Man, I miss when that show as a jaded Art Bell listening to crazy psueo-science guys, instead of the book-pimping religion-fest of nap-inducing Noorey.
This sort of effort is likely to turn an otherwise hard worker with a great work ethic who just happens to think for themselves instead of being an obedient sheep into someone who plays along on the outside, but harbors a seething hatred on the inside and therefore constantly sabotaged and undermines your system at every turn they can.
On the other hand, this is already done and has been for decades. It is called requiring a college degree. That's why it often doesn't matter what your degree is in or if it is related to the job -- just having the degree proves that you can sit down and shut up and do what you're told and buy into the institution for four or five years straight.
I read about how this is how adoptive parents used to (or maybe still do?) get their adopted children to depend upon and bond with their new parents. After adoption, they put the children through intense emotional drama and sort of force a "rebirth". Fortunately, it is now considered to be child abuse. Same theory applies, I think, though.
Companies show no loyalty to employees anymore, yet employees often feel this strange sense of obligated loyalty to their employers (I'm not averse to this, myself, either). So this makes this whole thing even sicker.
I suppose it's not too different from the military, where they break you down during the first couple of months and then rebuild you into an unquestioning, obeying, fighting machine.
The only difference being, of course, that you sign away a lot of your freedom when you join the military and you're going to be fighting against life and death. You're not looking to stick tab A in slot B for eight hours a day in a guy's business to feed your family
I guess maybe I can almost see the point he is trying to make. Maybe.
Ultimately, free speech should be free. HOrrible things should be allowed to be created for the sake of exercising that free speech. NObody has to love it or like it or even pay it any attention. As a society, we generally seem to draw the line at the point where the creation of the content itself involves harming people and that feeds a demand to see that harm.
In other words, snuff films (actual snuff films) and child porn are fucking hideous because they feed a demand to see death and child molestation by actually killing or molesting people.
However, those shitty SAW films are acceptable, because as hideous and stupid as they are, they don't involve any actual harm to any actual people.
I would place crime evidence under this same categorization. Those sites that archive photos of murders and terrible accidents using what I believe are mostly crime scene stuff (and therefore, probably publicly available stuff on file at courthouses or wherever) are showing actual harm and actual murder and actual crime, but they do not exist as part of some supply/demand that the snuff film/child porn production stuff does. Maybe that is starting to draw a fine line, but if it is on file to the public, then . . . so be it.
This is also where a lot of people who support unrestricted free speech but abhor child molestation become conflicted. One is bent toward the spirit of free speech and free society. As long as something does not directly impact an unwilling human being, then its their business. Even if it's repulsive or "against their morals" (think gay porn or something, I guess?). But what about depictions of these things? Are books that involve underage sexuality something that should be illegal, because of the subject of the material even though it is all fictional and doesn't involve any actual people? How about anime and drawings? How about the SAW films (which I would see as the violence/murder/snuff equivalent to real violence/murder/snuff equivalent to the book Lolita being compared or judged under the actual crime of child molestation).
It really puts the idea that you can say whatever you want and I will defend your right to do so even if I find it abhorrent. Is the line where it discusses or presents something hideous, but not real? Is just the concept alone something we decide is forbidden? Or do we decide that writing about serial killers is not the same thing as actual serial killers being serial killers?
Even worse is when we start to apply the whole "obscenity is a community standard" bullshit that the church and politicians pushed through in America decades ago and has resulted in idiotic bullshit like the FCC and the planet losing its shit over a nipple-slip.
I'm sorry, but crime evidence is hardly the same thing as "snuff".
Snuff films are as abhorrent as child porn for exactly the same reason. Crime evidence (video, photos, etc), while very disturbing and not something most people would want to view, are different. Crime evidence of horrible crimes are gross, depressing, and horrifying -- but they are not created to meet the demand of a hungry audience consuming it. Snuff and child porn are directly created to satisfy a consumer demand (one feeds the other, presumably).
So free speech ends at the point where other people feel bad?
I'm sure there are a lot of movies and news stories that make the victim's family relive horrible memories and emotions, too. Should those be censored or banned?
Once again, it is important to remember that in a free society the cost of that freedom is potentially being disgusted, repulsed, or otherwise put-off. This whole site thing seems fucking hideous and grotesque and I don't know what is wrong with people who want to see that sort of thing -- but "it'll make people feel bad" is hardly justification for forbidding it.
Now, I could see some sort of privacy assertion being reasonable. That is a different beast.
And, again, it's a pretty dangerous thing to start going around asserting that free speech can only be applied to things which are political in nature. (Yes, I'm writing this from the aspect of the US and the Constitution; not Canada).
Frankly, your whole viewpoint is pretty disgusting and . . . frankly your concept of free speech has nothing to do with free speech.
Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.
Yes it is. Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no laws..."
It doesn't say "unless what you say hurts someone's feelings, is super gross, is obscene, isn't accepted by your local community, or is inciting hatred/violence/fear/etc".
It's a pretty dangerous thing to be going around trying to convince people that the freedom of speech has "limitations". Only in its application -- not in its spirit (or writing).
This is how we end up with idiots promoting the idea that "well, free speech is really only intended for journalists - fuck the rest of you".
It doesn't matter. They are right. They do not need a warrant to track you. You know how we can confirm this? They have been tracking everyone. Gathering data on everyone. Violating the privacy and rights of everyone. Constitution and laws and ethics be damned. It doesn't matter. If our existing laws don't apply to them, then new laws won't, either. Make every law you want and their statement will still be correct... they will still not need a warrant to track you.
Sort of the same way fenced-in "free speech zones" are fucking abhorrent and against the law . . . and yet deployed and enforced, anyway.
I think any rational person sees how wrong all of this . . . but also how hopeless it is. The only option is to give up and accept it. That is exactly what they want, what they are counting on, and what will ultimately happen.
Our current climate of the past ten years has been all about pushing the concept of pre-crime. It seems that politicians, media, and scare-mongerers are driving us toward the inevitability of a future where every student is forced - by law - to undergo psychological evaluation during the school year (and adults, perhaps forced to undergo regular psychological evaluation as part of the government mandated "free" health care coverage). Waver much off the accepted "norm" and welcome to pharmaceutical based alteration sentences reinforced by an alternate sentence of incarceration if you refuse. Not because of crimes you have committed, but by crimes everything from your genes to your attitude toward authority or critical-thinking or being too social or not social enough suggest you could theoretically, possibly, maybe, be suspected of potentially in some greater-than-zero probability be able to commit.
This is why you constantly see news coverage during tragic events like shootings veer quickly toward "how could we have caught this with mental evaluation" and "why wasn't he taking more meds?". After all, we are too weak as a society to accept that it might be better to accept a dozen or two dead people from a horrible crime than to violate billions of citizens (over the years).
I remember not long ago, when they helped China prosecute a journalist that supposedly leaked state secrets to a website and helped "out" chinese dissidents and helped the chinese implement and facilitate internet censorship.
When you persecute people and infringe upon them, it is necessary for their own good and their own existence to push back. Do you think gay people like spending so much of their life fighting for gay rights and equal treatment under the Constitution and the safety of not being beat to death on the street for simply being gay? Or do you think they would rather just have the equality and the safety of every other human being and carry on with the rest of their life?
Those "uppity gays" and "uppity negroes" and "militant atheists" that religious people usually say "should just shut the fuck up if they don't believe, because then it doesn't concern them" are "uppity" and "militant" precisely because they have to be active in fighting against the way they are treated, dismissed, and impacted by those who are intolerant.
Of course, not everyone can afford the time or personal/professional risk of being militant. Thankfully, there are those that make it their life-long cause to do that for the rest of them.
It is also hypocritical to call people "militant" who are just standing up for their rights and pushing back against your imposition upon society. I would say the "militant" ones are those who are using law and mob-rule to impose their religion upon politics, government, education, law, and all of society. Making comments about people being "animals" based on the tone of their skin or suggesting we should murder them so they "can meet their maker and find out how wrong they are about religion". THAT is militant.
It's a rather perverse and sick tactic to push and bully someone pretty much forever and then, when they stand up for themselves, shout "he's being intolerant of me!" (or, in some cases, trying to discredit lack of belief by claiming it is as much a religion as belief -- when it is the non-existence of belief and nothing more).
I imagine there were a lot of dudes, like yourself, back in the 1960s talking about how "all them negroes are actin' like nutjobs with all that marchin' and militant sitting in the front of the bus and drinking from white fountains and shit". (I am not trying to implicate you as a racist or anything, but am just drawing parallels between the attitude and terms exhibited by those in multiple situations to dismiss, diminish, and denigrate other segments of society who are actively demanding fair treatment).
Because writing a terse couple sentences with vulgarities targeted at you in a mailing list that you voluntarily subscribe to for a project you voluntarily participate in is exactly the same as someone stalking you in meatspace, on your property, incessantly harassing you?
Yep. I used to sit about five feet from a guy who was in management (but not my management) who for some inexplicable reason disliked me. Not only did he dislike me, but he talked shit about me to other managers and employees behind my back. He was very nice to my face, though. I would never have known any of this if it weren't for a colleague and another manager who clued me into what this guy was saying. And, fortunate for me, these people always countered his comments, told him he was wrong, and otherwise stood up for me in his non-sense rally to bash me to people.
I would have rather he had just been an asshole to me and lay it out, so we knew where we stood.
It all derailed when it started referring to "verbal threats" and "verbal abuse" as "violence". Sorry, but unless a dev is at my door with a baseball bat, it's just words. Additionally, we've all dealt with people who are crude, terse, mean, or just flat out obnoxious prima-donas. It only impacts you if you give a shit. I've dealt with some of those in my career and all that matters to me is whether they are productive and talented. Telling me "you made a stupid fucking mistake" isn't any worse than "Please don't take this too harshly and please don't think I am picking on you. I like you and you are a swell fellow and all. However, I feel it is necessary that I impress upon you that this isn't really a bug and having this trivial and non-broken thing filed as a bug has consumed a little bit of our time that we would rather not be wasting on things like this. Also, here is a pat on the back and an atta-boy so you don't feel I am being mean to you, okay?".
Granted, it might be a little unprofessional to use crude language with people. CEOs and other muckety-mucks do it all the time, however. It's also a little different between using crude language and lashing out at people with crude language to insult them and put them down. But, again, that's just the way things are and it is just the way some people are. It really does not have to impact you in the slightest if you don't want it to (and it doesn't hurt to learn to give it back - especially if you can do so cleverly, with wit, and without the matching vulgarity).
I don't doubt this sort of thing does put some people off from contributing and participating. I sure as hell wouldn't participate in anything that involved Linus and other well-known and super-smart guys, because I know I'm not at their level and I would just constantly be on the receiving end of "how fucking stupid can you be?!". But you know what? Maybe that's okay. Maybe it weeds out people who don't have the spine to deal with it or who take everything so personally that everything has to become a drama rather than just getting work done.
Of course, Linus could be less of an asshole (even when his points are very fair). But I don't see why he should feel he *has* to be less of one. *shrug*. I also think it's a little different than if he was someone's direct boss in a workplace and he was walking outside of his office to constantly berate, ride, ridicule, and harass his employees for being totally incompetent.
He's a pretty douchy constant self-promoter and bragger. I also remember one of the few times I've sat around watching the TWiT (This Week In Tech) network with Leo Laporte and he was on it (the $10m/yr indie podcasting network with like 20+ shows and like 40 hours of content a week) and he asked him if he could use "This Week In..." for ONE of his shows that he wanted to do on his own network.
Next thing you know, JC was building an entire network of his own where EVERYTHING was "This Week In..."
I don't think you understand what that word means, yet like so many religious people, try to spread it around to every context to poison any argument.
Also, of course there are a lot of militant atheists out there. The same way there are/were a lot of militant "black people" out there. Guess what? When people trod all over you, threaten you, treat you like second class citizens, and impose their will (via legislation and political power) on you -- you're probably going to be a tad mother fucking militant.
"Stop being intolerant of my intolerance you assholes! C'mon guys!"
That's because we haven't been in a war for about 70 years.
How about the action in Syria? Pakistan? Lybia? How about the shit we've stirred, threatened, or supported in Yemen? Egypt? Iran? Bahrain? Tunisia? Turkey?
Slashdot Mirror
With your new host, George Snoorey.
Man, I miss when that show as a jaded Art Bell listening to crazy psueo-science guys, instead of the book-pimping religion-fest of nap-inducing Noorey.
The first thing to make me laugh, all day. :D
This sort of effort is likely to turn an otherwise hard worker with a great work ethic who just happens to think for themselves instead of being an obedient sheep into someone who plays along on the outside, but harbors a seething hatred on the inside and therefore constantly sabotaged and undermines your system at every turn they can.
On the other hand, this is already done and has been for decades. It is called requiring a college degree. That's why it often doesn't matter what your degree is in or if it is related to the job -- just having the degree proves that you can sit down and shut up and do what you're told and buy into the institution for four or five years straight.
If you can't see the problem with what you just described . . . .
I read about how this is how adoptive parents used to (or maybe still do?) get their adopted children to depend upon and bond with their new parents. After adoption, they put the children through intense emotional drama and sort of force a "rebirth". Fortunately, it is now considered to be child abuse. Same theory applies, I think, though.
Companies show no loyalty to employees anymore, yet employees often feel this strange sense of obligated loyalty to their employers (I'm not averse to this, myself, either). So this makes this whole thing even sicker.
I suppose it's not too different from the military, where they break you down during the first couple of months and then rebuild you into an unquestioning, obeying, fighting machine.
The only difference being, of course, that you sign away a lot of your freedom when you join the military and you're going to be fighting against life and death. You're not looking to stick tab A in slot B for eight hours a day in a guy's business to feed your family
I guess maybe I can almost see the point he is trying to make. Maybe.
Ultimately, free speech should be free. HOrrible things should be allowed to be created for the sake of exercising that free speech. NObody has to love it or like it or even pay it any attention. As a society, we generally seem to draw the line at the point where the creation of the content itself involves harming people and that feeds a demand to see that harm.
In other words, snuff films (actual snuff films) and child porn are fucking hideous because they feed a demand to see death and child molestation by actually killing or molesting people.
However, those shitty SAW films are acceptable, because as hideous and stupid as they are, they don't involve any actual harm to any actual people.
I would place crime evidence under this same categorization. Those sites that archive photos of murders and terrible accidents using what I believe are mostly crime scene stuff (and therefore, probably publicly available stuff on file at courthouses or wherever) are showing actual harm and actual murder and actual crime, but they do not exist as part of some supply/demand that the snuff film/child porn production stuff does. Maybe that is starting to draw a fine line, but if it is on file to the public, then . . . so be it.
This is also where a lot of people who support unrestricted free speech but abhor child molestation become conflicted. One is bent toward the spirit of free speech and free society. As long as something does not directly impact an unwilling human being, then its their business. Even if it's repulsive or "against their morals" (think gay porn or something, I guess?). But what about depictions of these things? Are books that involve underage sexuality something that should be illegal, because of the subject of the material even though it is all fictional and doesn't involve any actual people? How about anime and drawings? How about the SAW films (which I would see as the violence/murder/snuff equivalent to real violence/murder/snuff equivalent to the book Lolita being compared or judged under the actual crime of child molestation).
It really puts the idea that you can say whatever you want and I will defend your right to do so even if I find it abhorrent. Is the line where it discusses or presents something hideous, but not real? Is just the concept alone something we decide is forbidden? Or do we decide that writing about serial killers is not the same thing as actual serial killers being serial killers?
Even worse is when we start to apply the whole "obscenity is a community standard" bullshit that the church and politicians pushed through in America decades ago and has resulted in idiotic bullshit like the FCC and the planet losing its shit over a nipple-slip.
I'm sorry, but crime evidence is hardly the same thing as "snuff".
Snuff films are as abhorrent as child porn for exactly the same reason. Crime evidence (video, photos, etc), while very disturbing and not something most people would want to view, are different. Crime evidence of horrible crimes are gross, depressing, and horrifying -- but they are not created to meet the demand of a hungry audience consuming it. Snuff and child porn are directly created to satisfy a consumer demand (one feeds the other, presumably).
So free speech ends at the point where other people feel bad?
I'm sure there are a lot of movies and news stories that make the victim's family relive horrible memories and emotions, too. Should those be censored or banned?
Once again, it is important to remember that in a free society the cost of that freedom is potentially being disgusted, repulsed, or otherwise put-off. This whole site thing seems fucking hideous and grotesque and I don't know what is wrong with people who want to see that sort of thing -- but "it'll make people feel bad" is hardly justification for forbidding it.
Now, I could see some sort of privacy assertion being reasonable. That is a different beast.
And, again, it's a pretty dangerous thing to start going around asserting that free speech can only be applied to things which are political in nature. (Yes, I'm writing this from the aspect of the US and the Constitution; not Canada).
Frankly, your whole viewpoint is pretty disgusting and . . . frankly your concept of free speech has nothing to do with free speech.
Yeah, the whole "morality" thing is bullshit. It seems repulsive and horrible and it grosses me out that people would want to see this kind of shit (I'm sure we all stumbled across things like it in the earlier days of the net) . . . but unless it is violating some sort of privacy or something . . . . I just see it as the cost of a free society. (Yes, I know this is in Canada). In a free society, things are said, presented, and done that can be highly offensive to you and that is a good thing.
You mean, the ones he has that reads things as they are stated? Yep.
Yes it is. Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no laws..."
It doesn't say "unless what you say hurts someone's feelings, is super gross, is obscene, isn't accepted by your local community, or is inciting hatred/violence/fear/etc".
It's a pretty dangerous thing to be going around trying to convince people that the freedom of speech has "limitations". Only in its application -- not in its spirit (or writing).
This is how we end up with idiots promoting the idea that "well, free speech is really only intended for journalists - fuck the rest of you".
It doesn't matter. They are right. They do not need a warrant to track you. You know how we can confirm this? They have been tracking everyone. Gathering data on everyone. Violating the privacy and rights of everyone. Constitution and laws and ethics be damned. It doesn't matter. If our existing laws don't apply to them, then new laws won't, either. Make every law you want and their statement will still be correct... they will still not need a warrant to track you.
Sort of the same way fenced-in "free speech zones" are fucking abhorrent and against the law . . . and yet deployed and enforced, anyway.
I think any rational person sees how wrong all of this . . . but also how hopeless it is. The only option is to give up and accept it. That is exactly what they want, what they are counting on, and what will ultimately happen.
Our current climate of the past ten years has been all about pushing the concept of pre-crime. It seems that politicians, media, and scare-mongerers are driving us toward the inevitability of a future where every student is forced - by law - to undergo psychological evaluation during the school year (and adults, perhaps forced to undergo regular psychological evaluation as part of the government mandated "free" health care coverage). Waver much off the accepted "norm" and welcome to pharmaceutical based alteration sentences reinforced by an alternate sentence of incarceration if you refuse. Not because of crimes you have committed, but by crimes everything from your genes to your attitude toward authority or critical-thinking or being too social or not social enough suggest you could theoretically, possibly, maybe, be suspected of potentially in some greater-than-zero probability be able to commit.
This is why you constantly see news coverage during tragic events like shootings veer quickly toward "how could we have caught this with mental evaluation" and "why wasn't he taking more meds?". After all, we are too weak as a society to accept that it might be better to accept a dozen or two dead people from a horrible crime than to violate billions of citizens (over the years).
Malice intends to cause harm. This is just not giving a shit if your actions and carelessness causes harm.
I remember not long ago, when they helped China prosecute a journalist that supposedly leaked state secrets to a website and helped "out" chinese dissidents and helped the chinese implement and facilitate internet censorship.
You completely missed the point that was made.
When you persecute people and infringe upon them, it is necessary for their own good and their own existence to push back. Do you think gay people like spending so much of their life fighting for gay rights and equal treatment under the Constitution and the safety of not being beat to death on the street for simply being gay? Or do you think they would rather just have the equality and the safety of every other human being and carry on with the rest of their life?
Those "uppity gays" and "uppity negroes" and "militant atheists" that religious people usually say "should just shut the fuck up if they don't believe, because then it doesn't concern them" are "uppity" and "militant" precisely because they have to be active in fighting against the way they are treated, dismissed, and impacted by those who are intolerant.
Of course, not everyone can afford the time or personal/professional risk of being militant. Thankfully, there are those that make it their life-long cause to do that for the rest of them.
It is also hypocritical to call people "militant" who are just standing up for their rights and pushing back against your imposition upon society. I would say the "militant" ones are those who are using law and mob-rule to impose their religion upon politics, government, education, law, and all of society. Making comments about people being "animals" based on the tone of their skin or suggesting we should murder them so they "can meet their maker and find out how wrong they are about religion". THAT is militant.
It's a rather perverse and sick tactic to push and bully someone pretty much forever and then, when they stand up for themselves, shout "he's being intolerant of me!" (or, in some cases, trying to discredit lack of belief by claiming it is as much a religion as belief -- when it is the non-existence of belief and nothing more).
I imagine there were a lot of dudes, like yourself, back in the 1960s talking about how "all them negroes are actin' like nutjobs with all that marchin' and militant sitting in the front of the bus and drinking from white fountains and shit". (I am not trying to implicate you as a racist or anything, but am just drawing parallels between the attitude and terms exhibited by those in multiple situations to dismiss, diminish, and denigrate other segments of society who are actively demanding fair treatment).
Because writing a terse couple sentences with vulgarities targeted at you in a mailing list that you voluntarily subscribe to for a project you voluntarily participate in is exactly the same as someone stalking you in meatspace, on your property, incessantly harassing you?
I just always assumed fertilizer was discovered by a CEO.
Yep. I used to sit about five feet from a guy who was in management (but not my management) who for some inexplicable reason disliked me. Not only did he dislike me, but he talked shit about me to other managers and employees behind my back. He was very nice to my face, though. I would never have known any of this if it weren't for a colleague and another manager who clued me into what this guy was saying. And, fortunate for me, these people always countered his comments, told him he was wrong, and otherwise stood up for me in his non-sense rally to bash me to people.
I would have rather he had just been an asshole to me and lay it out, so we knew where we stood.
It all derailed when it started referring to "verbal threats" and "verbal abuse" as "violence". Sorry, but unless a dev is at my door with a baseball bat, it's just words. Additionally, we've all dealt with people who are crude, terse, mean, or just flat out obnoxious prima-donas. It only impacts you if you give a shit. I've dealt with some of those in my career and all that matters to me is whether they are productive and talented. Telling me "you made a stupid fucking mistake" isn't any worse than "Please don't take this too harshly and please don't think I am picking on you. I like you and you are a swell fellow and all. However, I feel it is necessary that I impress upon you that this isn't really a bug and having this trivial and non-broken thing filed as a bug has consumed a little bit of our time that we would rather not be wasting on things like this. Also, here is a pat on the back and an atta-boy so you don't feel I am being mean to you, okay?".
Granted, it might be a little unprofessional to use crude language with people. CEOs and other muckety-mucks do it all the time, however. It's also a little different between using crude language and lashing out at people with crude language to insult them and put them down. But, again, that's just the way things are and it is just the way some people are. It really does not have to impact you in the slightest if you don't want it to (and it doesn't hurt to learn to give it back - especially if you can do so cleverly, with wit, and without the matching vulgarity).
I don't doubt this sort of thing does put some people off from contributing and participating. I sure as hell wouldn't participate in anything that involved Linus and other well-known and super-smart guys, because I know I'm not at their level and I would just constantly be on the receiving end of "how fucking stupid can you be?!". But you know what? Maybe that's okay. Maybe it weeds out people who don't have the spine to deal with it or who take everything so personally that everything has to become a drama rather than just getting work done.
Of course, Linus could be less of an asshole (even when his points are very fair). But I don't see why he should feel he *has* to be less of one. *shrug*. I also think it's a little different than if he was someone's direct boss in a workplace and he was walking outside of his office to constantly berate, ride, ridicule, and harass his employees for being totally incompetent.
He's a pretty douchy constant self-promoter and bragger. I also remember one of the few times I've sat around watching the TWiT (This Week In Tech) network with Leo Laporte and he was on it (the $10m/yr indie podcasting network with like 20+ shows and like 40 hours of content a week) and he asked him if he could use "This Week In..." for ONE of his shows that he wanted to do on his own network.
Next thing you know, JC was building an entire network of his own where EVERYTHING was "This Week In..."
That's pretty fucking low and douchey.
"Religion".
I don't think you understand what that word means, yet like so many religious people, try to spread it around to every context to poison any argument.
Also, of course there are a lot of militant atheists out there. The same way there are/were a lot of militant "black people" out there. Guess what? When people trod all over you, threaten you, treat you like second class citizens, and impose their will (via legislation and political power) on you -- you're probably going to be a tad mother fucking militant.
"Stop being intolerant of my intolerance you assholes! C'mon guys!"
Gotta wait for radio talk show hosts to tell him what side to come down on.
That's because we haven't been in a war for about 70 years.
How about the action in Syria? Pakistan? Lybia? How about the shit we've stirred, threatened, or supported in Yemen? Egypt? Iran? Bahrain? Tunisia? Turkey?