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

[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.

Of course you "don't care". Because it proves your hypocrisy. You're fine with government bullying businesses as long as it's businesses that aren't doing what you want.

 

[MaryL]

BLM likes burning down stuff. Encouraging race riots and doing harm and ignoring the HUGE black on black murder rate. Nope, just fixate on the 9 blacks killed by cops last year given the millions of police interactions each year...ignore the THOUSANDS murdered by blacks each year...

 

[dudmuck]

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

Soros is funding a push for racial equality.

George Soros’s Foundation Pours $220 Million Into Racial Equality Push (Published 2020)

Mr. Soros’s group will invest $150 million in grants for Black-led racial justice groups, and another $70 million toward local grants for criminal justice reform and civic engagement opportunities.

www.nytimes.com

Earlier in his left, he helped the fall of communism in soviet union and eastern europe.

'
that was 60 years ago, but today racial equality = communism?

 

[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.I

Soros is funding a push for racial equality.

George Soros’s Foundation Pours $220 Million Into Racial Equality Push (Published 2020)

Mr. Soros’s group will invest $150 million in grants for Black-led racial justice groups, and another $70 million toward local grants for criminal justice reform and civic engagement opportunities.

www.nytimes.com

Earlier in his left, he helped the fall of communism in soviet union and eastern europe.

'
that was 60 years ago, but today racial equality = communism?

Tell Soros to email me and tell me how to get over my Whiteness, dork. Your version of equality isn't equal.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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?

It might seem that way to you, but that's probably because you aren't getting your information from credible sources. You can find someone reinforcing every misconception you have, if you look hard enough. It seems that is what you have done.

Ok. Rationally explain hate speech, safe spaces, banning words ect.
We'll wait.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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 with 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.

I should've stated that more specifically. I'm not talking about the economic coercion that lefties cite, I'm talking about using their wealth to actively violate peoples' rights. Bribing authorities and law enforcement for unfair treatment, burying smaller entities with frivolous litigation to choke out competition with financial attrition, hiring hackers or even thugs (though a lot of the latter went out after the early Rockefeller days) for corporate espionage/sabotage, etc.

Admittedly, the public accommodations arguments blur what would otherwise be very stark lines in this conversation. However (and I bring up Alex Jones specifically because he's the prime example of this), what we've seen now is multiple examples where several, if not all, of the largest social media giants deplatform someone simultaneously.

Even this, alone, wouldn't be enough justification for me to suggest public accommodations laws. The other end of the problem is their status as platforms, as opposed to publishers. Back in the day, the media were able to act as gatekeepers for the political dialogue, and that was never considered to be a problem, from the perspective of people actually being repressed in any way. I still don't consider it to be one, because those media organizations were all responsible for their claims, and were all subject to libel and defamation laws. These platforms, only BECAUSE of their status as platforms, have become places where most of the public dialogue takes place. If they didn't have immunity from legal retribution for shit that random posters say on their platforms, they NEVER could have allowed the sort of freedom that permitted any random idiot to spout their opinions to the world, and in turn never would have become the primary home for that dialogue.

So, what we've created is a situation where a handful of mega corporations have become the primary place where politicians, as well as voters, can disseminate their messages, and those corporations are completely free of responsibility for what those people say on their platform, but have the freedom to ban anything that they find objectionable for almost any reason. Because there are so many thousands, sometimes millions of people repeating and retweeting any random piece of outright libel, it isn't feasible to significantly quell untrue rumors from spreading through legal action, as one would be able to do against a publisher.

Combine these factors: This handful of mega corporations, all of whom verifiably share the mainstream political biases of their uniquely politically charged geographic region, are able to open the floodgates for libel that can't realistically be combatted legally, while simultaneously shutting out any opposing viewpoints, and, no matter HOW false the narrative is that they allow to persist without significant challenge in the public realm, they can't be held responsible. Icing on the cake: They've shown the willingness to act in concert and almost entirely black people out from being able to use this service, which suggests that we've got a de facto monopoly regulating the very flow of information.

My love of liberty doesn't make me feel obligated to allow these people to have near-absolute power to decide what influences public opinion just because they've managed to game their way into it without breaking any laws. This just shows me that the laws need to be adjusted to prevent billionaires from attaining de facto ownership of our democratic processes going forward.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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

Cool Google search bro. Please finish your research for the readers of this forum by posting the number of police officers in the nation and the number of those found guilty of drug trafficking.

 

[dblack]

My love of liberty doesn't make me feel obligated to allow these people to have near-absolute power to decide what influences public opinion just because they've managed to game their way into it without breaking any laws. This just shows me that the laws need to be adjusted to prevent billionaires from attaining de facto ownership of our democratic processes going forward.

They don't have anything close to absolute power. We could decide to stop using fb tomorrow and there's nothing they could do about it. Unless they get in bed with government, which is always what happens when "regulation" happens.

Let's get real. The ONLY reason we're having this conversation is that Facebook and Twitter defied the President. If they hadn't, this issue never would have come up. It's purely a matter of politics. "Free speech" is just an excuse.

 

[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

Cool Google search bro. Please finish your research for the readers of this forum by posting the number of police officers in the nation and the number of those found guilty of drug trafficking.

The statement was that cops are not selling drugs. I posted enough to show that isn't true.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

My love of liberty doesn't make me feel obligated to allow these people to have near-absolute power to decide what influences public opinion just because they've managed to game their way into it without breaking any laws. This just shows me that the laws need to be adjusted to prevent billionaires from attaining de facto ownership of our democratic processes going forward.

They don't have anything close to absolute power. We could decide to stop using fb tomorrow and there's nothing they could do about it. Unless they get in bed with government, which is always what happens when "regulation" happens.

Let's get real. The ONLY reason we're having this conversation is that Facebook and Twitter defied the President. If they hadn't, this issue never would have come up. It's purely a matter of politics. "Free speech" is just an excuse.

And everybody COULD HAVE stopped using racist lunch counters and grocers. They didn't, and what existed outside of theoretical collective action was a situation where a black person could be travelling and find himself unable to buy anything to eat because the very few places to buy food in a lot of less populated areas ALL refused to serve them.

Everybody COULD HAVE decided to stop using telephones at all, and Ma Bell could have been choked out without resorting to antitrust actions. Unfortunately, the latter is what was required in real life to prevent the phone company from ******* with your job and repossessing your property over your long distance bill. I'm no fan of government power, but a balance is required.

And perhaps Twitter and FB banning Trump is the only reason YOU'RE involved in this conversation, but this is some shit I've been railing about for years, now.

"First they came for the socialists..." is a lesson that I took to heart, so when they came for the alt right, I started speaking up, at least to whatever degree I'm capable, even though the alt right is fuckin whacked.

 

[dblack]

My love of liberty doesn't make me feel obligated to allow these people to have near-absolute power to decide what influences public opinion just because they've managed to game their way into it without breaking any laws. This just shows me that the laws need to be adjusted to prevent billionaires from attaining de facto ownership of our democratic processes going forward.

They don't have anything close to absolute power. We could decide to stop using fb tomorrow and there's nothing they could do about it. Unless they get in bed with government, which is always what happens when "regulation" happens.

Let's get real. The ONLY reason we're having this conversation is that Facebook and Twitter defied the President. If they hadn't, this issue never would have come up. It's purely a matter of politics. "Free speech" is just an excuse.

And everybody COULD HAVE stopped using racist lunch counters and grocers. They didn't, and what existed outside of theoretical collective action was a situation where a black person could be travelling and find himself unable to buy anything to eat because the very few places to buy food in a lot of less populated areas ALL refused to serve them.

Everybody COULD HAVE decided to stop using telephones at all, and Ma Bell could have been choked out without resorting to antitrust actions.

And I oppose the government's policies in both of these cases. I oppose them, not because I support racism or monopolies but, because the precedent these kinds of policies establish can easily be used by authoritarian leaders who want to bully businesses. Like we're seeing now.

Unfortunately, the latter is what was required in real life to prevent the phone company from ******* with your job and repossessing your property over your long distance bill. I'm no fan of government power, but a balance is required.

Yes. And the balance should be that government stays of our economic decisions. Just like they stay out of our religious beliefs. It's simply too much power for government to have. Socialism should have taught us that by now.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

It might seem that way to you, but that's probably because you aren't getting your information from credible sources. You can find someone reinforcing every misconception you have, if you look hard enough. It seems that is what you have done.

Ok. Rationally explain hate speech, safe spaces, banning words ect.
We'll wait.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to get someone else to help you with your vocabulary. It's not my job.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

Which would be fine but that’s not you left wing dickheads. You are neither the performer or the club owner. You aren’t the patron buying a ticket for the show or someone just deciding not to go.

You are the assholes outside harassing the customers and attacking them for going to see something YOU don’t like. You assault people at the event, you threaten the club owner and the performers until everyone decides to not see it. You assholes are the cock suckers just in it to ruin shit for everyone. So don’t give me your horseshit reasoning.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

My love of liberty doesn't make me feel obligated to allow these people to have near-absolute power to decide what influences public opinion just because they've managed to game their way into it without breaking any laws. This just shows me that the laws need to be adjusted to prevent billionaires from attaining de facto ownership of our democratic processes going forward.

They don't have anything close to absolute power. We could decide to stop using fb tomorrow and there's nothing they could do about it. Unless they get in bed with government, which is always what happens when "regulation" happens.

Let's get real. The ONLY reason we're having this conversation is that Facebook and Twitter defied the President. If they hadn't, this issue never would have come up. It's purely a matter of politics. "Free speech" is just an excuse.

And everybody COULD HAVE stopped using racist lunch counters and grocers. They didn't, and what existed outside of theoretical collective action was a situation where a black person could be travelling and find himself unable to buy anything to eat because the very few places to buy food in a lot of less populated areas ALL refused to serve them.

Everybody COULD HAVE decided to stop using telephones at all, and Ma Bell could have been choked out without resorting to antitrust actions.

And I oppose the government chosen policies in both of these cases. I oppose them, not because I support racism or monopolies, but because the precedent these kinds of policies establish can easily be used by authoritarian leaders who want to bully businesses. Like we're seeing now.

Unfortunately, the latter is what was required in real life to prevent the phone company from ******* with your job and repossessing your property over your long distance bill. I'm no fan of government power, but a balance is required.

Yes. And the balance should be that government must stay out of our economic decisions. Just like they mustttt stay out of our religious beliefs. It's simply too much power for government to have. Socialism should have taught us that by now.

I totally understand your view on the public accommodations in general, as it's an argument that I've always found to be a blurry one. Essentially, I err on the side of having them, for the same reason that I would jump out of a 2nd story window if an apartment fire prevented me from exiting safely. Those laws admittedly created the potential for tyrannical weaponization, which I'm generally against, but they were used to fight against a tyranny that actually, already existed in many pockets of the nation.

I think that government should stay as far out of our financial decisions as is necessary to guarantee individual freedom. I don't like the idea of the government having the power to dictate that an entity or collection of entities has become too powerful and needs to be broken apart or otherwise muzzled, but I also don't like the idea of an essential industry, like food sellers, to be able to actively, arbitrarily bar someone's access to things that are essential, on the off-chance that a critical mass of business owners in that industry all share an opinion of that someone.

You might argue that the social media industry isn't offering anything that's essential in the way that food sellers are offering something that is essential, and I wouldn't disagree. Quite frankly, I'd be perfectly satisfied with some adjustments to the laws regarding what qualifies a business as a platform as opposed to a publisher. Require that, if Twitter doesn't want to be held responsible for what it puts out the way that the NYT is responsible for what it prints, then Twitter can't arbitrarily decide what's objectionable. If it's not a threat or call to violence, leave it alone, or stand behind what you choose to curate.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

Of course you "don't care". Because it proves your hypocrisy. You're fine with government bullying businesses as long as it's businesses that aren't doing what you want.

I am? Where did I say that?

This should be interesting.

 

[daveman]

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?

It might seem that way to you, but that's probably because you aren't getting your information from credible sources. You can find someone reinforcing every misconception you have, if you look hard enough. It seems that is what you have done.

Ok. Rationally explain hate speech, safe spaces, banning words ect.
We'll wait.

Awwww, that's a trick question. They can't be rationally explained. They're based solely on emotion.

 

[dblack]

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?

I'll try to break this down into simple terms, but I'm not sure it will make sense to you. AS you noted, it was political censors - government - who censored Lenny Bruce. They actually arrested him and put him jail. That's censorship. Now, some nightclub owners thought Lennie Bruce was too risqué, and they didn't let him play at their clubs. That was not censorship. It was just some nightclub owners not hosting Lenny Bruce. Get it?

I know. It's hard. But keep trying.

Which would be fine but that’s not you left wing dickheads. You are neither the performer or the club owner. You aren’t the patron buying a ticket for the show or someone just deciding not to go.

You are the assholes outside harassing the customers and attacking them for going to see something YOU don’t like. You assault people at the event, you threaten the club owner and the performers until everyone decides to not see it. You assholes are the cock suckers just in it to ruin shit for everyone. So don’t give me your horseshit reasoning.

I have no idea what you're yammering about. I'm not left wing.

 

[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?

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.

 

[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.

Of course you "don't care". Because it proves your hypocrisy. You're fine with government bullying businesses as long as it's businesses that aren't doing what you want.

I am? Where did I say that?

This should be interesting.

Well, maybe I've misread you. Are you in favor of the government cracking down on social media sites who are censoring conservatives?