'Hate Speech' Is Anything You Don't Want To Hear

[BluesLegend]

Sure, there's no real definition of "hate speech". It's entirely up for situational interpretation, and entirely the realm of the PC zealots for political advantage.

yep. but i thought "anything you don't want to hear" worked well. i do believe far too many people use it as an excuse to "get away with" telling someone to shut up when there is really no recourse or reason to do it other than you don't like it.

At its foundation, PC is about controlling the speech of others.
.

Not controlling, silencing. And when you control 90% of the media silencing opposing views is dangerous.

 

[JoeB131]

A 'statue' is not Freedom of Speech.

'History' is not 'speech' - it is a record of what occurred in the past.

So it is. So let's replace the statue of Forrest proudly on a horse with one where he's whipping a slave, so everyone knows accurately what this guy was all about. That would be an "accurate" record.

Although not 'speech', it IS something Leftists seek to either re-write or outlaw / ban altogether because they are 'Deeply Offended' by it.

Or put into the proper perspective. When you put a statue of Forrest on a horse, you are implying he was a great man, who had done some wonderful thing that we should remember and honor him.

You know, instead of a guy who started a hate group that is still committing racist acts to this very day.

should we put up a statue of Hitler or Bin Laden? I mean, after all, they are "historical", and even though statues of them might offend some sensitive people, we should remember them, right?

Again, Americans have many Rights in this country - the Right NOT to be offended is NOT one of them ... and those who claimed to be offended do NOT have the right to strip others of their Rights simply because they claim to be 'Deeply Offended' by something.

I think you are talking yourself in circles here, bud. Muslims shouldn't be offended by your racism, but if someone says, 'Hey, maybe we should take down the statue of the Klan Leader", you are complaining about how your rights are being stripped. Or something.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ Joe, are you that misinformed?
Protestors watch a bonefire on Sproul Plaza during a rally against the scheduled speaking appearance by Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos on the University of California at Berkeley campus on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2017, in Berkeley, Calif. The event was canceled out of safety concerns after protesters hurled smoke bombs, broke windows and started a bonfire. (AP Photo/Ben Margot) (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

I should also point out that Breitbart fired Milo because they found out he was kind of a creep. so why aren't you whining at Breitbart for silencing the important speech of this great speaker?

Oh, wait, it's only okay when YOU silence a creep.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Part of why Trump was elected was because of the backlash against PC speech. I know lots of people who voted for Trump in part because they where hoping he would "offend" people all the time.

 

[JoeB131]

REALLY? Liberals attack Christianity, Christian values, etc all the time....but begin discussing the beliefs of Islam, questioning what is being taught, or even draw a picture of Muhammad and the left attacks. As I pointed out, Obama sent out Lynch after the Ca terrorist attack to silence any discussion about Islam and Islamic Extremism. History / Evidence does not support your claim.

So when do we throw people like Geller in prison for inciting riots for sponsoring "Draw Muhammed" events?

Oh, no, we don't. We send extra security to make sure nobody kills them.

 

[easyt65]

A 'statue' is not Freedom of Speech.

'History' is not 'speech' - it is a record of what occurred in the past.

So it is. So let's replace the statue of Forrest proudly on a horse with one where he's whipping a slave, so everyone knows accurately what this guy was all about. That would be an "accurate" record.

Although not 'speech', it IS something Leftists seek to either re-write or outlaw / ban altogether because they are 'Deeply Offended' by it.

Or put into the proper perspective. When you put a statue of Forrest on a horse, you are implying he was a great man, who had done some wonderful thing that we should remember and honor him.

You know, instead of a guy who started a hate group that is still committing racist acts to this very day.

should we put up a statue of Hitler or Bin Laden? I mean, after all, they are "historical", and even though statues of them might offend some sensitive people, we should remember them, right?

Again, Americans have many Rights in this country - the Right NOT to be offended is NOT one of them ... and those who claimed to be offended do NOT have the right to strip others of their Rights simply because they claim to be 'Deeply Offended' by something.

I think you are talking yourself in circles here, bud. Muslims shouldn't be offended by your racism, but if someone says, 'Hey, maybe we should take down the statue of the Klan Leader", you are complaining about how your rights are being stripped. Or something.

Thank you for demonstrating the Left's preferred tactic of using EMOTION rather than the Constitution, Laws, etc.

------

When YOU see a statue of a confederate General - let's use Robert E. Lee, for example - you see a traitor, a slave owner, etc.

Here's what I believe:
- If Lee is from Virginia, if the statue is in Virginia, and the person who have heart-burn about it are from out of state, what Virginia does and who they choose to honor is none of the person who is offended's business.

- People don't honor 'racism' and hatred. Lee is honored because he is part of Virginia's history, he was one of the greatest generals - if not the greatest - in the entire Confederate war. (What the Left finds so disgusting - slavery, which EVERYONE agrees with today - was common-place back then...until the turning point in America's history where slavery was rejected.)

Again, no one honors 'racism' or hatred. The Washington Redskins did not choose the 'Redskins' because it was racist or made fun of a group of people. The Florida State Seminoles did not choose the Seminole Indian as a slight, to honor racism. It was honoring the honor, dignity, and 'warrior spirit' of the Seminole tribe, who SUPPORTS Florida State naming their teams after them. Only the 'PC' Minority Leftists had / have a problem with it. Once again, the MINORITY 'Deep Offense' should not have the right / ability to dictate what is and what is not acceptable.

 

[JoeB131]

Part of why Trump was elected was because of the backlash against PC speech. I know lots of people who voted for Trump in part because they where hoping he would "offend" people all the time.

Well, that's pretty petty, then.

Incidently, Trump didn't get any more votes than Romney did, so the idea that Trump somehow caused a political shift is silly.

What happened was too many people pissed away their votes on third party candidates who weren't going to win.

 

[easyt65]

So when do we throw people like Geller in prison for inciting riots for sponsoring "Draw Muhammed" events? Oh, no, we don't. We send extra security to make sure nobody kills them.

...except we had a President who vowed publicly to jail the American Citizen who exercised his Constitutional Rights for 'causing the PROTEST that got out of hand' and resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.

 

[JoeB131]

When YOU see a statue of a confederate General - let's use Robert E. Lee, for example - you see a traitor, a slave owner, etc.

Why do you want to change the subject to Lee? I was talking to Forrest.

I mean, I guess you can change the subject to Lee, if you want, if you have an easier time arguing that one.

- People don't honor 'racism' and hatred. Lee is honored because he is part of Virginia's history, he was one of the greatest generals - if not the greatest - in the entire Confederate war. (What the Left finds so disgusting - slavery, which EVERYONE agrees with today - was common-place back then...until the turning point in America's history where slavery was rejected.)

But that's not something to be proud of. Lee fought the war knowing it was for a bad cause (Slavery) and knowing that the South couldn't win because they lacked the industrial capacity to do so. But we are supposed to 'honor' him because he was only slightly less incompetent than McClellan was in getting thousands of men killed and maimed unnecessarily? Really?

Again, no one honors 'racism' or hatred. The Washington Redskins did not choose the 'Redskins' because it was racist or made fun of a group of people. The Florida State Seminoles did not choose the Seminole Indian as a slight, to honor racism. It was honoring the honor, dignity, and 'warrior spirit' of the Seminole tribe, who SUPPORTS Florida State naming their teams after them. Only the 'PC' Minority Leftists had / have a problem with it. Once again, the MINORITY 'Deep Offense' should not have the right / ability to dictate what is and what is not acceptable.

Whether or not they 'meant' to be racist at the time the fact is, it is racist now. It's why you won't see those classic cartoons of big lipped black people eating watermelon today. Not because they should have known better at the time how offensive it was, but because we KNOW it is offensive now.

 

[easyt65]

Well, that's pretty petty, then.

Actually not. Trump gave voice to that 71% of Americans who were tired of 'PC', 'Hate Speech', and growing violence on the Left being used to silence them and strip them of their Constitutional Rights.

The Left, meanwhile after Trump's victory, used violence, threats, called for the overthrow of the govt, called for assassinations, attempted assassinations, and broke laws in an attempt to undermine and overthrow the newly elected President. (This growing intolerance and violence, again, is part of the reason Democrats have lost 1,000+ elections, Lost the House, Lost the Senate, and Lost the WH...

 

[easyt65]

Why do you want to change the subject to Lee? I was talking to Forrest.

Lee was an example used to demonstrate and point out how you and Liberals like to use the tactic of EMOTION rather than sticking to facts, the Constitution, laws, etc...

 

[JoeB131]

...except we had a President who vowed publicly to jail the American Citizen who exercised his Constitutional Rights for 'causing the PROTEST that got out of hand' and resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.

He wasn't jailed for making a racist video.

He was jailed because he was a scam artist who violated the terms of his parole. His parole specifically said, "No computer use of any kind". He violated his parole.

great people you want to prop up as heroes.

 

[easyt65]

He wasn't jailed for making a racist video.

I did not say he was, Joe. I FACTUALLY pointed out that the President of the United States declared publicly that he intended to have the American citizen who exercised his right of Free Speech jailed for causing the 'protest' that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES declared to the world he was going to punish an American for exercising his Constitutional right ... in an attempt to NOT call a known terrorist attack a 'terrorist attack' ... much like he tried not to do with the Fort Hood terrorist attack, which he initially called a case of 'workplace violence'. (Bwuhahahaha.....)

 

[JoeB131]

I did not say he was, Joe. I FACTUALLY pointed out that the President of the United States declared publicly that he intended to have the American citizen who exercised his right of Free Speech jailed for causing the 'protest' that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES declared to the world he was going to punish an American for exercising his Constitutional right ...

Here's the problem with that theory. Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right' or is he just an asshole who did a reckless thing intending to get exactly the result he got?

This guy made this video with the intent to cause exactly the kind of riots he got. He should be held accountable if he broke the law in doing so, and he did.

in an attempt to NOT call a known terrorist attack a 'terrorist attack' ..

Except he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Did you miss the whole part where the Mormon shat his magic underwear when caught in that lie?

much like he tried not to do with the Fort Hood terrorist attack, which he initially called a case of 'workplace violence'.

A guy shot up a place he worked. How is that not "Workplace violence". Oh, that's right, because he's a MUSLIM!!!!

You know, as opposed to the 551 other people who are shot by coworkers every year, that you guys don't want to talk about because they are Christians shooting guns just like Jesus would.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Joe, are you that misinformed?
Protestors watch a bonefire on Sproul Plaza during a rally against the scheduled speaking appearance by Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos on the University of California at Berkeley campus on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2017, in Berkeley, Calif. The event was canceled out of safety concerns after protesters hurled smoke bombs, broke windows and started a bonfire. (AP Photo/Ben Margot) (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

I should also point out that Breitbart fired Milo because they found out he was kind of a creep. so why aren't you whining at Breitbart for silencing the important speech of this great speaker?

Oh, wait, it's only okay when YOU silence a creep.

/----/ Big difference between firing a guy for being a creep and protesting a speaker because he says things you disagree with.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I did not say he was, Joe. I FACTUALLY pointed out that the President of the United States declared publicly that he intended to have the American citizen who exercised his right of Free Speech jailed for causing the 'protest' that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES declared to the world he was going to punish an American for exercising his Constitutional right ...

Here's the problem with that theory. Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right' or is he just an asshole who did a reckless thing intending to get exactly the result he got?

This guy made this video with the intent to cause exactly the kind of riots he got. He should be held accountable if he broke the law in doing so, and he did.

in an attempt to NOT call a known terrorist attack a 'terrorist attack' ..

Except he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Did you miss the whole part where the Mormon shat his magic underwear when caught in that lie?

much like he tried not to do with the Fort Hood terrorist attack, which he initially called a case of 'workplace violence'.

A guy shot up a place he worked. How is that not "Workplace violence". Oh, that's right, because he's a MUSLIM!!!!

You know, as opposed to the 551 other people who are shot by coworkers every year, that you guys don't want to talk about because they are Christians shooting guns just like Jesus would.

/----/ Is there a reason you bunch up your responses in one post, other than to be annoying?
"Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right'" Yes he is if there is a fire in the theater.

 

[iceberg]

the backlash is only loading up. the right moved back far enough to give them more than reasonable room to do ... whatever. but at this point when we start taking down history due to faux rage, it's over.

Are we taking down history, or just putting it in it's proper perspective?

I'm still waiting for one of you guys to tell me why Nathan Bedford Forrest - Slave Trader, War Criminal and Founder of the Klan - deserves a huge statue in the middle of a city mostly inhabited by African Americans.

Oh, um, er, "History"... er... "Southern Pride"

Really, guy? Really?

who are *YOU* in this *WE* instance who *FEELS* your "PERSPECTIVE* is better than everyone elses?

no one gave you carte blanche to define our society. that is up to us all and while yes that would include you and others, i don't see you and same others asking for input or a joint resolution to what in effect is a bullshit made up problem to do nothing more than flog us for not being perfect.

i'm still waiting for you to tell me why it's again - up to you to determine what *we* have anywhere at all.

 

[martybegan]

I did not say he was, Joe. I FACTUALLY pointed out that the President of the United States declared publicly that he intended to have the American citizen who exercised his right of Free Speech jailed for causing the 'protest' that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES declared to the world he was going to punish an American for exercising his Constitutional right ...

Here's the problem with that theory. Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right' or is he just an asshole who did a reckless thing intending to get exactly the result he got?

This guy made this video with the intent to cause exactly the kind of riots he got. He should be held accountable if he broke the law in doing so, and he did.

in an attempt to NOT call a known terrorist attack a 'terrorist attack' ..

Except he called it a terrorist attack the day after it happened. Did you miss the whole part where the Mormon shat his magic underwear when caught in that lie?

much like he tried not to do with the Fort Hood terrorist attack, which he initially called a case of 'workplace violence'.

A guy shot up a place he worked. How is that not "Workplace violence". Oh, that's right, because he's a MUSLIM!!!!

You know, as opposed to the 551 other people who are shot by coworkers every year, that you guys don't want to talk about because they are Christians shooting guns just like Jesus would.

/----/ Is there a reason you bunch up your responses in one post, other than to be annoying?
"Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right'" Yes he is if there is a fire in the theater.

It's because JoeBlow is not only one of the intellectual lightweights on the board he is one of the top three asshole posters on the board.

 

[JoeB131]

/----/ Big difference between firing a guy for being a creep and protesting a speaker because he says things you disagree with.

Not really... if your argument is that he has an absolute right to a forum, then Breitbart should have been compelled to provide him one just like you want to compel the students of Berkeley to, right.

Because this isn't about his right to say stuff that is meant specifically to inflame people, it's about whether or not he should have a forum. The students at Berkeley said no. Breitbart said no. Although Breitbart had to think about it because he said some things they agreed with.

/----/ Is there a reason you bunch up your responses in one post, other than to be annoying?

Yes, most of you don't deserve the effort of starting a new post.

"Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right'" Yes he is if there is a fire in the theater.

SO I'm sorry, how is a "Draw Mohammed because I know that offends your religion" the same as pointing out there is a fire?

It's because JoeBlow is not only one of the intellectual lightweights on the board he is one of the top three asshole posters on the board.

But yet I can always get under your skin, Marty...

 

[martybegan]

/----/ Big difference between firing a guy for being a creep and protesting a speaker because he says things you disagree with.

Not really... if your argument is that he has an absolute right to a forum, then Breitbart should have been compelled to provide him one just like you want to compel the students of Berkeley to, right.

Because this isn't about his right to say stuff that is meant specifically to inflame people, it's about whether or not he should have a forum. The students at Berkeley said no. Breitbart said no. Although Breitbart had to think about it because he said some things they agreed with.

/----/ Is there a reason you bunch up your responses in one post, other than to be annoying?

Yes, most of you don't deserve the effort of starting a new post.

"Is a guy who shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater exercising his "constitutional right'" Yes he is if there is a fire in the theater.

SO I'm sorry, how is a "Draw Mohammed because I know that offends your religion" the same as pointing out there is a fire?

It's because JoeBlow is not only one of the intellectual lightweights on the board he is one of the top three asshole posters on the board.

But yet I can always get under your skin, Marty...

Nah, I just like informing others of your past, present, and future shit-posting.