Politics, "Wokeness" and Absurdity

[Coyote]

Quit liberal hacking. Both of these idiot parties restrict speech and hate you but you carry their water? No thanks, not I.

What law have the Democrats passed restricting free speech?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I doubt that very much but I'd be willing to debate the naturalness of homosexuality with you if you think you're up for it.

I just said there is nothing wrong with it, imbecile.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those cases actually make my point in that over 75 years, the courts have consistently struck down attempts to legislate against free speech, including attempting to restrict it by defining it as hate, obscenity, blasphemy etc. The bar for slander, defamation or libel is very for that reason. It also makes the point that this is not a left or right issue.

No, it isn't necessarily a left or right issue as both sides at times engage in it.

But all six cases involved leftists punishing somebody or somebodies on the right out of political correctness. The left is far more likely to engage in political correctness 'enforcement' than is the right.

Both are in error when they do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed, when you have Republican legislatures actively passing laws restricting free speech.

What laws would those be? If you're referring to laws that protect children, however, that would be a bit disingenuous.

 

[Foxfyre]

For example when it comes to political correctness:

is this meme a legitimate argument by somebody with a justifiable opinion whether or not that opinion is 100% accurate?

Or is it 'hate speech'?

 

[Curried Goats]

I just said there is nothing wrong with it, imbecile.

I don't follow everything you say Dipshit. Why are you touting your science degree at me then? Why would I give a shit?

 

[Coyote]

Yet, you wish to impose your own.

I wish to impose my own what? Religious values? Religion and faith and the morals derived from them are a matter of personal belief. No one has any right to impose them on either a captive audience or an unwilling individual.

Woke may just be a short term for a race-based totalitarian ideology, but your insistence that the state owns people's children and so should imprint the state ideology upon those children is a FAR greater infringement of rights.

Uhhhh….what?

The state should not be teaching homosexuality as an abomination. It isn't, and there isn't anything wrong with it. By the same token, it has no right to PROMOTE it (or transexuality) even if you do so obviously apply different standards to others than you do yourself.

Then we agree. Sexual identity or orientation should be neither condemned nor promoted. But that doesn’t mean it should not be talked about. Talking about it does not have to mean describing sexual acts.

Kids should learn that we are a nation that encompasses a variety of people and views. They should learn that to be compassionate and inclusive is a good thing, because all kids start out that way. That is not placing either a positive or negative value judgement on it nor is it promoting it. Would you agree?

 

[Curried Goats]

For example when it comes to political correctness:

is this meme a legitimate argument by somebody with a justifiable opinion whether that opinion is expressed 100% accurately?

Or is it 'hate speech'?

It's certainly hateful. You're not pretending you're making a medical diagnosis are you?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What laws would those be? If you're referring to laws that protect children, however, that would be a bit disingenuous.

They want children exposed to books like "Gender Queer" designed to teach preteen boys how to give blow jobs

When they are called on it, they try to distract away from what by they support by referencing different books altogether.

They don't want Christianity in schools, but man, do they ever want THEIR RELIGION to be what schools are all about, instead.

 

[Curried Goats]

They want children exposed to books like "Gender Queer" designed to teach preteen boys how to give blow jobs

We hen c as led on it, they try to distract away from what by they support by referencing different books altogether.

They don't want Christianity in schools, but man, do they ever want THEIR RELIGION to be what schools are all about, instead.

No such thing as pretend boys but there are a lot of fake Christians out there....

 

[Coyote]

For example when it comes to political correctness:

is this meme a legitimate argument by somebody with a justifiable opinion whether that opinion is expressed 100% accurately?

Or is it 'hate speech'?

That is good question. I think what is or is not hate speech depends on who you are and will vary person to person, group to group (yet another reason why banning it is dangerous).

Something can be hateful, rude, intolerant….and free speech allows us to call it out.

 

[Coyote]

They want children exposed to books like "Gender Queer" designed to teach preteen boys how to give blow jobs

When they are called on it, they try to distract away from what by they support by referencing different books altogether.

That is categorically untrue. The books being banned occupy a wide spectrum. What you are attempting to do is “call people out” on books they do not support or positions they have not taken.

Banned books go from the graphically sexual “Gender Queer” to the perfectly innocent “Heather has two Mommies”. One can agree with removing Gender Queer from a school library but oppose removing the Heather one.

They don't want Christianity in schools, but man, do they ever want THEIR RELIGION to be what schools are all about, instead.

 

[Foxfyre]

They want children exposed to books like "Gender Queer" designed to teach preteen boys how to give blow jobs

When they are called on it, they try to distract away from what by they support by referencing different books altogether.

They don't want Christianity in schools, but man, do they ever want THEIR RELIGION to be what schools are all about, instead.

Americans have had laws to protect children for a very long time:
--No adult bookstores, bars, strip clubs and such can be located near a school.
--There are taboos for what images and language can be on television, age appropriate ratings for movies, video games, and such.
--Numerous substances are illegal for minors to buy.
--Sex magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse must not be displayed where children are likely to be and children may not purchase these magazines.
--Sexually explicit and other specifically adult content is kept separate in libraries and not readily available to children. (Or should be.)

These are good laws and an honorable people enforce them for good reason whether or not they are considered censorship. They protect the children.

And when parents object to sexually explicit books or what they believe constitutes 'grooming' being made available to children in libraries, schools, they are protecting the children.

Those inappropriately censoring books, content or effectively engaging in book banning are those who want books like "Tom Sawyer", "Huckleberry Finn", "Gone With the Wind", "Of Mice and Men", several Dr. Seuss books, etc. etc. etc. banned from libraries because they are politically incorrect.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is good question. I think what is or is not hate speech depends on who you are and will vary person to person, group to group (yet another reason why banning it is dangerous).

Something can be hateful, rude, intolerant….and free speech allows us to call it out.

That is good question. I think what is or is not hate speech depends on who you are and will vary person to person, group to group (yet another reason why banning it is dangerous).

Something can be hateful, rude, intolerant….and free speech allows us to call it out.

To someone like me, those 'fashions' are horrible, demeaning to normal men, not what normal guys wear. To say that is not at all hateful or intolerant as I don't hate any guys who would dress like that and they have full constitutional right to be as ridiculous as they want.

I didn't create the meme. But I agree with it. So does that make me hateful since I don't hate and wish harm/ill to anybody who dresses like that? Does it make me intolerant since I would fight for anybody's constitutional right to dress that way if he chose to do so? At the same time I would never hire a guy who came in dressed like that and if one of my existing employees did, he would be sent home.

I consider my point of view entirely non hateful, not at all intolerant and the normal point of view. Political correctness hawks would strongly disagree with me on that.

 

[Coyote]

No, it isn't necessarily a left or right issue as both sides at times engage in it.

But all six cases involved leftists punishing somebody or somebodies on the right out of political correctness. The left is far more likely to engage in political correctness 'enforcement' than is the right.

I would disagree on that assumption. First, the claim it involves “political correctness” is insulting, because some those are not about ”political correctness” but about something that inseparable from its atrocities on specific groups of people. Yes it is free speech ( though I question burning a cross on someone else’s property but it may have been overruled for other reasons) - but most of those examples nothing to do with political correctness.

I also don’t agree it is mostly the left banning free speech. In multiple Republican led states, we are seeing law after law, at the STATE level trying to restrict free speech.

Both are in error when they do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would disagree on that assumption. First, the claim it involves “political correctness” is insulting, because some those are not about ”political correctness” but about something that inseparable from its atrocities on specific groups of people. Yes it is free speech ( though I question burning a cross on someone else’s property but it may have been overruled for other reasons) - but most of those examples nothing to do with political correctness.

I also don’t agree it is mostly the left banning free speech. In multiple Republican led states, we are seeing law after law, at the STATE level trying to restrict free speech.

I don't see Republicans trying to restrict free speech anywhere. I do see Republicans trying to protect the children from what I think anybody should agree is inappropriate 'speech'/images/content for children.

 

[Coyote]

Americans have had laws to protect children for a very long time:
--No adult bookstores, bars, strip clubs and such can be located near a school.
--There are taboos for what images and language can be on television, age appropriate ratings for movies, video games, and such.
--Numerous substances are illegal for minors to buy.
--Sex magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse must not be displayed where children are likely to be and children may not purchase these magazines.
--Sexually explicit and other specifically adult content is kept separate in libraries and not readily available to children. (Or should be.)

These are good laws and an honorable people enforce them for good reason whether or not they are considered censorship. They protect the children.

And when parents object to sexually explicit books or what they believe constitutes 'grooming' being made available to children in libraries, schools, they are protecting the children.

Those inappropriately censoring books, content or effectively engaging in book banning are those who want books like "Tom Sawyer", "Huckleberry Finn", "Gone With the Wind", "Of Mice and Men", several Dr. Seuss books, etc. etc. etc. banned from libraries because they are politically incorrect.

What is “appropriate” about banning these? (and btw, I did not agree with any of those other book bannings you mentioned either).

or…

Out of Darkness

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian​

 

[Curried Goats]

To someone like me, those 'fashions' are horrible, demeaning to normal men, not what normal guys wear. To say that is not at all hateful or intolerant as I don't hate any guys who would dress like that and they have full constitutional right to be as ridiculous as they want.

It is you bigot. It's perfectly normal for those men to have a different sense of style than you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would disagree on that assumption. First, the claim it involves “political correctness” is insulting, because some those are not about ”political correctness” but about something that inseparable from its atrocities on specific groups of people. Yes it is free speech ( though I question burning a cross on someone else’s property but it may have been overruled for other reasons) - but most of those examples nothing to do with political correctness.

I also don’t agree it is mostly the left banning free speech. In multiple Republican led states, we are seeing law after law, at the STATE level trying to restrict free speech.

Of course it is about political correctness. Those who want to dictate that this person is in a protected class and therefore you must not express any critical observation or opinion about anything he/she is protected about is what political correctness is. And it usually is entirely arbitrary and directed only at those considered political opposition.

 

[Coyote]

I don't see Republicans trying to restrict free speech anywhere. I do see Republicans trying to protect the children from what I think anybody should agree is inappropriate 'speech'/images/content for children.

Then why are they applying it to higher education? To private companies (DEI)….or for that, Highschool where it is age appropriate? It is restricting free speech under the pretense of “for the children” because they much further than what is simply inappropriate.