BoyCott those who are cancel culture advocates. Censorship is un-American and you can't support that with your dollars or with your silence.

[RetiredUSN]

I'd say Moe was a victim of bullies and that's a shame and I can sympathize. I imagine most of us at some point were bullied by older or bigger kids or even adults for some reason. Sounds like Moe caused a little of his own torment. The PGA has rules of decorum and he should have adhered to it a well as he could. Small exceptions are usually accorded to people but repeat offenses get a bit tiresome. Still people should not go beyond proper boundaries.

Moe's head was run over by a car while sledding when he was very young boy and it affected him through out his life.

If the people on Tour would have taken the time to understand, and handle Moe, he could have won many many tournament including majors.



But no, the tour was all about snobbery.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Boycotting and shutting down the Ground Zero Mosque had nothing to do with ticket sales. You people quickly forget facts and have no damn honesty.

If you violate the rules of this platform and get a permanent ban, your rights haven’t been canceled. There is a process to disbar lawyers who act ethically, a process of stripping titles and honors including diplomas.

The right wing is actually suffering from mass ignorance as to what freedom of speech means. Boycotting is legal. Freedom of associate is included in freedom of speech. The constitution doesn’t care about your feelings. It’s not a matter of disassociating from people you don’t like good, and disassociating from people you do like bad. Harvey Weinstein has lost a ton of honors because he is a convicted rapist now, and that shouldn’t come as a shock. It doesn’t matter if you think he earned those honors, invested time, money, etc., the members of boards and title associations have the right to distance themselves from him. That’s how freedom of association works.

When you arbitrarily and capriciously determine to who the rules and how the rules will be administered then you do violate peoples rights, if not the very letter of the law then certainly the intent.. Democrats/liberals tend to "feel" a certain way and then try to adapt the rules to their feelings. Rules and laws and their intent don't seem to matter to them.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Moe's head was run over by a car while sledding when he was very young boy and it affected him through out his life.

If the people on Tour would have taken the time to understand, and handle Moe, he could have won many many tournament including majors.



But no, the tour was all about snobbery.

I could say the same about Trump. We all have limits on our enduring good nature. The point is the rules should apple to all evenly and equally without regard for political leanings. The laws should be adhered to and not ignored to favor a person or a group. Violence by one group and violence by another should be handled the same and not explained away because it alienates part of your support group. BLM and ANTIFA were given wide latitude this past year in the cities run by democrat officials. Billions of dollars of damage to city, state, federal and personal property was done with a minimum of police response in most instances and little coverage by the media. The storming of the capital was criminal, not everyone at the capital participated, not all are criminals. Not all those at the riots/protests across America were criminals. A good lesson I learned as a young person. Nothing good happens after dark. So if you don't have a good purpose go home.

 

[What if...?]

I have not participated on this forum for long, but so far it has been a welcome and enlightening experience.

Today is the first day of the Biden presidency and, interestingly enough, and certainly appropriately enough given the régime he serves, he has reinstated a Neo-Marxist and potentially totalitarian policy initiatives that will "launch a whole-of-government initiative to advance racial equality".


In order to understand what Biden is getting at, and what this really & truly means, one has to 'deconstruct' it. But it is best to get it *right to the horse's mouth* and here is Biden revealing, precisely, where he is coming from and what in fact he serves. An 'unrelenting stream of immigration' the purpose of which is to displace and dispossess his demographic group. This is not me making an interpretive statement about what Biden is saying, this is taking what Biden says at face value.

Once you understand what Biden stands for, what he advocates, and what he works for, then it is possible to begin to make an analysis of the platform of ideas and policies that he serves. And when one does that, I suggest, one is part-way to an understanding of how this is part-and-parcel of an *ideological régime* which has just retaken power in the United States. The long and the short of it is that if you oppose what they are doing you will be described in the most vile terms.

But here I suggest an exercise in 'clear-thinking' is needed. First, one has to see and understand that the nature and the demographic composition of the United States has been intentionally modified over the course of 50 years. The very notion of a 'white America' has been vilified. 'Whiteness' has been made to seem an 'evil' thing. Something deeply wrong, indeed morally wrong. Try this out: Say to yourself outloud "I desire to live within a white nation and a white community'. In our present dispensation, I assert, this thought is disallowed. It has been made into crimethink. You could certainly advocate to 'diversity' or, as they say, the 'browning' of any agency, city, state, or community, and no one would oppose you.

Obviously, because I broach this particular observations I will be seen as suspect. But this is one of the 'tricks' as it were of their mind-manipulating tactics. To think, to speak, in certain categories places you immediately in a zone of vilification. And once you are there you can be 'canceled'.

So what I try to point out here -- I would welcome a refutation of course -- is that the bottom line right now in America, the basic ideological thrust, the defining characteristic of the ideological régime, is that it is essentially launching into a further phase of 'the war on whiteness'. The purpose of their efforts is to continue the process begun 50 years ago which is, obviously, to dilute America's original demographic. Excessive immigration, the vilification of whites and also of 'whiteness', establishing at an ideological level that to be of "European and Caucasian descent", as Biden enunciates, is the problem that must be overcome. "Folks like me" must become willing to not remain "folks like me" and must give way to "folks unlike me".

These are things that are very difficult and morally demanding to see and think about, this I admit.

View attachment 67314579

Ah. There it is.

I think I can address this with my response to thinking to myself "I desire to live in a white nation and a white community" is:

Why?

White is genetic. Has no bearing on character. Is no different than green eyes or red hair as to being superior in any way.

Everything you seem to be in support of is European culture and has zero to do with melanin content.

But you seem to be attibuting a smear program to anybody who points out things like I just did.

Nobody in America has any claim to any homogenaic genetic line that could be considered relevant enough to confer any kind of genetic superiority. On the contrary, American excellence is far more likely to be the result of the "mongrel effect" producing beneficial mutations than the kind of purity that leads to blood disorders.

So now we have two ways of looking at your subject.

 

[bearpoker]

But Hate Speech is an arbitrary construct based on someone's subjective opinion. None of us could possibly come up with a list of "hate speech" that would be agreed upon by everyone. Just as the nation often divided over political, moral, and ethical opinion. Hate speech is what ever someone says it is and that's not much of a standard. So a public utility. which is how the internet and companies like twitter operate, shouldn't be arbitrarily shutting down speech based on their subjective opinion and allowing other speech believed by many to be just as foul or worse to continue.

If you don't like it, don't agree to it. Post somewhere else.

 

[bearpoker]

You are failing to see the important underlying (overarching) issue here. But that is your choice.

Twitter is a private company. They are not a government body. Their users enter into a contract with them to follow their TOS. If they break the contract, Twitter has the right to ban them. Twitter owns the platform and has a right to determine how it's property is used. This is not a free speech issue. It is a property issue.

 

[What if...?]

No you don't. But don't complain when everyone boycott's Tucker Carlson's advertisers.

It's funny because it's capitalism!

 

[What if...?]

But Hate Speech is an arbitrary construct based on someone's subjective opinion. None of us could possibly come up with a list of "hate speech" that would be agreed upon by everyone. Just as the nation often divided over political, moral, and ethical opinion. Hate speech is what ever someone says it is and that's not much of a standard. So a public utility. which is how the internet and companies like twitter operate, shouldn't be arbitrarily shutting down speech based on their subjective opinion and allowing other speech believed by many to be just as foul or worse to continue.

Bet I could hate speech you and you'd know I was doing it. Because I would be attacking your for what you are and not what you did/do.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Ah. There it is.

I think I can address this with my response to thinking to myself "I desire to live in a white nation and a white community" is:

Why?

White is genetic. Has no bearing on character. Is no different than green eyes or red hair as to being superior in any way.

Everything you seem to be in support of is European culture and has zero to do with melanin content.

But you seem to be attibuting a smear program to anybody who points out things like I just did.

Nobody in America has any claim to any homogenaic genetic line that could be considered relevant enough to confer any kind of genetic superiority. On the contrary, American excellence is far more likely to be the result of the "mongrel effect" producing beneficial mutations than the kind of purity that leads to blood disorders.

So now we have two ways of looking at your subject.

So I don't believe that there is a law nor is it morally wrong to want to "desire to live in a white nations and a white community", anymore than it would to "desire to live in a black, Italian, native american, muslim etc, nation or community".. Just a preference of opinion. Now just because you man want this doesn't mean you are not capable of functioning quite well in a multi racial, ethic, religious, gender, or political nation or community. The left takes every personal like or dislike they don't agree with as a serious problem and breach of someone else's rights and that's insane. I've been in plenty of communities that were racially, ethnically, religiously and so segregated by choice. Not a problem until someone makes it a problem. The problem comes when someone says you, from another demographic cannot live here.

 

[Integrityrespec]

If you don't like it, don't agree to it. Post somewhere else.

Oh my, now you've gotten your feelings hurt. See this is the problem you cannot handle diverse opinions and open discourse.

 

[BitterPill]

I have not participated on this forum for long, but so far it has been a welcome and enlightening experience.

Today is the first day of the Biden presidency and, interestingly enough, and certainly appropriately enough given the régime he serves, he has reinstated a Neo-Marxist and potentially totalitarian policy initiatives that will "launch a whole-of-government initiative to advance racial equality".


In order to understand what Biden is getting at, and what this really & truly means, one has to 'deconstruct' it. But it is best to get it *right to the horse's mouth* and here is Biden revealing, precisely, where he is coming from and what in fact he serves. An 'unrelenting stream of immigration' the purpose of which is to displace and dispossess his demographic group. This is not me making an interpretive statement about what Biden is saying, this is taking what Biden says at face value.

Once you understand what Biden stands for, what he advocates, and what he works for, then it is possible to begin to make an analysis of the platform of ideas and policies that he serves. And when one does that, I suggest, one is part-way to an understanding of how this is part-and-parcel of an *ideological régime* which has just retaken power in the United States. The long and the short of it is that if you oppose what they are doing you will be described in the most vile terms.

But here I suggest an exercise in 'clear-thinking' is needed. First, one has to see and understand that the nature and the demographic composition of the United States has been intentionally modified over the course of 50 years. The very notion of a 'white America' has been vilified. 'Whiteness' has been made to seem an 'evil' thing. Something deeply wrong, indeed morally wrong. Try this out: Say to yourself outloud "I desire to live within a white nation and a white community'. In our present dispensation, I assert, this thought is disallowed. It has been made into crimethink. You could certainly advocate to 'diversity' or, as they say, the 'browning' of any agency, city, state, or community, and no one would oppose you.

Obviously, because I broach this particular observations I will be seen as suspect. But this is one of the 'tricks' as it were of their mind-manipulating tactics. To think, to speak, in certain categories places you immediately in a zone of vilification. And once you are there you can be 'canceled'.

So what I try to point out here -- I would welcome a refutation of course -- is that the bottom line right now in America, the basic ideological thrust, the defining characteristic of the ideological régime, is that it is essentially launching into a further phase of 'the war on whiteness'. The purpose of their efforts is to continue the process begun 50 years ago which is, obviously, to dilute America's original demographic. Excessive immigration, the vilification of whites and also of 'whiteness', establishing at an ideological level that to be of "European and Caucasian descent", as Biden enunciates, is the problem that must be overcome. "Folks like me" must become willing to not remain "folks like me" and must give way to "folks unlike me".

These are things that are very difficult and morally demanding to see and think about, this I admit.

View attachment 67314579

 

[Integrityrespec]

Bet I could hate speech you and you'd know I was doing it. Because I would be attacking your for what you are and not what you did/do.

Well, just have yourself a good ole time. You narrow mindedness and your bigotry is showing.

 

[bearpoker]

Oh my, now you've gotten your feelings hurt. See this is the problem you cannot handle diverse opinions and open discourse.

It looks more like I've hurt yours. Some people don't understand that rules are rules.

 

[What if...?]

So I don't believe that there is a law nor is it morally wrong to want to "desire to live in a white nations and a white community", anymore than it would to "desire to live in a black, Italian, native american, muslim etc, nation or community".. Just a preference of opinion. Now just because you man want this doesn't mean you are not capable of functioning quite well in a multi racial, ethic, religious, gender, or political nation or community. The left takes every personal like or dislike they don't agree with as a serious problem and breach of someone else's rights and that's insane. I've been in plenty of communities that were racially, ethnically, religiously and so segregated by choice. Not a problem until someone makes it a problem. The problem comes when someone says you, from another demographic cannot live here.

I just don't see a valid metric based on melanin content. And there's lots of inter-racial racism too. The Irish come to mind here in the states.

But that kiddies things so the argument stays on melanin content and it's presumed determination of an individual's quality level.

I have seen zero evidence to corroborate this presumption.

 

[What if...?]

Well, just have yourself a good ole time. You narrow mindedness and your bigotry is showing.

How so? You must believe I can hate speech you or you wouldn't be so mad. So you must be able to determine what is hate speech and what is not, right?

Right?

 

[calamity]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” These words in some form are commonly attributed to Voltaire and Patrick Henry. They are part of the cornerstone of American freedom. Anyone who wants to shut that down, to silence the opposition freedom of speech should not be supported. Step u and be heard with your dollars. Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech. After all this is the United States of America, for how much longer?

Cancel culture?

Which side was it that refused to back cakes for kissing boys ?

 

[Fishking]

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” These words in some form are commonly attributed to Voltaire and Patrick Henry. They are part of the cornerstone of American freedom. Anyone who wants to shut that down, to silence the opposition freedom of speech should not be supported. Step u and be heard with your dollars. Don't patronize the corporations, the big tech companies, airlines or any other business that will not stand up in defense of freedom of speech. After all this is the United States of America, for how much longer?

So...your answer to cancel culture is more cancel culture?

 

[Rogue Valley]

We all agreed to the TOS when we joined this privately-owned board.

Violate the TOS rules and there may be consequences, including a perma-ban.

The situation is no different with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I can't believe how absurd this thread is. Here we have Republicans advocating cancelling the cancelling culture which simultaneously makes THEM part of the cancel culture of whom theyve just attempted to cancel. This is such a rich cornucopia... No, such a rich "banquet" of absurdity.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Boycotting and shutting down the Ground Zero Mosque had nothing to do with ticket sales. You people quickly forget facts and have no damn honesty.

If you violate the rules of this platform and get a permanent ban, your rights haven’t been canceled. There is a process to disbar lawyers who act ethically, a process of stripping titles and honors including diplomas.

The right wing is actually suffering from mass ignorance as to what freedom of speech means. Boycotting is legal. Freedom of associate is included in freedom of speech. The constitution doesn’t care about your feelings. It’s not a matter of disassociating from people you don’t like good, and disassociating from people you do like bad. Harvey Weinstein has lost a ton of honors because he is a convicted rapist now, and that shouldn’t come as a shock. It doesn’t matter if you think he earned those honors, invested time, money, etc., the members of boards and title associations have the right to distance themselves from him. That’s how freedom of association works.

The opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque, or Park 51 is an outlier. It is not a normal situation at all. Take a similar situation and apply it here. If a group of reformed skinheads decided to build a national headquarters for ex skinheads next door to the 16th st Baptist Church I'm sure the community and in fact the country would be appalled and understandingly so. A tragic, sick and unforgivable event would cause great animosity and I'm sure everyone would understand and think their moving there would be a bad idea. To want to build a mosque which would invoke memories of the 9/11 terrorist attack would not be a good plan less than a decade later. So each situation has is slightly different circumstances and those are normally considered. Would you be in favor of either of those buildings?

 

[Integrityrespec]

We all agreed to the TOS when we joined this privately-owned board.

Violate the TOS rules and there may be consequences, including a perma-ban.

The situation is no different with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

The point is it's wrong based on how they apply their TOS, arbitrary and capricious. Don't take government help in the form of government protection and then abuse the people who are that government. Facebook, twitter have not standards they adhere to, they pick and choose based on political whim.

 

[bearpoker]

I can't believe how absurd this thread is. Here we have Republicans advocating cancelling the cancelling culture which simultaneously makes THEM part of the cancel culture of whom theyve just attempted to cancel. This is such a rich cornucopia... No, such a rich "banquet" of absurdity.

It's simple. "Cancel culture" is bad when liberals do it because liberals are evil and everybody knows it. Conversely, canceling is good when honest, upright, mega-virtuous conservatives do it. They are fighting cancel culture by canceling it. They are not actually practicing cancel culture. No, they are defending the constitution. Extra points if they open carry while they're at it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The entire idea of "cancel culture" is wrong.

 

[bearpoker]

The point is it's wrong based on how they apply their TOS, arbitrary and capricious. Don't take government help in the form of government protection and then abuse the people who are that government. Facebook, twitter have not standards they adhere to, they pick and choose based on political whim.

The arbitrary and capricious part is your opinion.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I think I can address this with my response to thinking to myself "I desire to live in a white nation and a white community" is:

Why?

But the question I ask -- and it is best to take as an example some other situation -- is whether it is moral and ethical, or immoral and unethical, to want to maintain one's own community, nation, or region. I do not think that this has exclusively to do with melanin content and I think it is a deceptive argument that places all emphasis on this. (But I do not deny that that is one of the factors: somatic type). My starting point is one of morality and ethics, not of expediency.

I have concluded, myself, that it is not immoral or unethical to have race-composition as a criterion of concern. In fact a 'wise ruler' (in a speculative Platonic kingdom) would do well to consider the compatibility of people. But it has to be said because it is true: any talk about such matters is extremely frowned on. One of my concerns however is in the analysis of *causal chains*. And I feel confident that one of the causes of social conflict in America today has a great deal to do with what I have described: a deliberate policy of demographic shift. I do not think that I am acting immorally in bringing this up, yet there is no doubt that it will be seen as an immoral concern and topic. Additionally, I regard the argument that would vilify someone for having race-concerns as itself immoral and unethical -- and I could argue my points I think quite well and successfully.

In this respect if someone from any other country or region told me that they desired to preserve their people, community or nation -- and told me what their terms were for this -- I do not believe that I could offer them a sound argument against their chosen position. I think I would respect their choice. So I have used the example of 'Japan' or 'Nigeria'. And even for example what I have read of some American Indian's and African American's (of a separatist leaning) opinions and desires on this topic. In fact I do not think it is 'racist' to be concerned for the make-up of one's own community (or region or nation, etc.) What interests me is the forbidden nature of the topic. And that coercive tactics are used when someone, anyone, expresses such a concern. At the same time it is simply a fact that it is part of an anti-whiteness ideology -- an anti-whiteness praxis -- that whites are clearly not allowed to have any such ideas or sentiments. And this also interests me a great deal.

And if I did create or conceive of an argument to be used against them -- against any people, anywhere who desired to conserve their peoplehood or nationhood of 'community integrity' if you wished to put it like this -- I have tentatively concluded that it would be through a defective and a morally corrupt argument. It would be a contrived and likely a defective argument and one based in coercion of some sort, not necessarily in truth. So, if this is true, I also suggest that 'whites have been turned against themselves' through devious processes. And I seek to discover and to name what those are.

You could try to argue against Muhammad Ali -- but you would be in the thick of it! (I submit this as an amusing anecdote and not as a serious argument, though he argues from a very common-sense position and a 'natural' position).