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

[Not2BSubjugated]

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?

It's less about passing laws and more about their selective enforcement. Allowing Black Lives Matter to be painted on the street, but not Blue Lives Matter. Allowing BLM protests to go unchecked for months, but declaring that Covid is so dangerous that churches have to be severely regulated and anyone hosting too many people in their own homes needs to have their water and power turned off.

Lefty politicians know better than to call what they're doing censorship. They find unrelated rationalizations to elevate some speech over other speech, and when it always seems to work out that the dangerous speech just happens to be speech that objects to their politics, and the safe speech just always seems to be the speech that is convenient to their politics, apparently that's all just coincidence and conspiracy thinking.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Not just simple censorship, it was enforcement of public decency laws. Hollywood, society and entertainment media used to actually have a conservative bent to them, driven by ethical standards where swearing, homosexuality and perversion were actually frowned upon and not publicly acceptable. They didn't even show belly buttons on TV, family couples on TV slept in separate beds, and television promoted a moral family structure where even Walter Cronkite and Johnny Carson kept their personal politics out of their programs.

Then the radical socialist-fascist Left got in, took over, and the nation has turned to Sodom and Gomorrah ever since.

 

[dblack]

Yes, I do believe political affiliation should be a protected property (protected class would imply special privilege for a particular ideology, all I want is equal access for any and all political "classes"). We're watching numerous examples of a critical mass of an entire industry simultaneously and arbitrarily gridlocking people from access to a generic service that they offer to everybody else, based on political beliefs. I don't think that communists should be forced to starve if they get stuck in a town where the food sellers won't sell to them any more than black people should.

What you're describing is making political affiliation a protected class - something that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. Regardless of the terminology, political affiliation currently gets no special protection. If I own a Jewish Deli, and I don't want to make the local nazi apologist a sandwich, I don't have to. If I don't want to rent to anarchists, that's legal. And it should be. Government social engineering that seeks to dictate who we must associate with is a fundamental violation of individual conscience.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yes, I do believe political affiliation should be a protected property (protected class would imply special privilege for a particular ideology, all I want is equal access for any and all political "classes"). We're watching numerous examples of a critical mass of an entire industry simultaneously and arbitrarily gridlocking people from access to a generic service that they offer to everybody else, based on political beliefs. I don't think that communists should be forced to starve if they get stuck in a town where the food sellers won't sell to them any more than black people should.

What you're describing is making political affiliation a protected class - something that can't be used as a basis for discrimination. Regardless of the terminology, political affiliation currently gets no special protection. If I own a Jewish Deli, and I don't want to make the local nazi apologist a sandwich, I don't have to. If I don't want to rent to anarchists, that's legal. And it should be. Government social engineering that seeks to dictate who we must associate with is a fundamental violation of individual conscience.

I'm aware that this is what I'm proposing, and I'm also aware that political beliefs/affiliation are not currently a protected status.

As far as forced association, I find that to be a horrific concept. However, I also find it to be horrific when there is enough hatred for a particular class of people in an essential industry, that members of this class can effectively have their access to essential services denied to them.

We're back to the burning apartment argument. Yes, creating a distinction between generic, routine, and petty business transactions, and more significant and deliberate forms of voluntary association creates the potential for an expansion of what constitutes an association that is insignificant and can therefore be subject to government coercion. I concede that the public accommodations precedent increases the threat of tyranny by creating another small window through which it might encroach. However, this risk was taken to ward off another tyranny, and one that was already in progress. It was risky to leap out of the window to avoid the flames, but still less risky than staying in the burning apartment.

Admittedly, I find this all to be incredibly murky territory, and thus I'm not totally married to any of my beliefs on this front. I do know, however, that I don't want a tech oligarchy to have control over the flow of information. The idea that we stayed true to an absolute and purist interpretation of the freedom of association will be very little consolation when the progressives are forcing everyone to swear allegiance to the symbols of their dogma.

 

[eagle1462010]

Face Plant and Twitter are proof positive of the problem with leftists twits in this country.

Say the wrong thing on those 2 leftist rags and you can lose your job.........that is AUTHORITARIAN CENSORSHIP OF SPEECH.

The left don't care about the 1st Amendment.

 

[dblack]

Excuse Brigade, FALL IN!

Nice job everyone. Let's call it win!

 

[eagle1462010]

Excuse Brigade, FALL IN!

Nice job everyone. Let's call it win!

I win everyday........I refuse to use Face Plant and Twitter..........

If everyone did the same.......then they would fade to black as they should for being a leftist BS site.

 

[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?

 

[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.

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?

I'm in favor of existing law being enforced.

The question is...why aren't you?

 

[daveman]

Offended is s chosen state of mind. No one else has the power to make you feel that way much less be in a perpetual state of it.

No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.

It's astounding how many people give that control to total strangers.

 

[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.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[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.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[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.

It's amazing how you insist you should be taken seriously.

Go play outside, child.

 

[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. Don't just screech TRUMP IS A DOODYHEAD like a retard.

 

[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.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

. Liberals want to dictate like that NOW. What has changed?

What has changed is that the left is no longer liberal, having abandoned that particulat ideology when it embraced authoritarian identity politics.

Actual liberalism is about advancing humanity past the tribal stage. Today's left is all about retreating back into tribalism.

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[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.