SubJeff on 21/2/2021 at 06:02
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
So, let's see.
By your logic:
1) You can't be racist if you're not white
No, of course you can be. I should have described this another way. Fair point.
Quote:
2) You can't be transpohibic if you can invent some kind of logical justification for it.
What a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.
Please explain exactly how what I described is transphobic or shut up.
Quote:
3) mopgoblin is incapable of being logical because she's an emotional woman.
I'm really getting sick of this. It's idiotic. This has nothing to do with mopgoblin being a woman and you're just making stuff up now.
I didn't realise you were so stupid before, but these last two bullet points... Really?
Quote:
The truth of the matter is that the only reason people are afraid so-called "cancel culture" is because they know, deep down, that they are bigots, and are afraid that they might actually suffer some consequences for their behaviours.
Just not true. It's because people who aren't bigots start getting labelled as bigots. You're accusing me of being a bigot here, aren't you? That couldn't be further from the truth, and it's especially ridiculous as I've suffered at the hands of bigots all my life.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Why is the right to be a bigot so sacred? It always boils down to this:
Why should someone's right to say words be considered more important than someone else's right to not be
hurt by those words?
No one is defending the right to be a bigot.
And no one is saying you don't have the right to be hurt. Be hurt. Be offended. That's up to you. But because someone's opinion upsets you (like you somehow extrapolating that it's transphobic for a heterosexual cis-male to not want to date a pre-op trans-femaie) that doesn't always make that bigoted.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Y'know where people are trying to stop non-bigoted free speech right now? Here. In this thread. We are discussing whether it's okay to express happiness that Rush Limbaugh died (on account of the things
he personally said and publicly advocated, not because of his race or whatever). And people are arguing that it's
not okay to
say that
because Rush Limbaugh had the right of free speech.
That isn't what's happening here, at all.
Quote:
Somebody (I think it was SubJeff?) decided on a standard of literal personal murder before you can "tastefully" express happiness at their death, but that's just a made-up standard and not one I agree with in the first place.
Sure. It's my opinion that it's in poor taste to be happy someone died, in general. There are exceptions of course. You don't have to subscribe to this point of view so... not agreeing to is fine.
Quote Posted by demagogue
The sad part about Limbaugh dying IMO is that he didn't have enough time in his life to be corrected, humbled, and penitent, and in a position to use his talents for good to teach compassion and tolerance to his great following in a way many would take to heart. He just died unrepentant and with his followers left as misguided and galvanized towards rage and hatred than ever, which is unhealthy for the whole country. That's what is sad about the situation.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Quote:
Generally I'm not one to lecture other people about their emotions over something as final as a death and how they should handle them, unless I think it's really unhealthy I might at least mention that. In this case, I wouldn't call people feeling actual glee at Rush's death as particularly healthy, since they're still kind of giving into his game of baiting our worst emotions in the long run.... ...If people felt relief that that force for stoking hatred is gone, that seems a bit healthier at least.
Yep.
Quote Posted by Tocky
At my age I'm just happy to find there are those who are decent and good people.
Word. Me too.
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Women without large platforms get kicked off social media all the time for things like using the wrong tone (or, sometimes, any tone) when talking about how men (in general) have hurt them, and the free speech crew are nowhere to be seen.
I'd like to see some evidence for this.
Al_B on 21/2/2021 at 08:48
You may not have said it was because mopgoblin was a woman but if you attack someone for having too much emotion and not enough logic to participate in an argument then you need a few days away from here.
Edit: And if you then argue about the decision and don't stop when asked - it's best for you to move on elsewhere.
heywood on 21/2/2021 at 15:52
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Y'know where people are trying to stop non-bigoted free speech right now? Here. In this thread. We are discussing whether it's okay to express happiness that Rush Limbaugh died (on account of the things
he personally said and publicly advocated, not because of his race or whatever). And people are arguing that it's
not okay to
say that
because Rush Limbaugh had the right of free speech.
I think the original argument was more about whether celebrating someone's death is in good taste or not. Nobody should question your right to celebrate the death of anyone you please. Given some of the things Rush said over the years, I think he deserved what he's getting. But in some circles, it would be a breach of decorum.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Why is the right to be a bigot so sacred? It always boils down to this:
Why should someone's right to say words be considered more important than someone else's right to not be
hurt by those words? What sort of warped and twisted moral system does someone need to have to make that the priority?
What it really boils down to is that the majority should never be able to dictate what an individual thinks or believes. The most basic of all individual rights is the right to have my own opinions about things. If you say I can have my own opinions, but I shouldn't be able to speak them if the majority disapproves, then I don't really have the right to my own opinions after all.
nemyax on 21/2/2021 at 16:14
Quote Posted by heywood
What it really boils down to is that the majority should never be able to dictate what an individual thinks or believes. The most basic of all individual rights is the right to have my own opinions about things. If you say I can have my own opinions, but I shouldn't be able to speak them if the majority disapproves, then I don't really have the right to my own opinions after all.
This.
nbohr1more on 21/2/2021 at 18:46
Quote Posted by Tocky
Work for the Klan do you? LOL. Seriously dude stupid has consequences. Hate has consequences. It always has and always will.
"Black Lives Matter" is an illegal DNC fundraising scam.
People should be able to criticize it, lest we end up with a scenario of BLM lighting babies on fire and when we criticize that we are also claimed to be "bigots".
If you were to survey most American's, you would probably find these results:
1) Do you believe "Black Lives Matter" ?
90% Yes 10% No
2) Do you support the "Black Lives Matter" Organization?
60% Yes 30% No 10% Unsure
Again, it is a canard like "The Patriot Act". It is named to be untouchable and the gullible just allow it to trample on them.
David Brock is in his glory.
That video about Cancel Culture existing on the Right prior to the Left's adoption of it, has forgotten to point out that
David Brock himself was working for the Right Wing when Cancel Culture was a Right Wing phenomenon.
David Brock lionized the practice of Cancel Culture and made it into a commercial juggernaut.
Tocky on 21/2/2021 at 19:44
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
"Black Lives Matter" is an illegal DNC fundraising scam.
LOL. You started off with a lie and then it went right off into crazy land. I have no idea who David Brock is but it was a non sequitur to what I said.
Nicker on 21/2/2021 at 20:21
You just refuted your claim that BLM is a DNC cash cow.
Quote:
If you were to survey most American's, you would probably find these results:
1) Do you believe "Black Lives Matter" ?
90% Yes 10% No
2) Do you support the "Black Lives Matter" Organization?
60% Yes 30% No 10% Unsure
Again, it is a canard...
Your made up survey certainly is a canard.
nbohr1more on 21/2/2021 at 20:42
Quote Posted by Nicker
You just refuted your claim that BLM is a DNC cash cow.
Your made up survey certainly is a canard.
The Black Lives Matter org literally went to reddit for a "charity drive" and when the users went to check where the money was going it was found to be
going to Act Blue. If you think Act Blue \ Media Matters for America, etc are anything other than a DNC fundraising arm I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Or to put another way, how many Republican causes have Act Blue \ MMFA contributed to compared to Democrat causes?
Who employed Act Blue to take over reddit's r/politics forum during the 2016 election cycle?
Why do BLM "issues" always happen during election years?
BLM is just there to push the "Act Blue Narrative" that all non-Democrats are racists.
If there were any conviction about Act Blue as a "charity" that really "helps" Black Lives, there would be a monetary paper trail of at least a single legitimate contribution
that didn't have a DNC or Act Blue asterix...
