Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Leatherneck on October 06, 2010, 06:56:45 PM
-
The Westboro group has every right in this America to spew their repulsive sputum anywhere they want. I hope they burn in eternal damnation for doing so, but unpopular speech is what the First Amendment is designed to protect. I also hope the judge will go easy when certain veterans and patriots let their feelings be known.
TC
PS: I don't like the faux-comparison of "privacy rights" vs. "Free speech rights." One is enumerated, the other is invented.
-
How about the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Going to funerals to tell strangers their dead X is going to hell?
These groups are nothing but lawsuit mills, goading people into actions for suits and its outrageous.
This isn't 'mere' unpopular speech. It isn't for conversion, or to even spread information. It is nothing but a sick goad when people are at their most vulnerable in order to line pockets.
-
That all may be true, Ned. But irrelevant to the constitutional question.
TC
-
Rights enumerated are not more worthy than other rights.
-
The smart thing to do would be for groups to watch the obits for one of the Phelps loved ones passing. Then, picket with signs that "god hates the phelps family" "thank god for dead phelps" and generally be obnoxious. If they don't get the point, repeat.
-
what fistful said.
What would the difference be between the distress cause by shouting fire in a theatre or the spewing of the venom they do at the funeral of my family's dead son. There is risk of bodily injury in both cases among those who are not the speakers.
Freedom of speech has limits. In fact the original intent of freedom of speech has more to do with political speech than the ability to say whatever one wants, no matter the circumstance.
-
Yeah, I'm not of the opinion that our freedom extends so far as to allow us to deliberately harm others.
-
Yeah, I'm not of the opinion that our freedom extends so far as to allow us to deliberately harm others.
Especially when thats the purpose of the speech. Classic example from law school was lying and telling someone an immediate family member has died. In this case the purpose to to cause harm in an effort to incite an reaction and then collect civially from the provoked response.
Its sick. Do you really think going to a soldiers funeral and shooting to his grieving mother than he is roasting in hell is the speech we 'disagree with but would die to defend?'
-
Does freedom of religion protect human sacrifice?
-
Would anyone have a problem with a law banning protests within 1000 feet of a military funeral?
-
Would anyone have a problem with a law banning protests within 1000 feet of a military funeral?
That question raises a lot of other questions. What else besides the cemetery is within the 1000 feet? What if the military funeral is for somebody hated by the public? Maybe Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Kennedy (I probably shouldn't slander Dahmer like that).
I agree with the concept of banning protests that are directed at any funeral, but can't think of a way to do so that's completely "clean".
-
What would the difference be between the distress cause by shouting fire in a theatre or the spewing of the venom they do at the funeral of my family's dead son. There is risk of bodily injury in both cases among those who are not the speakers.
Because the other is just a creative attempt at banning free speed on dubious grounds.
Yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater is a false statement. An opinion is neither true nor false. Holding someone responsible for every reaction to their opinion is insane and un-Constitutional.
Otherwise, I can say that person's stated opinion X caused me to burn down an orphanage and so that person should be held responsible for the actions I took.
That makes no bloody sense. People should be responsible for THEIR actions, not someone else's.
-
we should start giving the Honor Guard the option of using live ammo. :angel:
-
Because the other is just a creative attempt at banning free speed on dubious grounds.
Yelling fire (when there is no fire) in a crowded theater is a false statement. An opinion is neither true nor false. Holding someone responsible for every reaction to their opinion is insane and un-Constitutional.
Otherwise, I can say that person's stated opinion X caused me to burn down an orphanage and so that person should be held responsible for the actions I took.
That makes no bloody sense. People should be responsible for THEIR actions, not someone else's.
You can say anything you want. Doesn't make it true.
People really can be harmed by this sort of thing. I'm talking genuine diagnosable medical injuries here, not just "hey that hurt" type claims. You can break someone's mind as surely as you can break their bones, and sooner or later these Westboro thugs are going to do it to someone (if they haven't already).
I think everyone can agree that we should hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting physical injuries on someone. Why should we not hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting mental and emotional injuries?
-
Otherwise, I can say that person's stated opinion X caused me to burn down an orphanage and so that person should be held responsible for the actions I took.
That makes no bloody sense. People should be responsible for THEIR actions, not someone else's.
Well, if I started expressing my opinion to you that our city would be much better off without that orphanage, and their fire insurance would permit them to rebuild in another area, and no one would see a person entering the orphanage if they did it after 9 and sundry other related opinions....
Yes, I think some prosecutors might find me responsible for expressing my opinions when you burn down that orphanage.
Freedom of speech is about the marketplace of ideas, not shouting obscenities in peoples ears, committing fraud, or trying to make old women cry so grandsons sock you one and you can sue them rather than getting a real job.
-
I think everyone can agree that we should hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting physical injuries on someone. Why should we not hold people responsible for deliberately inflicting mental and emotional injuries?
Because you do not have the right not to be upset or offended.
-
Because you do not have the right not to be upset or offended.
We're not talking about merely being offended or upset.
-
We're not talking about merely being offended or upset.
Yes, we are. The Westboro people are not causing physical harm and are not advocating violence. Their message is abhorrent, but by every rational take on the First Amendment, protected.
We are entirely talking about people's feelings. Not conspiracy, which Ned used as an example. Though conspiracy laws have gone WAY out of bounds as of late as well. Ask Ned, he's leaning towards a prosecutor career path and he could probably tell you that a conspiracy charge is easy pickings.
-
We're not talking about merely being offended or upset.
Some people's health can be hurt by being offended or upset. Seeing a fearsome film can cause a person to have a heart attack. Some people can even be traumatised - for example, there are instances of people being seriously, heavily psychologically traumatized after watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
And yet we do not ban that.
-
Some people's health can be hurt by being offended or upset. Seeing a fearsome film can cause a person to have a heart attack. Some people can even be traumatised - for example, there are instances of people being seriously, heavily psychologically traumatized after watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
And yet we do not ban that.
Well, no one is making folks watch the movie. But in the OP instance, folks are forcing traumatizing experiences on others. The death of a loved one is hard, an unnatural death harder; there really isn't much in the way of a better example of a more universally understood position of suffering and weakness; emotional vulnerability.
This is not a legitimate group. There is only 6 of them, one family, not recognized by any other religious institution. They purposely provoke confrontation to receive lawsuit settlements while ignoring laws themselves and rulings against them. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in their travels, having on average 6 protests a day. It takes that many to incite the responses they require for the lawsuits and settlements to continue their lifestyle. They are nothing but locusts, exploiting misguided understandings of our free speech laws. This isn't akin to folks staying up till 4am so they can write angry letters about what they see on tv. These are people having screaming hate and filth during what would otherwise be solemn ceremonies as a career!
-
Some people's health can be hurt by being offended or upset. Seeing a fearsome film can cause a person to have a heart attack. Some people can even be traumatised - for example, there are instances of people being seriously, heavily psychologically traumatized after watching the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
And yet we do not ban that.
Check out the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, mentioned earlier in the thread.
IIED requires (reaching way, way back here...and googling =D)
1) Outrageous conduct
2) Either the intent to cause emotional distress in the subject (not the general public) or a reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress
3) Emotional distress
4) That the emotional distress was actually and proximately caused by the outrageous conduct
In other words, it's not about a right to not be offended, but a right to not be intentionally hurt, and the recognition that hurt doesn't result exclusively from physical contact.
-
This is not a legitimate group. There is only 6 of them, one family, not recognized by any other religious institution.
There is more than 6 of the cretins.
I count 10 in this pic
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb398%2FFLHRI-OK%2F3127dc9e.jpg&hash=c9b2ae14a8363e04a322e0f4b2882ccffb790a06)
Here is one of the clan
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb398%2FFLHRI-OK%2Fidiot.jpg&hash=1a477c6eb69c2441174acd28bea2976729e9c8a2)
-
They are protesting the wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns on nov 11th. Ill be there with my" this guy is a *expletive deleted*che" sign and a loud motorcycle
-
They are protesting the wreath laying ceremony at the tomb of the unknowns on nov 11th. Ill be there with my" this guy is a *expletive deleted*che" sign and a loud motorcycle
Lock your front brake and open the throttle to your rear wheel and throw gravel at these asshats for me ??
Yes, I fully believe that they can protest all they want. And I also believe that James and his compadres can rev their engines all they want as well...
-
Thank you all for the thoughtful comments.
Enlighten me, please (IANAL): Is not tort law dealing with civil, not criminal or Constitutional law?
TC
-
Enlighten me, please (IANAL): Is not tort law dealing with civil, not criminal or Constitutional law?
Yes. However, civil law is a good indicator of culture as recognized by law and various bodies of law regularly inform each other. The law of IIED is an illustration of how the axiom that my right to swing my arm ends at your nose applies to non-physical harm as legitimately as to physical harm.
Of course, the proponents of limitingconstitutional protections to enumerated rights may point out that there isn't a constitutional right to not be punched in the face. However, I have a hard time imagining a court protecting my right of freedom of non-verbal speech as exercised by punching, say neo-Nazis, in the face.
But Micro's insistence that the freedom of speech is not abridged by the needs of other people is not correct. Political speech is almost always protected. Advertising is afforded substantially lower protections. Criminal speech--generally, if one avoids the sophistry of discussing how anti-sedition laws can outlaw constitutionally protected speech--is not protected.
So far as tort law is concerned, I'm not aware of any cases where suits for libel/slander were defended on constitutional grounds. I can't imagine that there has never been a case where a government actor sought to suppress libel or slander, so maybe someone else can address the constititutional protections afforded to libelous/slanderous speech. I'm not aware of any.
-
Isn't the right to protest mainly for the redress of grievances? What grievance does the Phelps family have with a dead person who they don't know? I hate it when people try to limit rights but I see no legitimate reason to protest a funeral.
-
Why doesn't some group take a bunch of sheets, sew them together end-to-end, attach them to poles and just surround these pieces of filth so that they at least can't be seen? Also, there is noise canceling applications out there, couldn't that be run on a computer attached to a PA and instead of increasing the noise level to drown them out, simply cancel them out? That might actually work...
-
'Why not get sheets and noise cancelers ect'
Folks do. Its one of the reason they have to do 5+ protests a day, making sure they aggravate someone. In their own words 'spreading god's hate.'
-
Anyone else going through their list/book of "dirty tricks" and thinking how they might be best applied in a clandestine manner?
-
Anyone else going through their list/book of "dirty tricks" and thinking how they might be best applied in a clandestine manner?
http://www.liquidass.com/stink_bombs_fart_spray.html
-
Anyone else going through their list/book of "dirty tricks" and thinking how they might be best applied in a clandestine manner?
We could hook up the sprinkler system to a large supply of liquid drano. And if they stay anyway, it will get rid of the bodies quicker. >:D
-
there is always police protection for these fools and no way i want to be in a spot where some cop gets hurt guarding the garbage
-
I will be there on the 11th, making an absolute nuisance of myself.
And if they get upset and have me arrested, even better.
"Soldier who served in Iraq, arrested for disorderly conduct at a WBC protest"
would be awesome.
-
I will be there on the 11th, making an absolute nuisance of myself.
Would you please dress like Zed from Zardoz?
"God hates brutals!"
-
No, but I might wear a towel and a sombrero
-
a burqa might be funny, or just a hijab. [popcorn]
news at eleven Muslim biker attacked by religious idiots. :laugh:
-
If counter-picketing these Westboro . . . scum . . . I'm torn between two messages: either one saying something along the lines of "Imam Phelps Supports Jihad" or perhaps something like "Warlock Phelps is Satan's Tool."
-
Rights enumerated are not more worthy than other rights.
Indeed.
-
I'm really liking the idea of taking large sheets and poles and holding them up to block the WBC view of the funeral, as well as to block the funeral patrons from having to see the WBC freakshow.
-
I'm really liking the idea of taking large sheets and poles and holding them up to block the WBC view of the funeral, as well as to block the funeral patrons from having to see the WBC freakshow.
Extrasuperdoubleplusgood
+1111111ty
-
I will be there on the 11th, making an absolute nuisance of myself.
And if they get upset and have me arrested, even better.
"Soldier who served in Iraq, arrested for disorderly conduct at a WBC protest"
would be awesome.
And now the decision, to wear Full Dress Blues/Class A's while doing so. The image of a vet wearing full medals getting carted off by the 5-0 could, um, get certainly peoples full attention (unfortunately that would probably include .mil getting pissy for "poorly representing the .mil").
I'm really liking the idea of taking large sheets and poles and holding them up to block the WBC view of the funeral, as well as to block the funeral patrons from having to see the WBC freakshow.
I like this idea a lot. Next time there is a big to-do in my neighborhood of the country I wouldn't be adverse to taking my M35A2 down there to assist as a rolling view block. Another thought though, what about white noise generators and such aimed at the WBC crowd in order to drown out their taunts, much as the riders do with their engine noise?
-
Folks, the story is really the attention they get from the press.
Instead of blocking the WBC folks inside a circle of obscuring cloth, block the access of the press - especially cameras. No pictures and the story has little appeal to the editor.
And remember that one of the stated goals of the Phelps legal office is to be able to press both criminal charges and civil tort suits against those who oppose their message. It happens to be their primary known means of support. Do not get within spittle-flecking distance of them.
stay safe.
-
Instead of blocking the WBC folks inside a circle of obscuring cloth, block the access of the press - especially cameras. No pictures and the story has little appeal to the editor.
And that does what for the grieving widow/mother/family at whose funeral they're heckling?
-
A tactic I saw used by some VCDL members was to surround the protesters with your signs and bodies so that they were blocked from view of the media and public by a wall of opposition. Quiet, calm, law abiding, well spoken opposition.
-
Too bad that there isn't some civilian version of the LRAD....... (that's affordable)
Aim in their direction and be done with them.....
-
And that does what for the grieving widow/mother/family at whose funeral they're heckling?
The greiving family doesn't see the moonbats/asshats on the other side of the sheet during the funeral.
-
The greiving family doesn't see the moonbats/asshats on the other side of the sheet during the funeral.
Failure to read Skid's quote to which I was responding. Scroll back, reread, try again.
-
I'm really liking the idea of taking large sheets and poles and holding them up to block the WBC view of the funeral, as well as to block the funeral patrons from having to see the WBC freakshow.
If our interpretation of the first amendment means that we can no longer have a respectful military funeral, without resorting to this kind of thing, perhaps we need to check our interpretation.
-
Some sort of counter-battery fire is called for, but I can't imagine (yet) what would: 1) keep the good guys out of legal jeopardy; 2) Dissuade / humiliate the jackasses; 3) Comfort the grieving;
I'm glad I've never witnessed this WBC action, because I am a very docile, thoughtful, non-confrontational person... Who would be very tempted to take a Louisville Slugger to one of 'em.
What sort of area-denial technique could be used? CS would be hard to come by, and might discomfit the grief-stricken. A trained zombie skunk... that can read... yeah, something like that.
-
I'm leaning toward the stink bomb idea
Could I be arrested for that?
-
I'm leaning toward the stink bomb idea
Could I be arrested for that?
Putrescine + cadavarine?
-
A few years back, didn't the SC uphold restrictions on abortion protesters limiting them from protesting near clinics? What do y'all see as the difference?
It is the "anywhere they want" portion of the statement in the OP that I have a problem with. IMO, that is way too open ended. There are all sorts of places people are not allowed to protest. Look at Political Party conventions. They limit where protesters can protest at those things all the time. They require permits too I believe. We already regulate free speech protests in many places whether good or bad. Why can't we regulate protests at funerals? Why can't we say no protests within 2000 feet of a funeral or a cemetery when we allow similar restrictions elsewhere?
On my other side, I think I would appreciate seeing a few masked men show up at one of these protests with hot tar and feathers to conduct their own more direct protest against such behavior.
-
If nothing else, build the sheet wall between the funeral party and the protesters so the grieving family doesn't have to see those idiots and provide them with some privacy, with their permission of course.
-
Another question: What if these people went to the homes of the relatives of the deceased and protested on the street or sidewalk with or without sound amplification. Where do you draw the line on "say anything they want anywhere they want"? Is the only line the property line?
Regarding the thread title, if it really hurts, shouldn't it no longer be free speech but rather harassment or assault?
-
A few years back, didn't the SC uphold restrictions on abortion protesters limiting them from protesting near clinics? What do y'all see as the difference?
There's a big difference, but it's in favor of the anti-abortion folks, and doesn't help Phelps. =)
-
I'm leaning toward the stink bomb idea
Could I be arrested for that?
I know in Texas you could be.
-
Texas cops arrest you for leaning toward a stink bomb? What a buncha control freaks!
-
Texas cops arrest you for leaning toward a stink bomb? What a buncha control freaks!
You're a mess.
PC §42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public
place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and
the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the
peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable
odor in a public place;
-
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable
odor in a public place;
So stay away from the burritos, then.
-
At one time there was a guy who had no real sense of smell who would dress in ragged clothes that were so foul selling a normal person couldn't stand to be near him. Anyway, he did this and hired himself out to go into businesses etc. and basically hang around to run off business/shut the place down to get the stench out. People who had an Axe to grind would pay the guy to do this!
Now, suppose our smelly friend took a liking to that bunch and stood as close to them as he could asking them endless asinine questions? Legal, no?
-
The best thing that could happen (for the rest of the US) would be for the local PD to decline to provide protection to these asshats. That would end their lil' scheme, one way or another...
-
The best thing that could happen (for the rest of the US) would be for the local PD to decline to provide protection to these asshats. That would end their lil' scheme, one way or another...
^^^THIS!^^^
Just look the other way for 5 minutes please....
-
The best thing that could happen (for the rest of the US) would be for the local PD to decline to provide protection to these asshats. That would end their lil' scheme, one way or another... would be for them to be arrested every time they attack a funeral.
Fixed
-
If our interpretation of the first amendment means that we can no longer have a respectful military funeral, without resorting to this kind of thing, perhaps we need to check our interpretation.
Yes, indeed.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_ifsRjdJE1Jg%2FTK9O3x8yrMI%2FAAAAAAAAAmI%2FWjD7x8j1JJg%2Fs800%2Fphelps_01.png&hash=e6cd6fc1b4714ae806d8dde4d08f6cdb8b9658f0)
-
you know, a handful of mil-spec smoke generators(the can o bean looking size) up wind might be fun. =D
or we could fly/bus in a gay pride parade, to infiltrate there protest. :laugh:
-
or we could fly/bus in a gay pride parade, to infiltrate there protest.
+1 lol
-
or we could fly/bus in a gay pride parade, to infiltrate there protest. :laugh:
How long would it take to remove the stains from the exploding heads? :lol:
-
How long would it take to remove the stains from the exploding heads? :lol:
Bring in furries, too. They hate furries with a passion.
-
Bring in furries, too. They hate furries with a passion.
See, if you look hard enough, you can always find common ground. Even between WBC and APS.
-
See, if you look hard enough, you can always find common ground. Even between WBC and APS.
You should hug a furry just to differentiate yourself.
-
You should hug a furry just to differentiate yourself.
I'll try. I don't recall ever seeing one. Do professional furries at amusement parks count?
-
I'll try. I don't recall ever seeing one. Do professional furries at amusement parks count?
I'm pretty sure if they get paid for it, it doesn't count.
...wait a minute, that didn't sound right... :lol:
-
I'll try. I don't recall ever seeing one. Do professional furries at amusement parks count?
You could hug PTK?
-
You see, the U.S. is a bit larger than Hebrewstan. I can't exactly pop over to Montana and knock him up.
-
You see, the U.S. is a bit larger than Hebrewstan. I can't exactly pop over to Montana and knock him up.
Mabs, how did you change your name to Fistful?
-
You see, the U.S. is a bit larger than Hebrewstan. I can't exactly pop over to Montana and knock him up.
MINOR DETAIL!
-
THEN YOU PAY FOR GAS, FOOD AND LODGING!
-
Counter-protesting the Phelps mob isn't going to change them, nor is infiltration or display of lewd acts. Either one of these two is the case:
1) They don't actually believe what they spout, doing it solely for the settlement money. Telling someone they're wrong when they don't believe it themselves gets you nowhere.
2) They believe so intensely, so blindly, that any opposition merely reinforces their faith. E. G., a furry making out with a transvestite is a "test from God" to "tempt" them into sin.
This is a group of family members that was raised by the brain-washing Phelps into thinking what they're doing is right. In 20-25 years, we'll see if they're still around--once Fred dies of old age, could be that there'd be nobody able to corrupt the family's youngest generation, and the whole thing will fade into history. On the other hand, who knows...
-
Not to start a fight here, but Jesus started with how many followers again?
Isn't THAT a thought to give you nightmares for the future?
-
Not to start a fight here, but Jesus started with how many followers again?
Isn't THAT a thought to give you nightmares for the future?
Yeah but, he didn't have to breed to get more. =D
-
Not to start a fight here, but Jesus started with how many followers again?
Isn't THAT a thought to give you nightmares for the future?
Until Fred walks out of the grave, I won't worry about it.
-
Not to start a fight here, but Jesus started with how many followers again?
Isn't THAT a thought to give you nightmares for the future?
A more appropriate comparison for Phelps would be Hitler.
-
Just the thought that Jesus had what... 12 followers, and now is one of the most widely followed guys in history? Scary...
And yes, Hitler would be a more appropriate comparison. If I wanted to be that disrespectful to Hitler. HE actually accomplished something worthwhile (pulling Germany out of the depression), I doubt Phelps will do anything but line his own pockets...
None of which is meant to poke at anyone: just thought the "started with few, teachings took over a big part of the globe" thing was worth mentioning...
-
Jesus had way more faithful followers than 12. The 12 were just the "chosen few" who were assigned to go forth and spread his word. Many followed and became leaders in their own right.
-
How many followers in the WBC camp?
-
Just the thought that Jesus had what... 12 followers, and now is one of the most widely followed guys in history? Scary...
I think it has more to do with who He was and what He did, than with the number of people following Him around.
;)
-
They don't actually believe what they spout, doing it solely for the settlement money. Telling someone they're wrong when they don't believe it themselves gets you nowhere.
Don't know if all of them believe it, but the crazy chick who called into somebody's radio show (forget who it was. He gave them 1 hr airtime in exchange for them not protesting a military funeral) seemed like a true believer. She's the one that hated furries.
-
Hence Option #2 I listed: They believe so intensely, so blindly, that any opposition merely reinforces their faith. E. G., a furry making out with a transvestite is a "test from God" to "tempt" them into sin. ;)
You can't fix stupid. And sometimes, crazy tries to "fix" you. [tinfoil]
-
White sheets good. On the WBC side of the sheet, endless parade of stripped strippers, furries, random people grabbed from a Key West street etc. That's just for fun. Anything I'd really like to see happen to WBC never will because it involves a lot of time in the big house. Sub-human filth.
-
Does freedom of religion protect human sacrifice?
Yes it does, right up until you commit homicide.
-
Hmmm... white sheets...
How about a BUNCH of folks attend their next "protest", even joining in trying to spread their "message"...
While wearing KKK and neo-Nazi regalia...
-
The best thing that could happen (for the rest of the US) would be for the local PD to decline to provide protection to these asshats. That would end their lil' scheme, one way or another...
Better yet, bring in some over-the-top queens in police uniforms to protect them.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheodessafiles.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F05%2Fgay_pride.jpg&hash=eff2714e6f665b07aadac4cc98eec8e4c132fb6f)
PS make sure safe search is **ON** before you do searches like "gay police officers"
Holy Moly my eyes...
-
Have the furries, trannys whatever just hang out minding their own business letting the WBC wackos work themselves into a frothing mad fury and, if we are lucky and God really does have a sense of humor, watch them stroke out right there.
-
fyi, tranny is a pretty nasty slur, not that most of you would care, but at least now you know.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffeelovblog.ru%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F10%2Fsotcart-milit.jpg&hash=2eb0fcf8cb844adc5631fab31a94a0e0bba975d7)
That is all.
-
fyi, tranny is a pretty nasty slur, not that most of you would care, but at least now you know.
Transexuals and transvestites don't like to be called trannies?
-
fyi, tranny is a pretty nasty slur, not that most of you would care, but at least now you know.
OK, had no clue. Don't run in those circles. Sorry `bout that.
-
fyi, tranny is a pretty nasty slur, not that most of you would care, but at least now you know.
You are correct. Don't care, really don't care, no don't care, really don't.
-
Transexuals and transvestites don't like to be called trannies?
Apparently not. I had no clue whatsoever about that. I did a Google using the terms 'tranny slur' and found a whole lot of information about how the word is perceived in the transgender community. Fairly negatively, I would say. It seems to rank right up there with various ethnic slurs.
-
Ya learn somethin' new every day...
-
However, keep in mind that the alternatively gendered/sexed community is so diverse and so picky about inclusiveness/exclusiveness and so touchy about nomenclature that people who live within those circles and write about them often get in trouble for offending someone or other. See: Helen Boyd.
-
There is always somebody just waiting for the chance to get their panties in a wad over someting.
-
The term most people in that community would prefer used is "trans"
One of the coolest, most interesting people I know is a member of this community. It's amazing what you learn when someone close to you goes through all this.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ascentis.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FThe_More_You_Know.jpg&hash=9f9fc5211bf4074219722ff93a81d9281f4b2764)