MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Names Pro-Life Advocate Jill Stanek "Worst Person"

[Drawmack]

Whoa, relax! I realize you never said anything about outlawing it. I apologize if my post made it sound that way.

As I read your post I recalled what has happened in Canada since the passing of their hate speech law. That is all.

As far as truthful language, my response was addressing a subset of what you describes as words that provoke hate and vitriol. In the future, please try to assume that people are not making a personal attack or twisting your words.

Now, back to the topic…

When you quote my post, I assume (and will continue to assume) that you are responding to my post. In the future try to be more careful with the implications you make in your speech. See how fun it is to blame someone else instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.

Now, I will drop the issue.

 

[kentuckyliz]

In America we still have free speech rights. Obama hasn’t revoked those rights yet.

A person can speak out against abortion, and abortionists, even in strong language, and they are NOT responsible for the actions of another person who murders.

The lefties made a Bush assassination fantasy film. If someone actually assassinated Bush, would that make the filmmakers and actors responsible for the assassination? No.

You can publish information how to kill yourself or others, and it is not illegal, because of free speech rights.

The Nebraska late term abortionist in the junkyard should thank Jill Stanek and Keith Olbermann for the free advertising. If he believes in his business, this is all good. It’s spreading the word to extremely pregnant women desiring a late term abortion, where to find it. Good job Jill. I guess that makes you responsible for all those late term abortions!

 

[fix]

I was talking about utilizing language intended to incite hatred.

You know people’s intentions?

 

[Le_Trebuchet]

Keith Olbermans Motto:
Be a Hero Save a Whale, Save a Baby go to Jail.

 

[Drawmack]

In America we still have free speech rights. Obama hasn’t revoked those rights yet.

I have not seen any one question this. Matter of fact, all that I have seen is a bunch of people exercising this. Are you ranting without provocation or could you provide a quote from this thread that supports your implication?

A person can speak out against abortion, and abortionists, even in strong language, and they are NOT responsible for the actions of another person who murders.

I have not seen any one question this. I have seen people say that when you use language designed to incite hate you really cannot be surprised when it creates hate. I have not seen anyone say that any person except for the murder should be held liable. Are you ranting without provocation or could you provide a quote from this thread that supports your implication?

The lefties made a Bush assassination fantasy film. If someone actually assassinated Bush, would that make the filmmakers and actors responsible for the assassination? No.

I have not read a person in this thread make an antithetical claim. This would be equatable to the righties writing articles that attempt to pass a psychiatric diagnosis on Obama. I did not see anyone say those people should be in jail either. Are you ranting without provocation or could you provide a quote from this thread that supports your implication?

You can publish information how to kill yourself or others, and it is not illegal, because of free speech rights.

I have not read any one in this thread attempt to assuage free speech rights in any way. What I have read is people questioning the moral acceptability of certain usages of this freedom. You seem to be saying that because it is legally acceptable, that questioning the moral acceptability is incorrect. This makes a clear implication that because something is legally acceptable that makes it morally acceptable. Is this what you are saying?

 

[Drawmack]

You know people’s intentions?

I think there are times when the language a writer uses betrays their intentions.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

What a brilliant observation by FOX. I wonder which party FOX endorses…hmm?

Olbermann’s views on abortion and homosexuality are despicable, but his political analysis provides a good counterbalance to the junk coming out of the right wing press.

What junk is that?

 

[fix]

I think there are times when the language a writer uses betrays their intentions.

Can you list some specific examples of what language is morally wrong within the context of this discussion?

 

[Drawmack]

Can you list some specific examples of what language is morally wrong within the context of this discussion?

In my opinion, comparing people to totalitarian government regimes of the past is morally wrong in all circumstances.

In my opinion, calling someone a baby killer is wrong. Sure, it’s true but it could be phrased in a less spiteful way. For example. One could state that killing a living person is murder and a human egg becomes a person at the moment of conception. You do not need to take the next step and actually call someone a baby killer.

I think that utilizing these types of comparisons and rhetoric, more often than not, fires up the choir but gets the opposition to stop listening. So if you’re utilizing language like this, I must wonder are you actually attempting to change hearts and minds or are you simply preaching to the choir? If it’s the latter then by all means go to it. But, if it’s the former then I fear that you may be helping the opposition more than our actual cause.

I heard the most beautiful plea to stop abortion I have, personally, been privy to. This week (not sure if it was yesterday or Monday) on talk of the nation they were discussing abortion and if it should be legal. They had medical professionals from both sides of the argument on the show. One woman called in and simply stated, “I had a late term abortion xx (sorry I don’t remember the exact number) years ago.” I had to listen to what she said four times before I could understand her because she was hysterical with tears. Here is a woman who can’t even mention the fact that she had a late term abortion without breaking into hysterical tears. That is the testimony that will help pro-life! These are the people I want out on the front lines! If someone says that abortion is a choice and it is not hurting anyone, how about this woman? How about this living breathing victim of abortion? This poor woman can’t even think about what’s she’s done without loosing her composure. You want to talk about painful and heart wrenching decisions. I have not seen one person who chose life that was brought to hysterics by the mere mention of it many years later.

I chose life. I put my daughter up for adoption. Does it hurt today? Sure it does. Somewhere out there is a beautiful 15 year old girl that I haven’t seen since she was three days old and I would love nothing more than to hug and ask how her day at school was. But, she is alive. And, this means a chance that someday I will have a relationship with her. If I had not chosen life, then not only would I have the death of my child to deal with I would have to live knowing that I chose my child’s death.

So, when I ask people not to use words full of hatred and vitriol I am speaking as someone who chose life. I am asking as a member who is firmly entrenched within your camps. I am not trying to weaken our efforts or in any way lessen the gravity of the situation. I am telling you that when you use certain types of language to describe people and their beliefs this language forces them to take offense: they stop listening. If the opposition stops listening, you have lost. It is really that simple. We have got to keep them listening if we want to stand any chance of changing their hearts and minds.

This story, and others like it, are what we should be trying to get out there. These are the stories that change hearts and minds. These are the people that will help our cause.

Do you disagree? Do you think that there is no language which is inappropriate in this, or any, case? If any language, so long as we view it as true, is okay on our side does this rule apply to the opposition as well? Do you think it is appropriate to say anything we like, so long as it’s true, without regard to the person we are talking to or about or their feelings? In your opinion is there a line that we cannot cross without leaving the area of love, without leaving the golden rule behind, or is everything fair game?

 

[fix]

In my opinion, comparing people to totalitarian government regimes of the past is morally wrong in all circumstances.

In my opinion, calling someone a baby killer is wrong. Sure, it’s true but it could be phrased in a less spiteful way. For example. One could state that killing a living person is murder and a human egg becomes a person at the moment of conception. You do not need to take the next step and actually call someone a baby killer.

I think that utilizing these types of comparisons and rhetoric, more often than not, fires up the choir but gets the opposition to stop listening. So if you’re utilizing language like this, I must wonder are you actually attempting to change hearts and minds or are you simply preaching to the choir? If it’s the latter then by all means go to it. But, if it’s the former then I fear that you may be helping the opposition more than our actual cause.

I heard the most beautiful plea to stop abortion I have, personally, been privy to. This week (not sure if it was yesterday or Monday) on talk of the nation they were discussing abortion and if it should be legal. They had medical professionals from both sides of the argument on the show. One woman called in and simply stated, “I had a late term abortion xx (sorry I don’t remember the exact number) years ago.” I had to listen to what she said four times before I could understand her because she was hysterical with tears. Here is a woman who can’t even mention the fact that she had a late term abortion without breaking into hysterical tears. That is the testimony that will help pro-life! These are the people I want out on the front lines! If someone says that abortion is a choice and it is not hurting anyone, how about this woman? How about this living breathing victim of abortion? This poor woman can’t even think about what’s she’s done without loosing her composure. You want to talk about painful and heart wrenching decisions. I have not seen one person who chose life that was brought to hysterics by the mere mention of it many years later.

I chose life. I put my daughter up for adoption. Does it hurt today? Sure it does. Somewhere out there is a beautiful 15 year old girl that I haven’t seen since she was three days old and I would love nothing more than to hug and ask how her day at school was. But, she is alive. And, this means a chance that someday I will have a relationship with her. If I had not chosen life, then not only would I have the death of my child to deal with I would have to live knowing that I chose my child’s death.

So, when I ask people not to use words full of hatred and vitriol I am speaking as someone who chose life. I am asking as a member who is firmly entrenched within your camps. I am not trying to weaken our efforts or in any way lessen the gravity of the situation. I am telling you that when you use certain types of language to describe people and their beliefs this language forces them to take offense: they stop listening. If the opposition stops listening, you have lost. It is really that simple. We have got to keep them listening if we want to stand any chance of changing their hearts and minds.

This story, and others like it, are what we should be trying to get out there. These are the stories that change hearts and minds. These are the people that will help our cause.

Do you disagree? Do you think that there is no language which is inappropriate in this, or any, case? If any language, so long as we view it as true, is okay on our side does this rule apply to the opposition as well? Do you think it is appropriate to say anything we like, so long as it’s true, without regard to the person we are talking to or about or their feelings? In your opinion is there a line that we cannot cross without leaving the area of love, without leaving the golden rule behind, or is everything fair game?

I am glad, and edified, you choose life. Your witness is a perfect example to help the pro life cause.

I do think that circumstances dictate what language and tone is to be used. In all fairness, I can find examples where people claim offense no matter how the position is stated. That is very common today in a culture where we each are quick to claim offense no matter how illegitimate our position may be.

The claim made by the tv commentator is nothing more than propaganda. Words have meanings. I agree we should not seek to antagonize. I, also, think that there is no one argument, or one particular tone, that will win over hearts. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we should not seek to be rude but we also should not be silenced because the pro death forces make illegitmate arguments in an attempt to shut us down. Just my opinion.

 

[Drawmack]

I am glad, and edified, you choose life. Your witness is a perfect example to help the pro life cause.

Thank you

I do think that circumstances dictate what language and tone is to be used. In all fairness, I can find examples where people claim offense no matter how the position is stated. That is very common today in a culture where we each are quick to claim offense no matter how illegitimate our position may be.

I understand that. I have no doubt there are people who will claim offense at anything. I am a rational person and I know that we cannot simply cow-tow because someone claims offense. But, I think we can all agree that some statements, by their very nature, are offensive. It is these statements I think we should stay away from.

The claim made by the tv commentator is nothing more than propaganda.

I wasn’t defending the commentator. I think he has a right to his opinion. If he wants to claim that she’s the worst person in the world then so be it. To be honest I had never heard of Jill Stanek before this thread. I researched her as a result. So, apparently it wasn’t all bad that he did this.

Words have meanings. I agree we should not seek to antagonize. I, also, think that there is no one argument, or one particular tone, that will win over hearts. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.

You are absolutely correct. However, there are words and tones which will hurt this cause. Conversely, there are words and tones which will help this cause. Does the Holy Spirit call us to convert people to the faith by running down the street and screaming in people’s faces that they are going to Hell? Then why defend this same tactic when it comes to the pro-life cause?

Yes, we should not seek to be rude but we also should not be silenced because the pro death forces make illegitmate arguments in an attempt to shut us down. Just my opinion.

I agree that we shouldn’t be shut down. I do, however, find it interesting that you say we should not seek to be rude in the same sentence where you refer to the opposition as pro-death.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Keith Olbermans Motto:
Be a Hero Save a Whale, Save a Baby go to Jail.

 

[holiday5804]

In my opinion, calling someone a baby killer is wrong. Sure, it’s true but it could be phrased in a less spiteful way. For example. One could state that killing a living person is murder and a human egg becomes a person at the moment of conception. You do not need to take the next step and actually call someone a baby killer.

Why beat around the bush. Let’s call a spade a spade. If you murder innocent children, then you are a baby killer. If the truth makes people angry or uncomfortable, sorry, but it is the truth.

 

[rpp]

This thread has been hijacked.

 

[fix]

I agree that we shouldn’t be shut down. I do, however, find it interesting that you say we should not seek to be rude in the same sentence where you refer to the opposition as pro-death.

I try not to use pro choice as that simply feeds into the wordspeak that treats the unborn as non human with no rights. Either we understand the horror that we speak of or we really do not think it is as bad as we claim.

 

[fix]

Does the Holy Spirit call us to convert people to the faith by running down the street and screaming in people’s faces that they are going to Hell? Then why defend this same tactic when it comes to the pro-life cause?

No, I have not heard of people advocating screaming and yelling people are going to hell. I have read that people calling homicide a choice like choosing a salad dressing.

 

[Drawmack]

I try not to use pro choice as that simply feeds into the wordspeak that treats the unborn as non human with no rights. Either we understand the horror that we speak of or we really do not think it is as bad as we claim.

I use pro-choice because it is how they prefer to be recognized. However, I do not shy away from the opportunity to point out that the choice is a choice to murder. See what I’m saying, it’s about getting them to listen. If I refer to them as pro-death they stop listening. But, if I refer to them as pro-choice while making a case that the choice they are actually making is the choice to murder, then I stand a chance at them actually listening.

 

[Drawmack]

No, I have not heard of people advocating screaming and yelling people are going to hell. I have read that people calling homicide a choice like choosing a salad dressing.

But, if they were converted to the wholeness and truth of the Catholic faith then they would also be converted on abortion by default. So, shouldn’t we be talking about conversion to the Catholic faith the same way we talk about conversion to pro-life?

So, calling the opposition in the pro-life fight pro-choice is referring to “choosing homicide like choosing salad dressing” but referring to the eternal damnation of someone’s soul as a choice is somehow less offensive and less important?

I just don’t understand the disconnect.

 

[fix]

I use pro-choice because it is how they prefer to be recognized. However, I do not shy away from the opportunity to point out that the choice is a choice to murder. See what I’m saying, it’s about getting them to listen. If I refer to them as pro-death they stop listening. But, if I refer to them as pro-choice while making a case that the choice they are actually making is the choice to murder, then I stand a chance at them actually listening.

It depends on the context and the person listening. I do not accept your premise that people stop listening. In fact, one may argue if you continue to obfuscate by misstating the problem by calling it a choice one continues to enable the problem.

It seems you are saying the truth is too startling for many people. That may be what some need.

 

[fix]

But, if they were converted to the wholeness and truth of the Catholic faith then they would also be converted on abortion by default.

Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits. The OP is about a hard left tv personality using propaganda to further his agenda. There will be differing repsonses to what he said and that is great because some will speak to one person and others will speak to another person. Do not discount the plain truth. Some need to be offended, or perceive offense, as that may be the key to conversion.

So, shouldn’t we be talking about conversion to the Catholic faith the same way we talk about conversion to pro-life?

Conversion is ongoing and takes many forms. Do not handicap the process by introducing false limits.

So, calling the opposition in the pro-life fight pro-choice is referring to “choosing homicide like choosing salad dressing” but referring to the eternal damnation of someone’s soul as a choice is somehow less offensive and less important?

I used an analogy to show the absurdity of holding such an evil position. You may not like it, but that does not make it wrong. It means you do not like it.

Would you hold your position if we substituted the word rape or genocide for abortion?