The right NOT to be offended pt I (liberal version)

[daveman]

One of these cases is arbitrary discrimination against a type of customer, one of them is objection to being forced to perform a specific action.

Which is which?

Do you honestly need to ask?

Is Trump asking Twitter to build him a special platform? Is any conservative? Are we asking Twitter to create an artistic representation of a message that they don't want to endorse?

I actually read it the other way around the first time. It seems the bakers are obviously discriminating against a type of customer, and fb is refusing to host information on their website that they believe to be harmful and false. But that seemed counter to your other arguments, which is why I asked.

Just stop denying service based on political opinions that you don't like. No special service. Just basic service. Just that generic cake on the shelf. As long as you don't kick us out for being gay, no lawsuit.

Are you saying political affiliation should be a protected class?

The bakers weren't discriminating against anybody. He had served the same guy before...just not with a special project commemorating a gay wedding.

I don't care. They should be able to discriminate all they want. No one, no business, should be forced to serve others against their will.

Then work to change the applicable law.

I do. Do you? You seem to like the idea if Trump is behind it.

All I see you do is screeching TRUMP IS A DOODYHEAD.

I'm all for the equal application of existing law. Leftists aren't too keen on it. They want to use the threat of government violence to punish those with whom they disagree. Conservatives -- not so much.

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

 

[daveman]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

It means people who base their desire to limit others' freedoms on their emotions.

 

[Moonglow]

Circa 2020: Seems a huge upsurge in folks that think if THEY are offended by something equates to we can censor whatever THEY want. I go back to the early sixties. Lenny Bruce. Circa 1960 something. The political sensors put him in jail. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

Let's see the 1960's when little old ladies were offended by shirtless men with long hair.. Ah, yes I remember it well....

 

[Moonglow]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

It means people who base their desire to limit others' freedoms on their emotions.

You mean like parents do?

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

It means people who base their desire to limit others' freedoms on their emotions.

Uh.. okay. Never heard that one. And how do you think it applies to me?

 

[Moonglow]

The political sensors

View attachment 372402

He was searching for fellow Vulcanized Jews.

 

[MaryL]

Let's take a deep breath here. Relax. Now this is STILL a Democratic Republic. Theoretically. If you don't like confederate statues or flags or hats or this movie or whatever...you can (SHHH) use the fair and open democratic process and work in a positive way to make change. Your "OFFENSE" means NOTHING.

 

[daveman]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

It means people who base their desire to limit others' freedoms on their emotions.

You mean like parents do?

I'm not interested in your teenage angst.

 

[daveman]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

It means people who base their desire to limit others' freedoms on their emotions.

Uh.. okay. Never heard that one. And how do you think it applies to me?

You hate Trump. Don't even bother denying it. And no, you don't have any rational reasons for doing so.

And I get the idea you'd limit the freedoms of Trump supporters in a heartbeat if you thought you could.

 

[dblack]

Let's take a deep breath here. Relax. Now this is STILL a Democratic Republic. Theoretically. If you don't like confederate statues or flags or hats or this movie or whatever...you can (SHHH) use the fair and open democratic process and work in a positive way to make change.

Who needs the democratic process when you have executive odors.

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the fuck up.

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

Of course there's not a right to not be offended. But there is a right to be offended, and a right to refuse to accommodate people you find offensive.

...unless you're a Christian baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding.

Maybe you heard about that.

I did. Why don't you do a quick search and find a post of mine on the subject? Any one will do. It might pop your little head wide open.

I really don't care. Meanwhile, it damn well proves the left is more than willing to use the threat of government violence to punish Thoughtcrime.

What proves that? I happen to agree with you that the left is eager to do that. But what laws have they passed recently censoring speech?

At least make an effort to keep up. We were discussing the baker.

Well, let's discuss that. Because it's exactly the same thing Trump is trying for force on tech companies. Same violation of rights. Same weak excuses. Leftists want to bully homophobic bakers, and you guys want to bully tech companies that won't play ball with trolls. Same shit, different party.

No, it's not. Not at all.

The tech companies through their search results and online content posted by others claim to be neutral platforms protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from being treated as publishers. That means if someone makes a death threat against someone else on social media, the platform can't be held complicit in the threat. The platform has no control over the content.

But that's damn sure not the case, is it? Google removes content from its search results. Twitter and Facebook remove content and ban users based on ideology. Other content that breaks the rules gets a free pass with no repercussions, because it's the "correct" ideology. Compare Twitter's reaction to two posts calling for genocide. One calls for all blacks to be killed, the other for all whites. Which one's going to be left alone, and which one will get deleted and banned?

The tech companies are acting as publishers, and thus should be held responsible for their content and for their discrimination against content providers.

Get it now, or are you going to stick with your usual childish bullshit?

Yeah. Read all these excuses before. "It's different when we do it". Get real. This isn't about justice, or freedom of speech, or anything so noble. Trump is pissed off because these companies are defying him and he wants to punish them.

There's that irrational hatred again.

Exactly. That's really the crux of his support. It's certainly not admiration for his leadership ability.

I'm talking about YOUR irrational hatred, dumbass.

Good Gaea, what a stupid leftist.

Oh, here we go with the whole "leftist" thing again. What does leftist mean to you - other than just "anyone who disagrees with me"?

It means people who base their desire to limit others' freedoms on their emotions.

Uh.. okay. Never heard that one. And how do you think it applies to me?

You hate Trump. Don't even bother denying it. And no, you don't have any rational reasons for doing so.

But you said I was a leftist, without any real justification other than my opposition to Trump. Is that all there is to being a "leftist" in your view?

And I get the idea you'd limit the freedoms of Trump supporters in a heartbeat if you thought you could.

Where did you get that idea from? Got a link to a post of mine were I'm advocating anything like that?

No, you don't. Why don't you just shut the fuck up with your chickenshit accusations, mkay?