Hate Speech

[eohrnberger]

To prove to me cancel culture exists you quote an op-ed by Josh Hawley that blared on the front page of a paper belonging to a multibillion dollar media conglomerate.

Your hysteria about these imagined “social media credit scores” are for others locked in the right wing scream machine.

What else?

There's already a very long list of people who have already been cancelled.
But hey, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."

If you want to continue to stick you head in the sand about the cancel culture, do please proceed.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

There's already a very long list of people who have already been cancelled.
But hey, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."

If you want to continue to stick you head in the sand about the cancel culture, do please proceed.

"Cancel culture" are boycotts when they're aimed at the right wing.

If they're aimed at the left, they're justifiable boycotts and expressions of free speech.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

There's already a very long list of people who have already been cancelled.
But hey, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."

If you want to continue to stick you head in the sand about the cancel culture, do please proceed.

No one has been canceled. This is a made up thing.

 

[mrjurrs]

Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Follow up question for those who voted yes: At what times of day does the first amendment apply to citizens who happen to be racist?

While hate speech is not a crime, bias crimes are and some bias crimes may include the assault of speech. There are speech crimes, libel and slander for example. So certain levels of hate speech are protected 24/7. Some racists are unable to tell when it's not.

 

[eohrnberger]

"Cancel culture" are boycotts when they're aimed at the right wing.

If they're aimed at the left, they're justifiable boycotts and expressions of free speech.

"Cancel culture" are boycotts against someone holding a differing opinion simply because they have a differing opinion. Further, the cancel culture aims to destroy their lives and their livelihoods for simply having a differing opinion.

For example:

A Truth Reckoning: Why We’re Holding Those Who Lied For Trump Accountable

As American democracy rebounds, we need to return to a standard of truth when it comes to how the government communicates with the governed.

www.forbes.com

and

​

Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into "polite" society. We have a list.​

​

​

How "cancel culture" changed these three lives forever

In this politically divided and social-media-driven age, "cancel culture" has touched nearly every part of American public life.

www.cbsnews.com

The left's political opposition should be denied gainful employment, their livelihood, for having the temerity to have different political views and opinions?

You don't dare state a scientific fact that goes against the left's demanded narrative. It is heresy to re-state the scientific fact that people cannot change their biological sex. You get fired. As an aside, "Party of science"? Only when supporting of the left's political narrative, apparently.

No one has been canceled. This is a made up thing.

Yes, that is a cancel culture, and it is of the left's making, started in academia, and has now spread into politics and business.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The left's political opposition should be denied gainful employment, their livelihood, for having the temerity to have different political views and opinions?

How is that any different from destroying the Dixie Chicks for being mean to Bush, or destroying Keurig machines because they were mean to Sean Hannity?

Boycotts are how consumers use their voices. If companies don't want to hire Trump officials, that's their prerogative. Trump officials aren't owed jobs in the private sector.

 

[eohrnberger]

How is that any different from destroying the Dixie Chicks for being mean to Bush, or destroying Keurig machines because they were mean to Sean Hannity?

Boycotts are how consumers use their voices. If companies don't want to hire Trump officials, that's their prerogative. Trump officials aren't owed jobs in the private sector.

Where is it posted that anyone is 'owed jobs'? What has been posted is clear and apparent sabotage of people even trying to make a living if they hold political positions or opinions which have the temerity to be different from the leftists' ideological purity demands.

So you support the idea that any person which has a thought, a position, or an opinion which doesn't align with the left should rightfully have their lives and livelihoods destroyed simply because they have the temerity to hold differing political positions and opinions.

Good to know you support such a tyrannical 'social credit' system and it's enforcement. You should move to China where just such a system has been implemented.
Perhaps you'd do well there.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Where is it posted that anyone is 'owed jobs'? What has been posted is clear and apparent sabotage of people even trying to make a living if they hold political positions or opinions which have the temerity to be different from the leftists' ideological purity demands.

So you support the idea that any person which has a thought, a position, or an opinion which doesn't align with the left should rightfully have their lives and livelihoods destroyed simply because they have the temerity to hold differing political positions and opinions.

Good to know you support such a tyrannical 'social credit' system and it's enforcement. You should move to China where just such a system has been implemented.
Perhaps you'd do well there.

Why do people owe money to conservatives’ who hold views they find loathsome? what kind of marxist system are you demanding in which people can earn a living for shitty opinions?

 

[Court Jester]

Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Free speech means free speech. Don't like what people say, don't listen to them.

BTW, define "racist content", because today the "racist" label gets tossed around more causally than a group of hippies throwing a Frisbee at the park.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Where is it posted that anyone is 'owed jobs'? What has been posted is clear and apparent sabotage of people even trying to make a living if they hold political positions or opinions which have the temerity to be different from the leftists' ideological purity demands.

So very dramatic. And yet, all you're actually saying is I'm mad because people don't want to hire Trump executives.

So you support the idea that any person which has a thought, a position, or an opinion which doesn't align with the left should rightfully have their lives and livelihoods destroyed simply because they have the temerity to hold differing political positions and opinions.

I didn't say anything close to that. I understand that it's a lot easier to argue when you're attacking a strawman, but it's intellectually dishonest - and it looks really silly.

Good to know you support such a tyrannical 'social credit' system and it's enforcement. You should move to China where just such a system has been implemented.
Perhaps you'd do well there.

Oh look. Lots more nonsense that I didn't say - and some fake moralizing and outrage, too!

One more, and you'll hit intellectual dishonesty BINGO!

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

YES, racism of any kind needs to be eliminated, especially anyone who calls someone a SNOWFLAKE

 

[eohrnberger]

Why do people owe money to conservatives’ who hold views they find loathsome? what kind of marxist system are you demanding in which people can earn a living for shitty opinions?

Are these prospective employers' and their money something that you get to control?
That the left gets to control?
Really?

One day the tables turn (as they always do) and all of a sudden it is your political views and opinions which are deemed as 'shitty'.
Your online social media accounts are banned.
You get fired from your job.
Your mortgage is cancelled, and you lose your house.
You try to get the next job, but are cancelled out of this.
Would you now feel the same about your statement?

Based on your post above, you are clearly a supporter of the Chinese 'Social Credit' system, which is tyrannical, repressive, and pervasive.

​

First they came for the Communists​

And I did not speak out​

Because I was not a Communist​

​

Then they came for the Socialists​

And I did not speak out​

Because I was not a Socialist​

​

Then they came for the trade unionists​

And I did not speak out​

Because I was not a trade unionist​

​

Then they came for the Jews​

And I did not speak out​

Because I was not a Jew​

​

Then they came for me​

And there was no one left​

To speak out for me​

First they came ... - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...​

​

History is filled with examples of 'Oh not me', who end up being victims.

Free speech protection needs to include protection for speech that you disagree with, especially to protect those who have differing political opinions and viewpoints.
Free speech protection for only the speech you agree with isn't free speech protection at all.

 

[eohrnberger]

So very dramatic. And yet, all you're actually saying is I'm mad because people don't want to hire Trump executives.

I'm saying that people lives should not be destroyed merely because they have the temerity to hold different political views and opinions.

didn't say anything close to that. I understand that it's a lot easier to argue when you're attacking a strawman, but it's intellectually dishonest - and it looks really silly.

Yet it is you who appear to have taken the position that people who have their lives destroy for merely holding differing political views and opinions is OK.

Oh look. Lots more nonsense that I didn't say - and some fake moralizing and outrage, too!

One more, and you'll hit intellectual dishonesty BINGO!

Yeah, right.

Free speech protection needs to include protection for speech that you disagree with, especially to protect those who have differing political opinions and viewpoints.
Free speech protection for only the speech you agree with isn't free speech protection at all.

 

[Bodi]

1. Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Follow up question for those who voted yes: At what times of day does the first amendment apply to citizens who happen to be racist?

1. No

 

[Bodi]

Punished socially? Yes. People who are openly racist should be subject to the hatred, scorn and obloquy of their peers.

You have learned your Dr. King well... fight hate with hate.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Are these prospective employers' and their money something that you get to control?

No, they do. You just keep insisting they have no right to and must be in business with whomever the right demands they be in business with.

 

[eohrnberger]

No, they do. You just keep insisting they have no right to and must be in business with whomever the right demands they be in business with.

Not at all.
If an employer is considering hiring someone that decision is all theirs to make either way.
I object to left wing pressure groups pressuring any employer's hiring decisions simply based on the political views and opinions of the prospective hire.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Not at all.
If an employer is considering hiring someone that decision is all theirs to make either way.
I object to left wing pressure groups pressuring any employer's hiring decisions simply based on the political views and opinions of the prospective hire.

I don’t know who “the left wing” is. Mainstream America overwhelmingly rejected the insurrection attempt and was horrified by it. Those who supported it should not expect support financially from main stream institutions.

You have the right to label things however you want, you don’t have the right to label them for everyone else.

 

[jimbo]

Should hate speech be punished when the speech contains racist content?

Follow up question for those who voted yes: At what times of day does the first amendment apply to citizens who happen to be racist?

No...

 

[eohrnberger]

I don’t know who “the left wing” is. Mainstream America overwhelmingly rejected the insurrection attempt and was horrified by it.

The capital riot was in fact roundly condemned from all sides, as it should have been.
I object to your labeling it an 'insurrection', it was a riot, same as the riots all summer long, which continue, and were supported by Democrats.

Those who supported it should not expect support financially from main stream institutions.

That would leave you to demonstrate that any of the people who were targeted by this extortion actually supported the capitol riot. Do please have at it.

You have the right to label things however you want, you don’t have the right to label them for everyone else.

(Ignoring your labeling of the capital riot - but you get to label?)

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The capital riot was in fact roundly condemned from all sides, as it should have been.
I object to your labeling it an 'insurrection', it was a riot, same as the riots all summer long, which continue, and were supported by Democrats.

That would leave you to demonstrate that any of the people who were targeted by this extortion actually supported the capitol riot. Do please have at it.

(Ignoring your labeling of the capital riot - but you get to label?)

it was not. We still have Republicans either defining it down or insisting we had it comin’ cause the election really was stolen.

You can object all you want, but I have facts and words and actions on my side.

 

[eohrnberger]

it was not. We still have Republicans either defining it down or insisting we had it comin’ cause the election really was stolen.

That leaves you to demonstration that this is the case as well as demonstrating that people who were targeted by this extortion actually supported the capitol riot. Do please have at it. Demonstrating such would be establishing facts.

You can object all you want, but I have facts and words and actions on my side.

Except you don't. You just think you do, at least until there's some citations to back up your assertions.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

That leaves you to demonstration that this is the case as well as demonstrating that people who were targeted by this extortion actually supported the capitol riot. Do please have at it. Demonstrating such would be establishing facts.

Except you don't. You just think you do, at least until there's some citations to back up your assertions.

You’ve seen all the citations. You just want me to go quote stuff so you can hand wave it away. You seem to be of the opinion *your* validation is necessary to prove you wrong.

 

[eohrnberger]

You’ve seen all the citations. You just want me to go quote stuff so you can hand wave it away. You seem to be of the opinion *your* validation is necessary to prove you wrong.

Yet it is rare that any of your posts have actual citations in them, much less backup your assertions.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Yet it is rare that any of your posts have actual citations in them, much less backup your assertions.

That’s nice.