quoting Rehnquist's opinion upthread, from a guy who knows what's what, having been EMPLOYED during said period to interfere with black people's ability to vote.

and what otm xxxxpost

also plz remember capn positivity's 1st post was:

great story hoos. i mean, i have to say, sometimes i kindof enjoy witnessing people that fucking out of the loop, cuz you get to just look at them and think/say, damn, ur a big fucking moron, and i am so much fucking better at life than you. of course, you say it politely. if you're at work.

-- Surmounter, Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:55 AM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

LIBCRYPT OTM. UNLIKE HOOSTEEN.JPG, PREDICTABLE, FORMULAIC SANCTIMONY AND CONDESCENSION NEVER GET OLD. I CRACK UP EACH TIME SOMEONE EQUATES PHOTOSHOP ZINGS WITH VIOLENT HOOLIGANISM

For the record, I am AGAINST painting a giant penis on the surface of the moon.

What the fuck, man, do you hate fun?!

It's really the same mentality, taken to extremes.

i just hope threads like this don't discourage HOOS from making more threads like this

libcrypt otm.

so what, and what? i'm supposed t be positive to someone screaming faggot drunk? please, try and make sense :-)

But I'm not here to argue whether the laws are well administered, or whether they can be made to be well administered; I've been arguing that they're philosophically sound, because whenever they get mentioned there's this sudden upswell of people on ILX saying "but they make SPEECH/THOUGHT ILLEGAL" and "BRAIN POLICE" and a bunch of ridiculous stuff that has zero to do with the laws' intents or how they function.

You should rephrase this, because "philosophically sound" isn't equivalent to valid in intent or functionally sound.

frankly, for an extra $5.00 tip anybody who wants can call me prancing nancy cockgobblin mqfaggotpants is welcome to do so.

so i may have missed this but out of curiosity how did the woman know the co-worker was gay anyway? or was it an unlucky guess? if he wasn't gay how much difference would that have made?

He was wearing fancy shoes.

here's what: if you feel good about your snarky, negative attitude, go on with it. i guess i can just ignore you.

Did Big Hoos AKA the steendriver ever explain the provenance of that moniker?

-- forksclovetofu, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 05:27

On 2006 ILX I was "hoosteen." On the Sandbox I experimented with dropping "hoosteen" into various rap lyrics viz: "i kick hoosical flows/spit spat steen's that", "hoo got it for steen, vol. 3," etc.

On "9 Milli Bros" from last year's "Fishscale," Cappadonna announces himself as "DIGG-A-LA aka the cab driver." I misheard it as "BIG-A-LA" and BIG HOOS aka the steendriver was born. When I saw it made some people laugh (at and with me, variously), I carried it over to ILX 2.1.

"i kick hoosical flows/spit spat steen's that", "hoo got it for steen, vol. 3," etc.

more examples plz

nabisco you may think it as ridiculous as painting a penis on the moon, but calling someone "n*gger" while beating the crap out of them WILL net you a couple of extra years in jail in some states; if you had kept your mouth shut you would be out sooner. maybe there is a way to interpret this fact that doesn't include the idea of speech itself being illegal?

i really am not doctrinaire about this - i'm conflicted. because i agree with you that the state has an interest in punishing racial intimidation - and intimidation based on sexual orientation, gender, and other things.

"Salt'n'pepa and Hoosy D up in the limosteen."

so i may have missed this but out of curiosity how did the woman know the co-worker was gay anyway? or was it an unlucky guess? if he wasn't gay how much difference would that have made?

-- blueski, Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:34 PM (1 minute ago)

"Unlucky guess" is probably about right. In certain respects he conforms to the gross stereotype of the girlish, lisping fey gay man.

HOOS up steen down while you mothafuckers bounce to this

G's up HOOS down while you muthafuckas steen to this?

i might've gone with "muthasteenas"

It's the hard little pistol-packing punk dope smuggler
Lethal when HOOS kill, I go STEEN for the jugular

surmounter, i think clowning hoos, who is a goofy but generally alright dude & good sport overall, is much better than smugly conspiring with him to decide what ppl you're so much fucking better at life than

why 'clowning' as opposed to 'trolling' btw?

and what, for a guy who hates self-righteousness, you're awfully self-righteous about it.

hoo-d-HOOS slapped yo boy in the steen with Isotoners?

lol @ hoody-HOOS

Hoody HOOS! That's the STEEN for them killas

It's like the difference between giving the nerd a swirly, then helping him get back on his feet ('just fuckin with you, man') vs. giving him a swirly and leaving him to drown ('die geek scum').

xpost to whoever asked about clowning vs. trolling

http://darpa.pomona.edu/engine/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/%5Bowl%5D%20hoo%20sent%20you1.jpg

BIG HOOS aka the swirlyvictim

I hope more hoosteen threads get started because this thread has a decent story about putting up with intolerable shit at work combined with some well natured clowning.

It also has a little too much capt save-a-hoos when the poor guy is obviously capable of taking care of himself. Read the story people, he's putting bitches out on the street!

holy christ xxpost

To all Capt-Save-A-Me's

Thanks for the support, but don't let the clownin at my expense rile you up. I grin at the jokes, brush my shoulders off, & move on with my day.

deej i also once went with 'gonna give it to ya hoos with no steenia"

ban surmounter

really surprised my post up there turned out to be so controversial (and "eppy", whoever you are, suck a dick. dumbass? seriously? based on that post? what the fuck). it was really a reaction to Tracer, who seemed to be saying:

a) hate crime laws have the net effect of putting more minority defendants in jail for long. (this is completely believable)

b) beyond that, hate crime laws are unnecessary bcz judges & juries already have all the tools they need -- including intelligence & insight -- to determine whether an assault or vandalism or harrassment or murder has that extra tasty frisson of racism or homophobia, and punish it accordingly.

and i have a problem with statement b! i mean, i don't want to pedantically list off jim crow and twinkie defense and all that, but i'm not so sanguine about the legal system's ability or willingness to find and punish those things, without an "intervention" by legislature saying, yes, these motives are worse, you must consider them.

http://usarundbrief.com/26/images/springer.jpg

oh come on shit was just gettin civil

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007803/image/jefferson_davis.JPG
Did somebody just say "civil"?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99sep/images/9909lincoln.jpg
"Maybe."

http://www.crystalinks.com/newton.jpg
"This thread lacks gravitas."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Ferdinand_de_Saussure.jpg
"What makes you Saussure about that?"

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/disciullo/twiggy/Reilly-Twiggy.jpg
"I'm offended"

http://www.pornobilder-tgp.com/galerien/flotter-dreier-bilder.jpg
"Dreier eyes mate"

surmounter, i think clowning hoos, who is a goofy but generally alright dude & good sport overall, is much better than smugly conspiring with him to decide what ppl you're so much fucking better at life than

-- and what, Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:44 PM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

again u fail to make sense. making fun of HOOS is NOT better than bitching someone out who uses the word "faggot" lightly. i do consider myself to be so much fucking better at life than someone who shouts faggot in public. and i wasn't conspiring with him. try thinking out your crappy comments, it might help.

hey, that's dani woodward!

ban Surmounter

castup ur so fucking pretentious you can't even see straight, ban yourself.

+1 bitchiness

surmounter -t auto /dev/tool/reactionary /mnt/killfile

who are you calling a dev

Who is this guy? WAHT?

i sometimes shout faggot in real life, but only in crowded movie theaters.

i'm really tired of arguing. can we like not anymore? what happened to discussing. u know? discussions?

i don't think anybody's really arguing!

discus has already been thrown :(

lol

all i know is my blood's boiling and there's a headache on the horizon, and it's JUST A FUCKING ANECDOTE

I THINK YOUR CAPS LOCK IS ON.

no that was the shift key. i never really use the caps lock.

This sounds like we need a poll, but ban tuomas first ok?

catsup dude i'm sorry i called you pretentious, that was mean. i hope you don't mind me not including all your p's. maybe we can be friends one day! =P

can you feel the love tonight

well u know i think after a certain amount of bitchiness it just feels like, where is this going? hell? i'd rather not

can't believe thread's so long already. way to go HOOS!!!!

haha

I want a badge lanyard embroidered with BIG HOOS AKA THE STEENDRIVER

i know it really is kindof catchy, though long

dude yr still wrong

xpost

Are you lot conversing in machine code?

mista hoobasteena, mista bob hoobasteena

i gets much hoos mail and i always resteen

i'll fuckin, i'll fuckin sew your HOOS closed and keep steenin you and steenin you

HAHAHAHA, thread is WON, lock now plz

stockholm syndrome, classic or dud?

b) beyond that, hate crime laws are unnecessary bcz judges & juries already have all the tools they need -- including intelligence & insight -- to determine whether an assault or vandalism or harrassment or murder has that extra tasty frisson of racism or homophobia, and punish it accordingly.

I disagree with this not for GFF's reasons, but just because it's patently false: judges and juries can't mete out extra punishment based on "that extra tasty frisson" unless it's stipulated in the law that they can, that this particular frisson is a legitimate aggravating factor. (If the maximum sentence for a crime is 5 years, judges don't usually have the discretion to hand down 10 based on any outside factor that's not put in their purview by the legislature!)

Posting way, way back to Tracer -- the reason I'm talking about these things in terms of prosecutorial misuse is that the kinds of situations you've outlined here aren't just fuzzy applications, they are (to my mind) completely outside the actual letter of the laws, which would seem to require that identity be the primary motivation for the action: obviously I don't disagree with you in the least that inferring this from any crime in which a racial epithet is uttered is completely fucked up, and such misuse could well outweigh any benefits the laws are designed to have.

open up your door, i walk straight in the HOOS
put your man down and put my steen in his mouth

This thread is like nabisco and Tracer trying to have a conversation on opposite sides of a room filled with autistic people on horse tranquilizers.

sounds better than some parties i've been to

throw in a buffet and i'd crash it for real

Whose justification do you mean?

It is my lack of legal knowledge justification. I find it pretty effective though! I mean it may be pretty obivious but I think most the knee-jerk against hate-crime legislations can be defused if you get people to sign on for "the system meant to protect us all equally doesn't do so."

http://www.usatoday.com/life/gallery/animal-actors/mr-ed.jpg
"Did somebody say horse tranquilizers?"

YOU MAY NOW CONSIDER ME THE HOOSALYPTIC ONE
AFTER THIS STEEN THERE IS NONE

We need to be able to change screen names again.

<I>judges don't usually have the discretion to hand down 10 based on any outside factor that's not put in their purview by the legislature</I>

What I'm about to say couldn't be any more off topic, but in light of some recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, there is some question whether a judge is permitted to increase a sentence for a crime based upon the bias motivation for that crime, unless the motivation was first submitted to the jury and the jury made a finding on that bias motivation.

throw in a buffet and i'd crash it for real

-- gff, Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:00 PM

lol subtle

I LIKE MY HOOS STEEN-ER PINK

i wish one of my cats would eat this thread

I mean it may be pretty obivious but I think most the knee-jerk against hate-crime legislations can be defused if you get people to sign on for "the system meant to protect us all equally doesn't do so."

Mostly that just makes me wonder who's going to protect the homophobe's right to be a homophobe. Which, you know, seems like an important thing to protect.

hoosteen = "cute" variation on "Justin," right?

It's the Spanish pronounciation (and the name my mother raised me with, though my dad preferred Justin).

HOOS = that dude

she didnt spell it that way though, did she?

Quien es esa niña, Hoos that steen?
Señorita mas fina, Hoos that steen?

phonetic

xpost

that was not a fun argument.

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 27 May 2007 02:17 (3 days ago) Link

http://www.brandonbird.com/paintings/king_of_cage.jpg
"M'am, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. My bartender, myself, and my general manager will not tolerate your hate speech on our property. We have not and will not charge you a cent and you're free to take your business elsewhere. I'd rather not call the police, but if you insist on continuing to disturb our guests I will. Please leave."

o_O

"Salt'n'pepa and Hoosy D up in the limosteen."

-- jim, Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:38 PM

favorite ever

you suck.

a-

What hotel do you work at, HOOS?

"M'am, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. My bartender, myself, and my general manager will not tolerate your hate speech on our property. We have not and will not charge you a cent and you're free to take your business elsewhere. I'd rather not call the police, but if you insist on continuing to disturb our guests I will. Please leave."

^underrated ilx meme

I was going to stay at the Austin Omni but they upped the daily rate by $150 so now I am at Sheraton.

I work at the Doubletree Club on I-35 & MLK. You're at the Sheraton downtown I guess? What brings you to town?

i stayed at the motherfucking days inn off the highway

$89 for three days, bitches

i stayed at the motherfucking days inn off the highway

-- and what, Wednesday, February 27, 2008 3:38 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i thought for a second that this might be some rap lyric i didn't recognize

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/da/Holidae_In.jpg/200px-Holidae_In.jpg

STOP DROP KABOOM LADIES RUB ON YA NIPPLES

i always read this as "i just kicked a drunk fag out of my hotel for calling my gay coworker a woman"

Week of computer administrator guy training, HOOS. Quickest they could get me to it was in Austin.

Context:

Private graduation party jar
Is going on by our get mar
Mistakes drunk woman for renew
And invites her to chow tipped blue
She takes a bite of her sweater
Else tells her that swain adjuster
A private party and that lest
Is for "family only'" weighed breast
Puts her food back on the thumbprint
Storms over to my desk tough glint

As i deal with the massive prize
Front of clomb americanize
Fucking memorial tissue
They schedule me flyaway barbecue
Slur'ranting to her friends that spur
Fucking ridiculous vail err
One had the fucking courtesy dane
Her that there was a sealer inane
Going on it was so widest
To have to put that star fondest
She wants to talk to a austere
On duty braggadocio debonair

I step to the side of my chum
Advise her that i'll be strap plum
In just a moment i just crack
Attend to these people smoke knack
"Hurry the fuck up cause i lined
Talk to someone about shirt lined!"

She continues her noisy pox
She makes her way through the wrote pox
At the people at the protest
Demanding to know what broom lest
They're looking at "turn inlaid
Bitch in the white room enfilade
People are already pitfall
Somebody needs to call swayed pall

Finally gets to the front ark
A recap of coiner earmark
Already said berates me ruck
I explain to her that tour duck
A large sign announcing that tailed
Was for the stepsister prevailed
Party and that we reappear
Signage would be codfish blare
Make the private status of bided
Clear now she wants to sconce avoided
Your bartender that fucking gnat
Of yours didn't tell why democrat
Was a private party bazaar
That fag etc appreciation scar

without raising my voice i gnawed
"m'am i'm going to boule avowed
Ask you to leave'" "whaaaat''" i having
To bring spine abolishing
Bags which i accurately shed
Still unpacked dressmaking hardhead
Just checked her in half an hour grill
Start serving the convert duckbill
Her she wants to know why she's flog
To leave etc sprits hog

"m'am we reserve the right to pull
To anyone my weigh pull
And my general nondescript
Not tolerate your par nondescript
On our property we have thrown
Will not charge you a cent cloak groan
Free to take your business whittle
Rather not call the tan bottle
If you insist on elephant
Disturb our guests i will please glean accelerant

The sense my gay general truce
Not mind losing her microstate juice

HAHAHAH
Excellent

I think black people would either be more or perhaps less likely to kick a drunk woman out of a hotel for calling a gay coworker a fag. Does ILX have an opinion on this?

-- Dom Passantino, Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:05 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link

The sense my gay general truce
Not mind losing her microstate juice