Politics, "Wokeness" and Absurdity

[Curried Goats]

I think it already has. When I cannot state my opinion that science teaches us that there are two genders and these are determined at conception and cannot be changed. . .

When I cannot state my opinion that normal people do not mutilate themselves and take potentially dangerous drugs to become something they are not and it should be illegal for minors to be groomed for this and/or allowed to do this. . .

When I cannot state my opinion that the developing baby in the womb is a human being, and while I believe there can be moral and medically necessary reasons for abortion, it is a human being that is being killed. . .

When I cannot say things like that without engaging in so-called 'hate speech', we are dangerously close to losing our First Amendment entirely, much closer to the totalitarian government the left knowingly or unwittingly is pushing on us.

You just stated your opinion....

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm going to guess Foxfyre is the sort of dumb ***** that cries about not being able to state their opinion as they are stating their opinion but probably also has no problem with Republican efforts to ban teaching whatever they label CRT.

 

[Foxfyre]

At the point when legislatures start creating laws banning freedom of expression and using their legislative power to punish those who express an unpopular view.

And is not labeling this or that language re so-called protected groups 'hate speech' and therefore prosecutable coming very close to doing that? Is not giving the courts or executive branches authority to censor/punish/prosecute whatever offenders for nothing more than expressing their opinion not coming very close to that?

 

[Coyote]

Maybe though in our beer drinkiing days we drank a lot of it. I have always admired Budweisers thought provoking and even patriotic commercials representing the best of Americana and American values and ideals. But Mulroney was too much and the spontaneous boycott of the product by Americans who resent the in our face aspect of it was far more successful than any organized bocott could have been.

But to the 'woke' it was unacceptable for conservatives to make a personal decision about a product while they demand 'unacceptable' to them products be banned or the advertising changed. The dichotomy continues.

How is that any different than conservatives own brand of “wokeness”?

Banning books they deem “unacceptable” from public libraries rather than let people make personal decisions about them?

Shutting down a county public library system when a judge ordered books returned to the shelves?

Banning discussion of certain concepts in higher Ed?

Conservative groups calling on Republicans to “shun” companies ”liberal” companies that take stances DEI, abortion, election reform, lgbtq rights…

The attack on Disney…

How about the ridiculous “woke” food boycotts Such as Bud Lite” ?

The sillyness is everywhere, but the SERIOUSNESS is when the GOVERNMENT starts passing laws codifying it in the name of “anti-woke”.

That is very dangerous. Where is personal decision?

 

[Coyote]

I'm going to guess Foxfyre is the sort of dumb ***** that cries about not being able to state their opinion as they are stating their opinion but probably also has no problem with Republican efforts to ban teaching whatever they label CRT.

No she is not a “dumb *****”, she has a different view than yours and every right to express it. Attack the argument, not the person.

 

[Curried Goats]

No she is not a “dumb *****”, she has a different view than yours and every right to express it. Attack the argument, not the person.

I don't mind attacking both. She appears to be a dumb ***** and that's my opinion.

Also my assessment of her intelligence has nothing to do with her opinion but rather her inability to form a rational argument. Where on the left is the force of law being used to silence opposing views?

 

[Coyote]

And is not labeling this or that language re so-called protected groups 'hate speech' and therefore prosecutable coming very close to doing that? Is not giving the courts or executive branches authority to censor/punish/prosecute whatever offenders for nothing more than expressing their opinion not coming very close to that?

The only thing that gives such authority is the passing of laws. If any law was passed which categorized and criminalized certain speech as “hate speech”, I would oppose it. But people calling something hate speech is just as much free speech as the “hate speech“.

 

[Coyote]

I don't mind attacking both. She appears to be a dumb ***** and that's my opinion.

Also my assessment of her intelligence has nothing to do with her opinion but rather her inability to form a rational argument. Where on the left is the force of law being used to silence opposing views?

If you knew her, you wouldn’t say that. Many of us are quite different off the open boards. If you want a rational argument, this would certainly dissuade anyone from it. You can disagree by making your points. Just my opinion of course. It’s rare to find civil discussion anymore and Foxfyre is a rare member who manages to do it.

When everything is so politicized, it is becoming harder and harder to engage.

 

[Foxfyre]

How is that any different than conservatives own brand of “wokeness”?

Banning books they deem “unacceptable” from public libraries rather than let people make personal decisions about them?

Shutting down a county public library system when a judge ordered books returned to the shelves?

Banning discussion of certain concepts in higher Ed?

Conservative groups calling on Republicans to “shun” companies ”liberal” companies that take stances DEI, abortion, election reform, lgbtq rights…

The attack on Disney…

How about the ridiculous “woke” food boycotts Such as Bud Lite” ?

The sillyness is everywhere, but the SERIOUSNESS is when the GOVERNMENT starts passing laws codifying it in the name of “anti-woke”.

That is very dangerous. Where is personal decision?

The kids should be a protected class. Culturally America has long said there should be no adult bookstores, bars, strip clubs etc. near schools and every state in the union has codes to enforce that. There are rules, regulations, rating systems for movies, television programs, video games etc. specifically to protect the kids. Certain products and activities are legally off limits for kids.

So when the left (or anybody else) starts pushing on kids inappropriate curriculum or entertainment etc. or any entity is pushing concepts that could be harmful to children, it is good and right that parents and other honorable people speak out and act to protect the children.

Nobody honorable is saying people should not have their opinions in these things. But honorable people protect the children.

I oppose any organized boycott for any person, group or entity for no other reason than expressing their opinion. I do support and have participated in organized boycotts against those who are intentionally and with full knowledge engaging in practices or pushing products that are physically and/or materially harmful to people.

And I do speak out and condemn the actions of those on the right who engage in cancel culture. One example was when a religious based group demanded J.C. Penney fire Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson. She was just an ordinary person advertising a product. They were wrong to attack her only because they knew she was lesbian and I strongly said so.

I try to be consistent.

But spontaneous boycotts of people of honorable people making choices based on their preferences, beliefs, opinions is fair game.

 

[Curried Goats]

If you knew her, you wouldn’t say that. Many of us are quite different off the open boards. If you want a rational argument, this would certainly dissuade anyone from it. You can disagree by making your points. Just my opinion of course. It’s rare to find civil discussion anymore and Foxfyre is a rare member who manages to do it.

When everything is so politicized, it is becoming harder and harder to engage.

If I knew her I'd say it to her face. I have no problem saying the same to my own brother when he says something stupid in a debate we're having. Civility is one of those things that's subjective. My harsh tone and criticism is not uncommon in my culture or even really considered harsh where calling someone a pussyhole or telling them to go suck their mother is a common refrain. If anything I'm being gentle using Americanisms rather than Jamaican ones. Also I don't really want anything. I don't care if these Simps are capable of rational arguments or not. That's their problem, not mine. I have my way of encouraging them to make better arguments and you have yours, the only differnce is I enjoy watching them try and fail over and over and over again.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The kids should be a protected class. Culturally America has long said there should be no adult bookstores, bars, strip clubs etc. near schools and every state in the union has codes to enforce that. There are rules, regulations, rating systems for movies, television programs, video games etc. specifically to protect the kids. Certain products and activities are legally off limits for kids.

So when the left (or anybody else) starts pushing on kids inappropriate curriculum or entertainment etc. or any entity is pushing concepts that could be harmful to children, it is good and right that parents and other honorable people speak out and act to protect the children.

Nobody honorable is saying people should not have their opinions in these things. But honorable people protect the children.

I oppose any organized boycott for any person, group or entity for no other reason than expressing their opinion. I do support and have participated in organized boycotts against those who are intentionally and with full knowledge engaging in practices or pushing products that are physically and/or materially harmful to people.

And I do speak out and condemn the actions of those on the right who engage in cancel culture. One example was when a religious based group demanded J.C. Penney fire Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson in advertising. She was just an ordinary person advertising a product. They were wrong to attack her only because they knew she was lesbian and I strongly said so.

I try to be consistent.

But spontaneous boycotts of people of honorable people making choices based on their preferences, beliefs, opinions is fair game.

The clarity of your writing attests to your intelligence.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only thing that gives such authority is the passing of laws. If any law was passed which categorized and criminalized certain speech as “hate speech”, I would oppose it. But people calling something hate speech is just as much free speech as the “hate speech“.

People calling something hate speech is free speech.

Investigating people, harassing people, organizing boycotts against people, suing, fining, prosecuting people for expressing an honest opinion that is deemed 'hate speech' is something else.

The racist, homophobe, bigot has every bit as much right to express his/her opinion as everybody else. He/she just doesn't have the right to act out on his/her opinion in a way that violates somebody else's rights. He/she doesn't have the right to inappropriately discriminate against somebody just because they don't like a particular group. ("Inappropriate" is a critical component to this particular concept.) He/she does not have the right to libel or slander others.

But when the executive branch of the federal government or any state can issue mandates with the force of law, when the courts are allowed to issue opinions that are given force of law, the 'passing of laws' becomes quite subjective.

 

[Curried Goats]

People calling something hate speech is free speech.

Investigating people, harassing people, organizing boycotts against people, suing, fining, prosecuting people for expressing an honest opinion that is deemed 'hate speech' is something else.

The racist, homophobe, bigot has every bit as much right to express his/her opinion as everybody else. He/she just doesn't have the right to act out on his/her opinion in a way that violates somebody else's rights. He/she doesn't have the right to inappropriately discriminate against somebody just because they don't like a particular group. ("Inappropriate" is a critical component to this particular concept.) He/she does not have the right to libel or slander others.

But when the executive branch of the federal government or any state can issue mandates with the force of law, when the courts are allowed to issue opinions that are given force of law, the 'passing of laws' becomes quite subjective.

Where is your actual example of the Left using the force of law to subdue anyone's free speech, Short Bus?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Where is your actual example of the Left using the force of law to subdue anyone's free speech, Short Bus?

Leftist attacks on free speech have not been implemented by law.

Instead, the Democrat party works directly with social and mainstream media to suppress the expression thereof.

People who are actually intelligent understand the inherent danger posed to a free society through this collaboration between state apparatus and media. You do not.

 

[Curried Goats]

Leftist attacks on free speech have not been implemented by law.

Republican attacks on free speech have.

Instead, the Democrat party works directly with social and mainstream to suppress the expression thereof.

So what Buttercup? I only care whether or not the relationship is consensual.

People who are actually intelligent understand the inherent danger posed to a free society through this collaboration between state apparatus and media. You do not.

The danger is when the State can use its power to attack media companies it doesn't like such as DeSantis spending time and tax payer dollars going after Disney because he doesn't like their speech.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where is your actual example of the Left using the force of law to subdue anyone's free speech, Short Bus?

The number of cases is legion. But here are six cases where people were arrested, prosecuted or sued that ultimately were overturned by the Supreme Court:

6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases

Discover six of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark cases on hate speech and the First Amendment since World War II.

www.thoughtco.com

I am not condoning what happened in any of these or any similar cases. In fact I would be vocal criticizing or condemning these kinds of things. But SCOTUS was correct that the people doing them have the constitutional right to do so.

In effect the high court has been consistent in refusing to uphold 'hate speech' as a prosecutable offense unless there is material or bodily harm to an offended party.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Republican attacks on free speech have.

So what Buttercup? I only care whether or not the relationship is consensual.

The danger is when the State can use its power to attack media companies it doesn't like such as DeSantis spending time and tax payer dollars going after Disney because he doesn't like their speech.

The only people who think removing instruction manuals from schools that teach preteen boys how to perform fellatio is an abridgement of "free speech" are those who want preteen boys learning the act.

 

[Coyote]

People calling something hate speech is free speech.

Investigating people, harassing people, organizing boycotts against people, suing, fining, prosecuting people for expressing an honest opinion that is deemed 'hate speech' is something else.

Whst do you mean by investigating?

Boycotts and protests are legitimate free speech as long as it doesn't cross the line into violence and property destruction. Suing is. unfortunately the (bipartisan) American way to harass people.

The racist, homophobe, bigot has every bit as much right to express his/her opinion as everybody else. He/she just doesn't have the right to act out on his/her opinion in a way that violates somebody else's rights. He/she doesn't have the right to inappropriately discriminate against somebody just because they don't like a particular group. ("Inappropriate" is a critical component to this particular concept.) He/she does not have the right to libel or slander others.

I totall agree!

But when the executive branch of the federal government or any state can issue mandates with the force of law, when the courts are allowed to issue opinions that are given force of law, the 'passing of laws' becomes quite subjective.

No, I disagree, it does not become subjective. When a law is passed specifically targetting specific groups, free speech or other civil rights it has the force of law and criminal penalties.

It is completely different than what private people or businesses do.

 

[Curried Goats]

The number of cases is legion. But here are six cases where people were arrested, prosecuted or sued that ultimately were overturned by the Supreme Court:

6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases

Discover six of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark cases on hate speech and the First Amendment since World War II.

www.thoughtco.com

I am not condoning what happened in any of these or any similar cases. In fact I would be vocal criticizing or condemning these kinds of things. But SCOTUS was correct that the people doing them have the constitutional right to do so.

In effect the high court has been consistent in refusing to uphold 'hate speech' as a prosecutable offense unless there is material or bodily harm to an offended party.

What do any of those cases have to do with your claim that the Left are the ones trying to use law to violate anyone's free speech? Laws against inciting violence or intimidation exist for good reason and it's up to the courts to decide whether or not a particular case rises to those standards. Are you suggesting we get rid of laws that hold people accountable for inciting violence or intimidation?

 

[Coyote]

The only people who think removing instruction manuals from schools that teach preteen boys how to perform fellatio is an abridgement of "free speech" are those who want preteen boys learning the act.

What about books on or by people of different races? Books that include non-hetero characters but are not graphic, books about non-traditional families?