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

[daveman]

Attention, liberals:

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

Hope that clears up your obvious confusion.

You sound offended.

Not at all. Just tired of people who are chronologically adults acting like petulant children.

 

[dblack]

We're past the point where we're talking about a night club here and there that doesn't want to host a comedian. We're talking about online platforms that have become the place where a majority of our nation's public discourse takes place.

Oh, I see. Cool. Just like socialism. Are you a Marxist?

No. I don't view public accomodations laws to be Marxism. I believe that nationalizing industries in an attempt to create a post-scarcity society with no classes and no leaders is Marxism. Brush up on your definitions.

Yeah... all those terms kinda blur for me. It's all the same principle, so I never really bother distinguishing them.

So you're citing your own lack of nuance as proof of your claims? Holy shit, that's so progressive that I don't even know how to respond.

For the record, preventing situations where a person can be gridlocked out of being able to exercise their rights, by a critical mass of dominant businesses who refuse to serve them, does NOT run along the same principles as trying to create a classless, leaderless society. I can't believe I have to spell that out.

What? Dood, you're the one that wants to nationalize (oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to you the pc-word, "regulate") facebook because the majority of people use it.

It's that unlimited enthusiasm for state control that makes you bastards so dangerous.

Regulating a business and nationalizing a business aren't nearly the same thing, you absolute f'in moron.

Darn me. I always get those mixed up. Let's just call both of them "controlling", how's that?

Unlimited enthusiasm for state control? Holy shit you clearly have no idea what I believe about government control.

I'm only going by what you're saying here.

 

[daveman]

Attention, liberals:

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

 

[MaryL]

I don't know where to begin. Denver Mayor Ben Stapleton for instance, a politician that temporarily sided with the KKK in 1920...in much the same way democrats are siding with the BLM in 2020? Blacks murdering each other in huge numbers way more than a couple of "racist" policeman? SHH!

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

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

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

We're past the point where we're talking about a night club here and there that doesn't want to host a comedian. We're talking about online platforms that have become the place where a majority of our nation's public discourse takes place.

Oh, I see. Cool. Just like socialism. Are you a Marxist?

No. I don't view public accomodations laws to be Marxism. I believe that nationalizing industries in an attempt to create a post-scarcity society with no classes and no leaders is Marxism. Brush up on your definitions.

Yeah... all those terms kinda blur for me. It's all the same principle, so I never really bother distinguishing them.

So you're citing your own lack of nuance as proof of your claims? Holy shit, that's so progressive that I don't even know how to respond.

For the record, preventing situations where a person can be gridlocked out of being able to exercise their rights, by a critical mass of dominant businesses who refuse to serve them, does NOT run along the same principles as trying to create a classless, leaderless society. I can't believe I have to spell that out.

What? Dood, you're the one that wants to nationalize (oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to you the pc-word, "regulate") facebook because the majority of people use it.

It's that unlimited enthusiasm for state control that makes you bastards so dangerous.

Regulating a business and nationalizing a business aren't nearly the same thing, you absolute f'in moron.

Darn me. I always get those mixed up. Let's just call both of them "controlling", how's that?

Unlimited enthusiasm for state control? Holy shit you clearly have no idea what I believe about government control.

I'm only going by what you're saying here.

Nah, let's not put regulating and nationalizing into the same category at all. Again, stop citing your lack of nuance, and try actually thinking in higher definition.

EVERY business in EVERY nation on this planet is regulated. EVERY business in EVERY nation on this planet is expected to abide by the laws and rules set out by that nation and its leaders. That doesn't mean that EVERY business in EVERY nation on the planet has been nationalized, and it doesn't mean that every economy is Marxist.

There is a world of difference between making laws that everybody has to abide by, and actually taking ownership of a business away from its owner and fully deciding how to manage it and its profits. No matter how you may try to put regulation and ownership into similar categories, having laws that business owners must abide by is never going to be an idea specific to Marxism.

 

[dblack]

We're past the point where we're talking about a night club here and there that doesn't want to host a comedian. We're talking about online platforms that have become the place where a majority of our nation's public discourse takes place.

Oh, I see. Cool. Just like socialism. Are you a Marxist?

No. I don't view public accomodations laws to be Marxism. I believe that nationalizing industries in an attempt to create a post-scarcity society with no classes and no leaders is Marxism. Brush up on your definitions.

Yeah... all those terms kinda blur for me. It's all the same principle, so I never really bother distinguishing them.

So you're citing your own lack of nuance as proof of your claims? Holy shit, that's so progressive that I don't even know how to respond.

For the record, preventing situations where a person can be gridlocked out of being able to exercise their rights, by a critical mass of dominant businesses who refuse to serve them, does NOT run along the same principles as trying to create a classless, leaderless society. I can't believe I have to spell that out.

What? Dood, you're the one that wants to nationalize (oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to you the pc-word, "regulate") facebook because the majority of people use it.

It's that unlimited enthusiasm for state control that makes you bastards so dangerous.

Regulating a business and nationalizing a business aren't nearly the same thing, you absolute f'in moron.

Darn me. I always get those mixed up. Let's just call both of them "controlling", how's that?

Unlimited enthusiasm for state control? Holy shit you clearly have no idea what I believe about government control.

I'm only going by what you're saying here.

Nah, let's not put regulating and nationalizing into the same category at all. Again, stop citing your lack of nuance, and try actually thinking in higher definition.

EVERY business in EVERY nation on this planet is regulated. EVERY business in EVERY nation on this planet is expected to abide by the laws and rules set out by that nation and its leaders. That doesn't mean that EVERY business in EVERY nation on the planet has been nationalized, and it doesn't mean that every economy is Marxist.

There is a world of difference between making laws that everybody has to abide by, and actually taking ownership of a business away from its owner and fully deciding how to manage it and its profits. No matter how you may try to put regulation and ownership into similar categories, having laws that business owners must abide by is never going to be an idea specific to Marxism.

Ok, I hear you. But I have to say, these are exactly the same arguments I've heard from statist Democrats all my life. It's "just" regulation. It's not really state control... er... well... democracy!

 

[wamose]

Liberals are misguided pussies. Someone told them they were tough and they went out and tried to prove it on windows and buildings. I'd cut law enforcement loose on them and they'd STFU directly. These antifa and BLM assholes are pretenders waging terrorism with their stupid parents money.

I thought it was Soros money?

Who said Soros wasn't the someone I mentioned?

 

[pknopp]

Liberals are misguided pussies. Someone told them they were tough and they went out and tried to prove it on windows and buildings. I'd cut law enforcement loose on them and they'd STFU directly. These antifa and BLM assholes are pretenders waging terrorism with their stupid parents money.

I thought it was Soros money?

Who said Soros wasn't the someone I mentioned?

You mentioned their parents.

 

[bluzman61]

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?

Good point, Mary. Thanks for your post.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

We're past the point where we're talking about a night club here and there that doesn't want to host a comedian. We're talking about online platforms that have become the place where a majority of our nation's public discourse takes place.

Oh, I see. Cool. Just like socialism. Are you a Marxist?

No. I don't view public accomodations laws to be Marxism. I believe that nationalizing industries in an attempt to create a post-scarcity society with no classes and no leaders is Marxism. Brush up on your definitions.

Yeah... all those terms kinda blur for me. It's all the same principle, so I never really bother distinguishing them.

So you're citing your own lack of nuance as proof of your claims? Holy shit, that's so progressive that I don't even know how to respond.

For the record, preventing situations where a person can be gridlocked out of being able to exercise their rights, by a critical mass of dominant businesses who refuse to serve them, does NOT run along the same principles as trying to create a classless, leaderless society. I can't believe I have to spell that out.

What? Dood, you're the one that wants to nationalize (oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to you the pc-word, "regulate") facebook because the majority of people use it.

It's that unlimited enthusiasm for state control that makes you bastards so dangerous.

Regulating a business and nationalizing a business aren't nearly the same thing, you absolute f'in moron.

Darn me. I always get those mixed up. Let's just call both of them "controlling", how's that?

Unlimited enthusiasm for state control? Holy shit you clearly have no idea what I believe about government control.

I'm only going by what you're saying here.

Nah, let's not put regulating and nationalizing into the same category at all. Again, stop citing your lack of nuance, and try actually thinking in higher definition.

EVERY business in EVERY nation on this planet is regulated. EVERY business in EVERY nation on this planet is expected to abide by the laws and rules set out by that nation and its leaders. That doesn't mean that EVERY business in EVERY nation on the planet has been nationalized, and it doesn't mean that every economy is Marxist.

There is a world of difference between making laws that everybody has to abide by, and actually taking ownership of a business away from its owner and fully deciding how to manage it and its profits. No matter how you may try to put regulation and ownership into similar categories, having laws that business owners must abide by is never going to be an idea specific to Marxism.

Ok, I hear you. But I have to say, these are exactly the same arguments I've heard from statist Democrats all my life. It's "just" regulation. It's not really state control... er... well... democracy!

As someone who's outlook would most accurately be described as conservatarian, I get what you're saying, there. I detest overregulation.

However, my view is that NOBODY should have too much power. Thus, when we find wealthy people leveraging their wealth to dominate less powerful individuals, I'm just as opposed to that as I am to people using government power to do so. I believe the social media platforms have reached that level.

I'm no fan of Alex Jones, but it's a f'in crime what they did to that poor crazy bastard, and he's not nearly the only one. Only the most notable.

 

[MaryL]

Cops are not selling drugs in poor black communities. Cops are not raping or robbing or encouraging illegitimacy or the drop out rate. Nope. Cops aren't doing that. Its our acceptance of poor black culture that is to blame.

 

[pknopp]

Cops are not selling drugs in poor black communities. Cops are not raping or robbing or encouraging illegitimacy or the drop out rate. Nope. Cops aren't doing that. Its our acceptance of poor black culture to blame.

Fatal overdose leads to Long Island drug ring takedown, NYPD cop arrested

Former South Texas police officer sentenced to 10 years in prison for drug trafficking

Baltimore Police officer charged with lying about record-setting bust in which nearly 7 pounds of cocaine were found in truck

 

[daveman]

Attention, liberals:

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

 

[dblack]

Thus, when we find wealthy people leveraging their wealth to dominate less powerful individuals, I'm just as opposed to that as I am to people using government power to do so.

Sorry, but that's the core of leftist ideology: the inability to distinguish economic power from coercive threats. They even invented the concept of "economic coercion" so they could use it to justify the state co-opting economic power ie regulating it.

I'm no fan of Alex Jones, but it's a f'in crime what they did to that poor crazy bastard, and he's not nearly the only one. Only the most notable.

I think Alex Jones was a sick man who harmed a lot of people. I don't know what anyone "deserves", but I'm glad he lost that lawsuit, and was exposed for what he is.

 

[dblack]

Attention, liberals:

There is no right to not be offended. You just need to grow the **** 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?

 

[eagle1462010]

In a Free country.......the right to offend is protected........

As we slide to the authoritarian state of mind of Europe ........pushed by the leftist assholes in this country.

Now.......that might have offended them........oh well......complaints will be accepted in the 3rd port o let on the right basement section.

Your welcome.

 

[dblack]

In a Free country.......the right to offend is protected........

As we slide to the authoritarian state of mind of Europe ........pushed by the leftist assholes in this country.

Now.......that might have offended them........oh well......complaints will be accepted in the 3rd port o let on the right basement section.

Your welcome.

The leftists actually agree with you. They think businesses should be forced to accommodate people they don't like. They're just arguing the other side here because Trump is going after their friends.

 

[wamose]

Liberals are misguided pussies. Someone told them they were tough and they went out and tried to prove it on windows and buildings. I'd cut law enforcement loose on them and they'd STFU directly. These antifa and BLM assholes are pretenders waging terrorism with their stupid parents money.

I thought it was Soros money?

Who said Soros wasn't the someone I mentioned?

You mentioned their parents.

It's been documented that parents (the antifa moms) and grandparents who bought their grandson a protective vest to confront police are actively involved with this revolt. They suck as much if not more than their defective children. That doesn't negate the fact that Soros is funding the Marxists.

 

[pknopp]

Liberals are misguided pussies. Someone told them they were tough and they went out and tried to prove it on windows and buildings. I'd cut law enforcement loose on them and they'd STFU directly. These antifa and BLM assholes are pretenders waging terrorism with their stupid parents money.

I thought it was Soros money?

Who said Soros wasn't the someone I mentioned?

You mentioned their parents.

It's been documented that parents (the antifa moms) and grandparents who bought their grandson a protective vest to confront police are actively involved with this revolt. They suck as much if not more than their defective children. That doesn't negate the fact that Soros is funding the Marxists.

[i