Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About GummiB

  • Rank
    Queen Bee
  • Birthday 06/27/1984

Profile Information

  • Name
    Michael Mapes
  • School
    Missouri State University
  • Biography
    I am here for all to enjoy and love.
  • Location
    Le Mars, Iowa and Springfield, mo
  • Interests
    Being popular
  • Occupation
    Social butterfly

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Yahoo
  1. why did someone make this thread exist?
  2. 1. I never said I gave a shit about debate. 2. My millons go to providng trendy name brand clothes for myself. 3. I have never blamed coaches (although I have come in contact with some gay hating coaches) 4. Iowa isn't rich educationally speaking and we manage 5. I do support good debate over bad (mo) debate 6. Sorry you aren't GBN or ST. Marks but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to be
  3. I could personally insult you, but your arguments are so bad there is literally no need. Missouri debate = bad. I have never blamed coaches nor anyone else. I have not made an argument about working in or out of the system. I have simply said if something smells like a turd treat it as such. I am not quite sure where this "snap my fingers" bullshit came from, however, I stand by my point that Missouri debate as is blows. Also, if I take your argument to a logical extreme it would mean I shouldn't call the KKK racist because it "might piss them off." Sincerly, Michael Mapes
  4. If you defend coaches or the creepy style of debate that Missouri uses than that's dumb. It has nothing to do with working in or out of the system. It has to do with calling something that is dumb...what it is....dumb... thanks though....
  5. Why are people hell bent on defending MO debate? Less time defending MO debate..more time trying to be like me. Thanks
  6. GummiB


    So don't offend the homophobes basically? good.. Why can you not be against one type of speech and allow another. You haven't cited one single scholar in any of your posts. While my posts have been sprinkled with academics who in fact say that you can be oppossed to hate speech and still be in support of progressive speech. This subjective distinction makes no sense. Hate speech is wrong and progressive speech is allowed. Done. The thing is, the speech that you are defending is hurting people. Stop making abstract arguments about how gay rights speech won't be allowed if people on this forum stop using hate speech. The idea that you need to protect valuless speech in order to protect valuable speech is outdated. This argument is called the core-periphery argument or the idea that speech at the margin needs to be protected so that speech at the core can be. There are a couple of problems with this 1. Hate speech isn't at the periphery it is in the core. 2. Other countries have these restrictions and are more progressive than the U.S. 3. In fact, the U.S. actually over time has censored more groups than countries with strict hate speech codes. And, the argument just isn't true. Multiple other countries have restricted pornography and hate speech and there's been no collapse of the free speech system or public debate. Again, Delgado: "If protecting hate speech and porngraphy were essential to safe fuarding freedom of inquiry and flourishing democratic politics, we would expect to find that nations that have adopted hate-speech rules and curb against pornography would suffer a sharp erosion of the spirit of free inquiry. But this has not happened. A host of Western industrialized nations, including Sweeden, Italy, Canada, and Great Britain, have instituted laws against hate speech and hate propaganda, many in order to comply with international treateis and conventions requiring such action. many of these countries have traditions of respect for free speech at least equal of ours. No such nation has reported any erosion of the atmosphere of free speech or debate. " The
  7. GummiB


    Wait this isn't congress?!? That's the thing though, speech does have lasting effects both on people posting on these forums and those who will not speak up. Do you honestly feel that an openly gay person just stumbling across these forums would want to post here? Doesn't that mean anything to you? And, yes if I saw my debate partner posting homophobic jokes or sexist remarks on here I would no twant to debate with them. The thing is, you are'nt big enough to admit that you may have hurt someone or really that you have done anything wrong. It's typical of privileged people to deny that they did anything wrong. This isn't an argument, this is me coming on this forum and saying 'hey everyone..the things you've said on here are really really hurtful, and it makes me not want to be a part of the community." And, all if seems you are interested in saying is 'why you aren't homophobes.' or 'why what you say doesn't matter' when I am telling you that does. Why do you think I don't go to Missouri high school tournaments? These forums do play a huge role in that decision. Consdiering B. Jobe is my roommate, I doubt he knows that. I'm certain that the statement 'maybe i'll make some more gay jokes tomorrow to piss mapes off' will convince him that you aren't exactly an ally. I don't need anymore straight people telling me they aren't actually homophobic when their words and actions reflect an entirely different reality.
  8. GummiB


    The ACLU does defend Nazis. Is it your argument that Nazi protests and events don't start violence? How about Clan events? Not only are those events harm directly against people forced to view them. Yes I think it is harm for a black person to have to see the KKK burning crosse. It also incites violence. No one is saying regulate what goes on in someone's head. What we are saying is don't act or say it. Also, no one has advocated making it a crime. We have advocated that people don't defend them. For instance, even assuming the KKK has the 'right' to say whatever they want, so to do attorneys have the right not to represent them, and should choose to exercise that right.
  9. GummiB


    I agree with a lot of what you've said earlier, and commend you for your unwillingness to side with the people making heterosexist jokes on here. I disagree with this. Racist/Sexist/Heterosexist views do not deserve to be tolerated. Do you honestly believe a black family who has lost their child to a Klan member should tolerate the KKKs views? Do you expect me to support and defend the right of Fred Phelps to say that 'The only righteous action a gay person can take is to remove their testicles with barbed wire?" People do not have the right to be intolerant of equality and equal access. I'm sure you would agree. It isn't a forced choice. Tolerance for diversity does not mean that we tolerate everything! I hope you'll read, with an open mind, this article, and seriously consider it. The Trouble with Tolerance By Tim Wise <tjwise@mindspring.com> originally posted to [bRC-NEWS] 12/15/99 So what is "tolerance," anyway? As I see it, "tolerance" means I don't burn your church down, or tie you to a fence and leave you to die, or drag you down a dirt road behind my pickup. It means I tolerate your existence and little else. I let you live and breathe for another day. But it doesn't mean I'm expected to fight loan discrimination against people of color by bank officials (unless it turns out they burn crosses on their lunch hour, of course); and it doesn't mean I'm expected to speak out against police brutality, or unequal health care, or the racialized spiral of incarceration, or tracking in the schools, or unequal funding between poor districts teaching students of color and suburban districts serving mostly white kids. And if I'm the parent of one of those white kids, it doesn't mean I have to think about my own role in someone else's oppression. I just need to put an "erase the hate" bumper sticker on my Volvo, next to the one that reads "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," and everything will be O.K.--even as my comfortable existence comes at the direct expense of the persons of color who are kept in neighborhoods and schools far from me and mine. Emphasizing "tolerance" will focus one's attention on overt hostility, perhaps, but do nothing to address the institutional forms of racism which kill people every day, just as perniciously as any member of the Aryan Nations. As with race, so too with religion: "Tolerance" might well preclude me from criticizing churches for their "love the sinner, hate the sin" mantra vis-à-vis gays and lesbians. After all, isn't that mantra the very essence of tolerance? Just because these folks think and teach their children that gays and lesbians are going to hell, doesn't mean they're implicated in gay-bashing! To even imply such a thing would demonstrate one's "intolerance" of fundamentalists; as would, I suppose, mentioning that evangelical Christianity is, by definition, intolerant, as per its desire to convert all non-Christians so as to "win the world for Christ"--an act of spiritual genocide against other faiths or the faithless to be sure. Yet, to even say this makes one "intolerant," in which case, perhaps we need a little less tolerance, and a lot more truth
  10. GummiB


    Oh, well I guess since you didn't think something was hate speech it's not. Silly gay..tricks are for kids.. Wish I would have seen this post earlier..could have saved me all that typing
  11. GummiB


    This is gross. When someone asks you not to make heterosexist jokes because it makes them feel bad based on who they are, and you post more jokes. Does it make you feel big? These jokes are based on sterotypes, which Richard Delgado reminds us are individually harmful, are used to constitute group identity, and even result in horrible crimes against humanity: The pattern of stereotypes at the center of our moral codes largely determine what group of facts we shall see, and in what light we shall see them. . . . And since my moral system rests on my accepted version of the facts, he who denies either my moral judgments or my version of the facts, is to me perverse, alien, dangerous. n11 The acute attitudes that stereotypes can prompt in both speakers and victims indicate the extent to which affective prejudices can constitute personal and group identities. Statements against out-groups can reflect the speakers' willingness to act in accordance to prejudice. Destructive messages, further, can catalyze crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust, American slavery, and Native American removal. n12 Claiming that all Mexicans are drunks, Jews greedy, Indians savage, blacks dangerous, and gays pederastic is not only inaccurate, but these mischaracterizations can overtly or subtly affect exclusionary employment or political practices. Even clearer is the connection between historical symbols like burning crosses and swastikas with menacing behavior. Understanding Words that Wound analyzes the sustained effects of expressed bias on American society. Your on something, not sure it's a roll though... Someone else did a good job of answering this. What is your point, that you are an asshole to lots of people so it's ok? Also, because you know gay people that make fun of themselves, is not a justification for you to post things on a public message board that could isolate people. Again, I'm telling you your speech is isolating and hurtful..doesn't that mean anything? Because there are some people worse than Craig... or as a matter of fact YOU, doesn't make what you are saying alright. Please try not to make arguments like this again, because I won't be responding to them again. I've never said we shouldn't offend people. I think homophobes and racists deserve to be offended. You said it all, your egos are too big. The reason you get defensive and uncomfortable is because you know your wrong. When you are confronted with your privilege and own role in oppression of other people, instaed of being honest and real you've decided to be defensive and hurtful. Congrats!
  12. GummiB


    First, the ACLU is not a good organization and I have never been a member nor supported it. The ACLU defends a huge majority of conservative clients. Defending this type of speech disempowers minorities. For instance, defending the KKK empowers them to speak while disempowering the minorities condemned by the KKK to speak. Similarly, defending the production of violent porngraphy empowers the corporations making the movies to speak while disempowering those in the films. The money that the ACLU uses on defending the violent right could better be used helping targeted minority groups. The amount of cases the ACLU takes on helping minority groups is far less than the amount of high profile 'free speech' cases. As Andrea Dworkin Reminds us, Some think that the ACLU would not choose to defend Nazis if Nazis were what is called "a real threat." For some, this supposition gets the ACLU off the hook. But the Klan is "a real threat": count the dead bodies; watch the murderers acquitted; see the military training camps the Klan is establishing. It is time for the ACLU to come clean. Its fight is not against the Right in any form, including the Moral Majority or opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment (as Mr McGovern's letter claims). Its fight is for an absence of distinctions: "kill the Jews" and "rape the women" indistinguishable from all other speech; action mistaken for speech; the victim confounded into honoring the so-called rights of the executioner. In bondage photographs and movies, we are to interpret the bondage itself as speech and protect it as such. The symbol of free speech ACLU-style might well be a woman tied, chained, strung up, and gagged. Needless to say, she will not be on any letterhead. If the ACLU were honest, she would be. Never have I claimed to be a 'traditional liberalist.' In fact I abhor the politics of traditional liberalism, preferring instead an egalitarian brand of socialism. There is a lot of modern philosophy that criticizes the way traditional liberalism works eg Badiou, Zizek, Zupancic, etc. Furthermore, being queer is not a choice. I'll appreciate you not referring to it as such in the future. I defend freedom of expression. What I do not defend is an absolutist principle of 'free speech.' I also do not think that being in a group called 'God Hates Fags' and holding signs up that say 'AIDS: Gods curse to fags" falls under the realm of freedom of expression. As far as Mill goes First, the Ethical Spectacle informs us that Mill is a tool because he ignores inequality, which ensures that not everyone will be able to actualize free speech: The First Amendment is founded on the proposition, set forth so beautifully by J.S. Mill in On Liberty, that good speech ultimately drives out bad. Free speech, like our court system, is based on a faith that truth wins. If in either case, victory goes to he who shouts the loudest, the system breaks down. Mackinnon believes that men, who have more power and more aggression, will always shout loudest, that their speech is backed by the threat of violence, and that the pornographic speech of men, supposedly protected by the First Amendment, is itself violence. Second, that under Mills harm principle, freedom of speech should be rejected as absolute: Mill not only believed in free speech; he believed that no action should be prohibited that harmed only oneself, that the government should only intervene to bar acts that harmed others. His goal was the full development of the individual in any direction; he knew that in a Millian world, some would grow into stunted monstrosities while others might become mighty oaks, and that was fine. In our world, however, and largely because of sexual speech and sexual violence, women still do not have the opportunity to grow into whatever they will; the fact that women cannot go out alone at night, or travel many places even in daytime without the company and the mediation of a man means that women cannot easily take even the first steps necessary towards full self-development. Mackinnon believes that free speech perpetuates this, that male power uses speech to enforce inequality. I won't argue whether supporting the ACLU makes one racist or sexist, but the speech you have used on this board does not lead me to believe that you are not homophobic. You can't say homophobic things, and then say you aren't a homophbe. What you can do is apologize and not say them anymore.
  13. GummiB


    The thing is, there's no difference between saying homophoibic things and being a homophobe. I am sick of people getting on this forum, and treating gays like we're stupid and don't know what homophobia is. When someone calls someone brokeback mountain that is heterosexist. Because your friends with someone is a not a reason to come to their defense, it's a reason to either a. un-friend them or b. encourage them to change. Do you really think it makes gay people feel any better when someone says something homophobic and you say 'don't worry they didn't mean that'? People are not entilted to hold beliefs or say things that are racist and or sexist. Not everyone believes that hate speech is free speech. Also, no one tried to censor anyone, we simply encouraged people not to use hate speech. Also free speech assumes equal access to resources which not everyone has. Why do you think people are entitled to racist/sexist views? I have never been an advocate of tolerance or not offending anyone. What I am an advocate for is accpetance of queers. I don't care if I offend a racist by calling him a racist. I don't care of I offend a sexist by calling them a sexist. What I do care about people being hetero/sexist/racist. So stop it. "Here is some evidence from Witch Vox : I could list any number of things I believe don't deserve tolerance. Killing innocent people, for one. Taking the property of another without that person's consent. Destroying another's property or depriving him of the use of same. Attacking or injuring another except in self-defense. I'm sure you can think of others. "
  14. GummiB


    YAY! More homophobia and hate speech! You're right, we can't stop you from saying things that are offensive... but why wouldn't you want to? Evaporate missouri person
  15. I'm think I'm done here, mainly, because I keep throwing up in my mouth everytime I read these boogin responses. To say that sexism in debate is not serious is disgusting.
  • Create New...