Quote:
Apparently the objection is to white men using the word.
It has (virtually) nothing to do with who uses the word, it has to do with context. Although I'm not sure what "word" you're referring to. "Jigaboo"? That wasn't Imus's quote, but one of his cronies. Regardless, I can use the word "jigaboo" or "nigger" all I want to, as long as I'm referring to the word, but as soon as I use it to refer to a person, that's when one gets in trouble.
Quote:
Feminists can say that consentual sex with my wife is a subversive form of rape. ... Nutjobs can state as fact that Jews within my government orchestrated 9-11 and even planted expolosives to bring down "building 5".
These are both specific allegations, not ad-hominem attacks. You may disagree with them, even vehemently, but they are political viewpoints, not verbal assault.
Quote:
People who don't like being judged on their behavior can find no limit to the ways they'll offend my Christianity and find no ends in their efforts to desecrate any religious symbols I hold dear.
The first part is, again, political (or religious) viewpoint. The latter would be more along the line of calling someone a "nappy-headed ho", but I can't think of a media outlet that "desecrates religious symbols" of any nature. (Maybe the cartoons of Mohammed.) Are you talking about stuff like the chocolate crucifix recently? You do realize that those things only get this news attention because there was some gigantic outcry preventing those people from displaying that stuff, and they usually succeed. On the other hand, many of the things you consider to be blasphemous the artists consider to be quite the opposite. The biggest example I can think of is The Last Temptation of Christ.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk