Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



743 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-17 11:39:16 AM  
How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

i340.photobucket.com

/more like Spec-tater.
 
2014-04-17 11:39:24 AM  
In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.
 
2014-04-17 11:42:28 AM  
WAHHHHHHHHH MY BAD IDEAS ARE BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS WAHHHHHHHHHHHH
 
2014-04-17 11:43:49 AM  
Yeah, we've never before collectively decided as a society that some political beliefs are morally reprehensible to work toward.
 
2014-04-17 11:47:46 AM  
More conservative whining...must be a day ending in -y
 
2014-04-17 11:49:19 AM  
Whining, apparently, is free enough

/and in abundant supply
 
2014-04-17 11:49:27 AM  
multiculti

Asshole bigot red flag.
 
2014-04-17 11:51:53 AM  
The Spectator: The Anal Beads of Britain's Asshole.
 
2014-04-17 11:53:11 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 11:54:03 AM  
the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.
 
2014-04-17 11:55:25 AM  

vpb: the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.


This is how plagues start.
 
2014-04-17 11:59:12 AM  
It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?
 
2014-04-17 12:01:27 PM  

kxs401: Yeah, we've never before collectively decided as a society that some political beliefs are morally reprehensible to work toward.


When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.

Care to  defend what Brandeis did? Care to defend this?

'What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.'

(boldfacing mine)

You're really going to roll over for THAT?

For what it's worth, the ACLU is still doing its bit for freedom of unpopular/damn-fool expression, just last week representing a couple of Lawn Guyland doofuses suspended for bringing a Confederate flag to school. (Apparently the local administrators were upset it wasn't an Italian flag with a Boardy Barn bumper sticker on it.)
 
2014-04-17 12:02:59 PM  
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.
 
2014-04-17 12:04:50 PM  

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".


By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.
 
2014-04-17 12:06:54 PM  

Infernalist: No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.


Who incited a riot or violence in these cases? Nobody, except perhaps those doing the shouting-down.
 
2014-04-17 12:08:34 PM  

Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.


Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?
 
2014-04-17 12:08:43 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Who incited a riot or violence in these cases? Nobody, except perhaps those doing the shouting-down.


I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.  I'm merely explaining for the slow-minded sorts just what 'free speech' is and what it entails and what its limitations are.
 
2014-04-17 12:10:11 PM  

Infernalist: I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.


You ought to read the article, then.
 
2014-04-17 12:12:17 PM  

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


I disagree with Pizza Hut's definition of "pizza" so I don't eat there and dissuade others from eating there as well.

How is that different from the Mozilla thing? Because it isn't such a hot-button issue?

(OK, maybe pizza is a bad example around here.)
 
2014-04-17 12:12:49 PM  

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


There will 'always' be social consequences to publicly airing an unpopular view point.  Expecting otherwise is just plain silly.  That's how the social mindset works.

Complaining about people getting shunned and mocked for offering up viewpoints contrary to the social standard is akin to being 'that' guy who insists that he should be able to wander around naked in public as long as he's not hurting anyone.

In short, I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.
 
2014-04-17 12:15:27 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.

You ought to read the article, then.


Why?  I don't care.
 
2014-04-17 12:16:20 PM  
I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.
 
2014-04-17 12:16:53 PM  
Not one of the examples demonstrates Government stopping free speech.
 
2014-04-17 12:18:17 PM  
Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).
 
2014-04-17 12:20:21 PM  

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?




/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.
 
2014-04-17 12:21:51 PM  

Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.


Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
No cite given. No farks given either since the article doesn't elaborate.


And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C - whoa, don't worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it's down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about 'where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society'.

So, the Australian government is considering opening up more free speech (and letting racists be racists) and this is now an RIP for diversity of opinion?


And you, sir, can now learn that free speech just makes others more about how stupid you are. Thanks!
 
2014-04-17 12:23:23 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


That's very reasonable and even-tempered.

I'm going to have to ask you to leave this thread.
 
2014-04-17 12:28:54 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?
 
2014-04-17 12:30:24 PM  

SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat
 
2014-04-17 12:33:18 PM  

Diogenes: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 240x243]

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.


It's like Seth Rogen and Ron Perlman had a really ugly baby.
 
2014-04-17 12:34:19 PM  

Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?


I believe I saw quotes from Eich post-hiring as CEO where he stated that he would uphold and enforce Mozilla's anti-discrimination policy. That doesn't mean he would actually uphold and enforce it though.
 
2014-04-17 12:35:01 PM  

Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he thinks?


Clearly, a lot of people.

Since money is now considered 'free speech'(thanks, SC!), it's perfectly acceptable to enact legal consequences against him for his 'free speech' expression.

To my way of thinking, a boycott against Mozilla because he donated money to Prop 8 is the same as boycotting a diner because the cook is constantly using racial slurs.
 
2014-04-17 12:38:46 PM  

Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?


I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.
 
2014-04-17 12:42:24 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.


How many people do you know personally that have made a thousand dollar donation to a political campaign?
 
2014-04-17 12:43:36 PM  
a bloo blah blooo

why won't liberal collectivist communist fascists stop being mean to us :(
 
2014-04-17 12:51:18 PM  

Serious Black: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.

How many people do you know personally that have made a thousand dollar donation to a political campaign?


I have friends who are politically-minded and could well afford it, but I haven't actually asked them to whom and how much they donate.  Seems a bit crass
 
2014-04-17 12:57:37 PM  
Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  Baathist techniques involve swarming, supressive thuggery and brute intellectual and physical silencing of dissenting opinion.  If the rule of law were not so completely and effectively ensconced in U.S. legal systems, the thuggery, dogma, and ideological suppression of this gross, sick political movement would move forward in the West.  It is a very good thing that the system of checks and balances are in place to stop this type of political machine.  Be aware of it:  It is real.  And, man, it is one dirty, sucky political movement.  No  wonder it finds a home grafted onto collectivism and excessive socialist posturing.

Personally, I'd really like to see da Mooslins adopt a friendliness to "beer."  "Beer" is a great and beautiful substance, and can sweep away the bad craziness of hysterical intellectual and political obsessiveness.  Alcohol!  The cause of and the answer to all of life's problems.
 
2014-04-17 01:00:45 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Serious Black: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.

How many people do you know personally that have made a thousand dollar donation to a political campaign?

I have friends who are politically-minded and could well afford it, but I haven't actually asked them to whom and how much they donate.  Seems a bit crass


Sure, I wouldn't ask that question of many people. Even so, the only people I know personally who could even afford a thousand dollar donation without busting their savings are myself, my parents, and possibly a couple of my coworkers. We're all on the higher end of the income spectrum. There are a lot of people who, even if they wanted to, would find it basically impossible to make a $5 donation to a campaign because they need to feed themselves first. That's my point, that having $1,000 to give to a political campaign is not really small potatoes.
 
2014-04-17 01:01:36 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?

I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.


Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.
 
2014-04-17 01:03:07 PM  
This is just like the Nazi's.
 
2014-04-17 01:13:41 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


I think the Eich thing was stupid from the word go. There are plenty of CEOs I think are assholes, but they shouldn't be fired for it. However, on the grand scale, the public has the right to take their money and do business with whomever they see fit, and the job of the CEO is to make his company the most profitable company he can, if that means resigning his post, then that's the decision he should have made. I don't blame Mozilla, I blame the public who made a mountain out of a molehill, but they were well within their rights to do so.
 
2014-04-17 01:24:31 PM  

vpb: the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.


Maybe they are trying to give revisionist a good name? :)

/yeah I know :(
 
2014-04-17 01:27:08 PM  
Libertarians: "The free market will prevent people from discriminating! People just won't shop at places whose proprietors discriminate!"

*PREMISE ACTUALLY WORKS FOR ONCE*

"ZOMG HOW DARE YOU USE SUCH TERRIBLE FORCE THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER."


 

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here. Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views? If so, do his views disqualify him from every job? Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?


When you donate to a campaign, it is no longer a personal or private view, is it? You are *actively spending money* to try and convince others to see things 'your way'. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT ADVERTISING ON THESE ISSUES IS.
 
2014-04-17 01:28:08 PM  

Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.


I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.
 
2014-04-17 01:31:39 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


I'm still confused about him resigning.  He didn't even try to do any damage control.  It was just a few whiny bloggers and one dating site that was freaking out.

There had to be something else going on.
 
2014-04-17 01:31:40 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.

I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.


Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that - but breaking it down to the essential elements, there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public, one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever. He'll be fine, I am sure, but I just don't know if that's something we want to see on a regular basis.
 
2014-04-17 01:31:53 PM  
It's really simple, people. Either you want a ban on abortions or you want every pregnant woman to get one. There's no middle ground like understanding that banning something won't actually stop it and might actually contribute to its prevalence.
 
2014-04-17 01:33:42 PM  
And they had to resort to cheap posters surreptitiously plastered to buildings in the middle of the night to let us know.
 
2014-04-17 01:33:45 PM  
Free speech also doesn't mean that all possible views should be entitled to equal regard.
 
2014-04-17 01:33:50 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat




Hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter what your ideology is. And if you are a democrat, it must be hurt straining your neck looking the other way.


lol
 
2014-04-17 01:34:14 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Diogenes: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 240x243]

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.

It's like Seth Rogen and Ron Perlman had a really ugly baby.


With a little Brian Dennehy thrown in for good measure
 
2014-04-17 01:34:20 PM  

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".


That's what I came to point out.  This has always been the case.  Today, people boycott you if you're openly racist or homophobic.  60 years ago, people would boycott you if you were openly a communist.

The article seems to be little more than a pedestal for the author to whine about being on the unpopular side of an opinion.  Welcome to popular opinion.


/is glad that the US doesn't have the same free speech laws as Canada
//you have to put up with arseholes like Westboro
///in return, you don't get the disaster which is their human rights tribunal
 
2014-04-17 01:34:58 PM  

mrshowrules: Not one of the examples demonstrates Government stopping free speech.


This. In my (limited) knowledge...all freedom of speech means is the government won't press chargers for you stating your view. People are free to disagree with your views.

You are not free from consequences.

It's like arguing that airline guy can tell you to go f*ck yourself with a toy plane and it should be all good.
 
2014-04-17 01:35:01 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter what your ideology is. And if you are a democrat, it must be hurt straining your neck looking the other way.


lol


Uh....okaaaaay
 
2014-04-17 01:35:37 PM  
This is how a saw it:

static.ddmcdn.com

Lots of that.
 
2014-04-17 01:36:13 PM  
Keep picking that cherry!
 
2014-04-17 01:38:20 PM  

Dimensio: This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-17 01:38:29 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I disagree with Pizza Hut's definition of "pizza" so I don't eat there and dissuade others from eating there as well.


Pizza Hut was founded in Kansas and was originally called Hawaiian Pizza Hut. You know who else has ties to Kansas and Hawaii?

/I studied it out
 
2014-04-17 01:39:39 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


The thing is, corporations have a vested interest in having the appearance of being a desirable company to do business with.  Whether or not a person's views have anything to do with their listed job function, if they are a high-profile member of a company, they represent the company, and the company has every right to decide whether or not they want an employee with odious views to represent them.  After all, "It's nothing personal, it's just business."
 
2014-04-17 01:41:07 PM  

Nabb1: Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that


You're the only person I know who's said that

Nabb1: there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public


A hue and cry from a few bloggers.  There has been a "hue and cry" about all things Obama for several years by far more people for far less significant (or even non-existent) reasons.  So what?  It is what it is - it may suck, but it's not like one "side" is being unfairly targeted.  Ridiculous shiat flies in from all directions - no particular group is free of assholes, or free from attack by assholes.

Nabb1: one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever


Which is why I thought calls for his firing/resignation were ridiculous
 
2014-04-17 01:41:36 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 01:41:39 PM  

Dimensio: In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


You better say Merry Christmas and not Happy Hollidays or Bill O'Reilly and his viewers will organize a boycott!
 
2014-04-17 01:41:55 PM  

Mentat: Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?


   Only when those views harm the organization. Mozilla doesn't have money to spare. Those who's rights he would restrict, and their advocates, are free to not support the foundation he manages.
   Sucks to be a CEO but SingTFU is the one of the sacrifices.
 
2014-04-17 01:42:24 PM  
Dammit.....

img.fark.net
                RIP  IDIC
 
2014-04-17 01:42:43 PM  
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'

Someone else exercised their right to free speech? Nobody got arrested for talking? Executed by the government? Exiled to Siberia? Someone just decided to be an asshole?

Get over it, you whiny twit.
 
2014-04-17 01:43:01 PM  
The diversity of opinion in the 1950s was truly aspirational.
 
2014-04-17 01:43:45 PM  

Diogenes: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 240x243]

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.


You mean he's funny?
 
2014-04-17 01:44:29 PM  
I love the irony inherent in these sorts of op-eds. They all essentially boil down to:

1) I said something stupid/hateful and now people are being mean to me
or
2) I said something stupid/hateful and now people are ignoring me

And how this is terribly unfair and must somehow mean their right to say stupid and hateful things is being restricted because nobody's listening to them.

Yet, at the same time, it's this incessant, babyish whining and perpetual sense of victimization that makes people so tired of their endless shiat and leads them to mockery and disinterest.

Protip, assholes. You're free to speak, but I am not obliged to listen. And I will not listen. You have nothing of value to say and you have proven and reinforced this every hours of every day of every week for the last 25 years. You are free to babble on incessantly about whatever half-cocked horseshiat you want, but I will not waste any more of my time entertaining it nor will I pretend that your babble justifies any sort of response beyond flippant dismissal.

Nobody is taking your freedom to speak, you're just assholes and now nobody's listening when you do. The irony is that we got to this point precisely BECAUSE you are able to freely speak whatever halfwit nonsense is rattling around inside that hollow melon rind on top of your neck.

You have every right to speak what's on your mind. It's your own damn fault that you choose to do so through malicious, dishonest and recklessly confrontational outlets like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and "the Spectator".

Not that any of this cathartic internet shouting really matters. If there's one thing the right knows for sure, it's that they're constantly the victims of everything and nothing is ever their own fault, so it can't possibly be that they've just alienated everyone but the aging minority of diehard buttlicks that cling to disproven economic ideas and an idyllic 50s dreamworld that never really existed. No, that's not it. It's just that "the left" is really, really mean and out to get them. Yea. That's the ticket.

It's THE OTHER GUY'S fault! FREEEEDOM!
 
2014-04-17 01:45:13 PM  
I go through this with conservative friends of my family on a small scale all the time. It works thusly:

1. They make a predictable right-wing assertion
2. I respond with facts and reason, providing citations using multiple sources and even math where necessary
3. They tell me I'm using "liberal talking points" and "political rhetoric" to shut down anyone who disagrees.
 
2014-04-17 01:46:49 PM  
Hey!  Want to claim righteous indignation, but don't want to defend your vile, disgusting views?  Just claim that everybody who disagrees with you is somehow infringing on your free speech by exercising their own!  Works every time!
 
2014-04-17 01:48:07 PM  

SauronWasFramed: // Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


"Nary a discouraging word "? Bullsh*t. Clinton and Obama were roundly criticized by members of their own party for being on the wrong side of history, and eventually they came around.

Whereas Reagan and both Bushes opposed same sex marriage, never became "ready for it" and continue to oppose it to this day (well, not Reagan, thankfully). And all the mouth-breathing Jesus wheezers in the GOP celebrated them for doing it.

You'll have to forgive the rest of us for not being as impressed as you apparently are by your party's politically-motivated, backward-thinking intransigence.
 
2014-04-17 01:49:32 PM  
"Debate" "Climate Change". Yeah. There IS no debate.
 
2014-04-17 01:50:19 PM  
Basically they want freedom speech and they also want people who disagree with them to have no freedom of speech to take a shiat on the original free speech.
 
2014-04-17 01:52:38 PM  
yes "The LEFT" is doing it...and only the LEFT... just like all those massive "LEFTIST" Free Speech Deniers who went after the Dixie Chicks back in 2003...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kan8ZPBPqo
 
2014-04-17 01:53:30 PM  
ripdoo?
 
2014-04-17 01:54:05 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat


I'm pretty sure he's not utlilizing a "b-b-b-b-but" against Obama or the Clinton's.  He is commenting on the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue.  How is that not hypocritical?
 
2014-04-17 01:54:52 PM  
where were these pearl clutching farkfaces when disagreement with government action was reason to be labeled a traitor or treasonous - when stating baldly obvious facts was to be labeled a 'saddam lover' or 'in bin laden's corner'.

The largest peice of wool pulled over these people's eyes is the concept that 'political correctness' only applies to other people's politics. To them, the 'you can't say that' brigade that agrees with them is just normal people being normal, or something.
 
2014-04-17 01:56:10 PM  
is this a matter of free speech? or should a couple of young ladies literally be physically assaulted for voicing their opinions?
 
2014-04-17 01:58:01 PM  

Barricaded Gunman: SauronWasFramed: // Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

"Nary a discouraging word "? Bullsh*t. Clinton and Obama were roundly criticized by members of their own party for being on the wrong side of history, and eventually they came around.

Whereas Reagan and both Bushes opposed same sex marriage, never became "ready for it" and continue to oppose it to this day (well, not Reagan, thankfully). And all the mouth-breathing Jesus wheezers in the GOP celebrated them for doing it.

You'll have to forgive the rest of us for not being as impressed as you apparently are by your party's politically-motivated, backward-thinking intransigence.


Oh look, someone who is thankful someone he has political disagreements with is dead.  And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."
 
2014-04-17 01:58:13 PM  
while I don't agree with that CEO that mozilla hired, that's not the reason I'm boycotting them.


They make a third rate piece of shiat web browser, it only used to be "good" because it was the only alternative to internet explorer there was. Now that chrome is available, there is absolutely no reason to use that antiquated looking, hard to use (for the average computer idiot I have to support) piece of software over Chrome.

at all.
 
2014-04-17 01:58:23 PM  
You have the right to say whatever ignorant shiat you want.

What you WANT is to not have to face ridicule and repercussions for saying stupid shiat.

Sorry, Jack. That's fantasy land.
 
2014-04-17 01:59:58 PM  

Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-17 02:00:37 PM  

Stratohead: just like all those massive "LEFTIST" Free Speech Deniers who went after


...  Glenn Beck (!).
 
2014-04-17 02:01:53 PM  
Did someone lose their high profile job for being a reprehensible prick?  That's not the way it usually works.
 
2014-04-17 02:06:47 PM  

Jjaro: the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue


This is the first time I've heard that the people who signed that petition never criticized Democrats who opposed gay marriage. If that's true then they deserve to be called hypocritical.

But is it true, or is it just a bullsh*t accusation? Because it sure sounds like a bullsh*t accusation.
 
2014-04-17 02:06:58 PM  
Maybe they should pull themselves up by their boot straps and start convincing people that theirs is the correct position instead of being a bunch of babies. Gay rights wasn't exactly popular in the 60's and 70's, and many gay activists suffered far worse than this laughable list of so-called grievances against free speech. Now, a majority of Americans support gay rights.
 
2014-04-17 02:07:15 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Diogenes: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 240x243]

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.

It's like Seth Rogen and Ron Perlman had a really ugly baby.


I'm going to ask this, because I feel this is a really important discussion, but do you think Seth Rogen and Ron Pearlman could produce a not ugly baby?
 
2014-04-17 02:08:45 PM  
There were a lot of words in that article but for some reason it all read like

i371.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-17 02:10:03 PM  
"How the Left..."

images.starcraftmazter.net
 
2014-04-17 02:10:38 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


I call it the Spook Tater. Or the Spock Hater.
 
2014-04-17 02:12:54 PM  
All the recent spate of conservative butthurt and "can't we all get along?" whining comes down to one thing: they're losing. They're losing on every front, they know they're losing, and suddenly the ideological inflexibility which was fine when they were calling the shots is proof of progressive unfairness. In a certain sense this guy is right--people should be willing to listen to the arguments of the other side and argue them civilly. But when your ideological opponents have positioned themselves at the extreme of edge of, not only what's civil but what's ethical, and increasingly, what's legal, you are within your rights to refuse to reach out across an abyss of disagreement which they themselves created. The right wing has staked out a position that is reactionary and called it the new conservative norm. Old fashioned liberals and moderates are not obliged to accept their extremism as legitimate. We are no more obliged to communicate with them civilly than we are with the representatives of the Westboro Baptist Church.
 
2014-04-17 02:13:00 PM  

Headso: Basically they want freedom speech and they also want people who disagree with them to have no freedom of speech to take a shiat on the original free speech.


Not like us. We want our free speech and to make sure people who disagree with us face the consequences. That's much better.
 
2014-04-17 02:13:49 PM  

Wooly Bully: Jjaro: the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue

This is the first time I've heard that the people who signed that petition never criticized Democrats who opposed gay marriage. If that's true then they deserve to be called hypocritical.

But is it true, or is it just a bullsh*t accusation? Because it sure sounds like a bullsh*t accusation.


I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.  I can criticize my friends/acquaintances/random people on the internet's political views, without feeling the need to try to get them fired or by boycotting their product for a stance they held 6 years ago, when close to a majority of Americans had that same stance.
 
2014-04-17 02:13:56 PM  

lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West


Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg
 
2014-04-17 02:14:12 PM  

qorkfiend: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

[i.imgur.com image 562x437]


IIRC, Dick Cheney didn't "support" marriage equality so much as "didn't join the Republican fight against it". Privately, I think it's clear he does support it, but publicly, it was "No comment. We love our daughters" for Junior's whole tenure in office.

And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.
 
2014-04-17 02:14:43 PM  
so does this mean it's now illegal to put shiatposters on ignore
 
2014-04-17 02:16:50 PM  
Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.
 
2014-04-17 02:16:53 PM  

js34603: Headso: Basically they want freedom speech and they also want people who disagree with them to have no freedom of speech to take a shiat on the original free speech.

Not like us. We want our free speech and to make sure people who disagree with us face the consequences. That's much better.


That's how society works.  If you can't keep your ridiculous opinions to yourself, you deserve to be scorned and ridiculed and ostracized until you can convince everyone else that you're not really an asshole anymore.
 
2014-04-17 02:17:38 PM  

Jjaro: How is that not hypocritical?


Well, mostly because it's not true. Obama has been taking flak for his vacillating opinion on the issue since he ran for his senate seat and Clinton was president 20 years ago during a time period when social opinions on homosexuality were just beginning to come around. You can't just look back to a time period when EVERYBODY'S opinions were different and then criticize one of those people for changing it.

Back to the point of Obama, unlike the unapologetically homophobic Eich, Obama opposed Prop 8 and his opinion, while shifting with the political winds, has never been firmly anti-gay. He has always supported, at a bare minimum, civil unions and has never donated to restrict the rights of others based on their sexual orientation. Apples, meet oranges.

But, whatever. If they didn't have completely inapt analogies and similes the right wouldn't have any at all, it seems.
 
2014-04-17 02:17:41 PM  
Does this mean you can't order a double soy vente machiotto with a scoop of fried onions and sprinkles?

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 02:18:18 PM  

sprawl15: so does this mean it's now illegal to put shiatposters on ignore


~fartz~
 
2014-04-17 02:19:20 PM  

Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.


Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.
 
2014-04-17 02:20:22 PM  
This reeks of the ol' "I like [the free market || freedom of speech] until it comes back to fark me" song and dance.

Sounds like someone is trying to argue for a moral bailout.
 
2014-04-17 02:22:07 PM  

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

[i.imgur.com image 562x437]

IIRC, Dick Cheney didn't "support" marriage equality so much as "didn't join the Republican fight against it". Privately, I think it's clear he does support it, but publicly, it was "No comment. We love our daughters" for Junior's whole tenure in office.

And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.


And pushed for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.
 
2014-04-17 02:22:10 PM  

vharshyde: "Debate" "Climate Change". Yeah. There IS no debate.


Agreed. It's a thinly veiled attack on free enterprise. End of discussion.
 
2014-04-17 02:23:11 PM  

TheBlackrose: This reeks of the ol' "I like [the free market || freedom of speech] until it comes back to fark me" song and dance.

Sounds like someone is trying to argue for a moral bailout.


Nah, it's that society is turning on the social conservatives and they don't really know how to deal with it.  It's mind-blowing to them that their reactionary actions and words can come back to haunt them.

Basically, they're irate that they're not able to be hateful to others without others coming down on them for it in meaningful ways that they can't ignore.
 
2014-04-17 02:23:35 PM  

lantawa: Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  Baathist techniques involve swarming, supressive thuggery and brute intellectual and physical silencing of dissenting opinion.  If the rule of law were not so completely and effectively ensconced in U.S. legal systems, the thuggery, dogma, and ideological suppression of this gross, sick political movement would move forward in the West.  It is a very good thing that the system of checks and balances are in place to stop this type of political machine.  Be aware of it:  It is real.  And, man, it is one dirty, sucky political movement.  No  wonder it finds a home grafted onto collectivism and excessive socialist posturing.

Personally, I'd really like to see da Mooslins adopt a friendliness to "beer."  "Beer" is a great and beautiful substance, and can sweep away the bad craziness of hysterical intellectual and political obsessiveness.  Alcohol!  The cause of and the answer to all of life's problems.


I would like to subscribe to and/or suppress your newsletter.
 
2014-04-17 02:24:29 PM  

stpauler: Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.

Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the ...


Good lord, what an epic smackdown.  Wow, Gulper, you must feel like quite the twat.
 
2014-04-17 02:25:25 PM  

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


Of course - otherwise we wouldn't be free. Freedom is a two way street.

I'm free to publicly espouse whatever beliefs I wish to - no matter how odious. Others are free to react as they feel appropriate (violence no withstanding, of course). That includes their own speech, and choosing whether or not to patronize my business. If someone's beliefs turn others away from them that is EXACTLY freedom.

If others are not free to react and impose the consequences they see fit within legal bounds then what you're suggesting is freedom for me, but not for thee.
 
2014-04-17 02:25:52 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Whining, apparently, is free enough

/and in abundant supply


And fun, too!
 
2014-04-17 02:26:23 PM  

Serious Black: I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.


The employees decided they weren't going to work for a bigot -- which is a simple general term for "one who would deny equal rights to a minority group." They openly signed letters using their real names, prepared to leave the company. The Board didn't force a resignation because of his donation, they didn't give a damn about that, they forced him out because he could never lead and he'd have been a serious impediment to the company's progress.

If we want to frame this in right-wing terms, the employees were prepared to exercise their capitalist rights to not work for a company they didn't like, and the company decided it was in their best interest to prevent that.
 
2014-04-17 02:26:45 PM  

mongbiohazard: Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?

Of course - otherwise we wouldn't be free. Freedom is a two way street.

I'm free to publicly espouse whatever beliefs I wish to - no matter how odious. Others are free to react as they feel appropriate (violence no withstanding, of course). That includes their own speech, and choosing whether or not to patronize my business. If someone's beliefs turn others away from them that is EXACTLY freedom.

If others are not free to react and impose the consequences they see fit within legal bounds then what you're suggesting is freedom for me, but not for thee.


They want the freedom to say what they like, do as they like, just without social consequences.
 
2014-04-17 02:27:21 PM  
Of course you're always entitled to express your opinion.  How else are we to know that you're a raging farkwit?
 
2014-04-17 02:27:48 PM  

cchris_39: Agreed. It's a thinly veiled attack on free enterprise. End of discussion.


Only to the extent that you believe "free-enterprise" to be a thinly-veiled attack on humanity.....
 
2014-04-17 02:28:46 PM  
Dafuq happened in 1770? Saint Reagan holy essence spawned the seed of 'Merica?
 
2014-04-17 02:29:31 PM  
Gah, TF gone! Damn it Drew, shut up and take my money
 
2014-04-17 02:31:09 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

I'm still confused about him resigning.  He didn't even try to do any damage control.  It was just a few whiny bloggers and one dating site that was freaking out.

There had to be something else going on.


Like three people on mozilla's board resigned when he was appointed CEO
 
2014-04-17 02:31:35 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


More like "if my side does it, who cares?"

i58.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-17 02:33:32 PM  

Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.


Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.
 
2014-04-17 02:33:57 PM  
         RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)


Long live the invisible hand of the market!
 
2014-04-17 02:34:19 PM  

Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.


How do you want me to prove a negative?  There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance."  I'm speaking from personal experience.  I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage.  If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.

skozlaw: Jjaro: How is that not hypocritical?

Well, mostly because it's not true. Obama has been taking flak for his vacillating opinion on the issue since he ran for his senate seat and Clinton was president 20 years ago during a time period when social opinions on homosexuality were just beginning to come around. You can't just look back to a time period when EVERYBODY'S opinions were different and then criticize one of those people for changing it.

Back to the point of Obama, unlike the unapologetically homophobic Eich, Obama opposed Prop 8 and his opinion, while shifting with the political winds, has never been firmly anti-gay. He has always supported, at a bare minimum, civil unions and has never donated to restrict the rights of others based on their sexual orientation. Apples, meet oranges.

But, whatever. If they didn't have completely inapt analogies and similes the right wouldn't have any at all, it seems.


I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well.  Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place.  And I think you are going out on a limb saying Eich is "unapologetically homophobic."  While that may be true, he did in fact, apologize.  And, as far as any one can tell, never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.  I don't want to speak for the guy, but his actions seem to state that he accepted the conservative view of marraige.  And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions, as Prop 8 only mentioned marraige.
 
2014-04-17 02:35:27 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Serious Black: I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.

The employees decided they weren't going to work for a bigot -- which is a simple general term for "one who would deny equal rights to a minority group." They openly signed letters using their real names, prepared to leave the company. The Board didn't force a resignation because of his donation, they didn't give a damn about that, they forced him out because he could never lead and he'd have been a serious impediment to the company's progress.

If we want to frame this in right-wing terms, the employees were prepared to exercise their capitalist rights to not work for a company they didn't like, and the company decided it was in their best interest to prevent that.


I do remember hearing that. I also remember that the board had a lot of resignations after his promotion. The resignation/quitting/firing/whatever may not have explicitly been over his donation, but that was what precipitated it. But I think the reasoning is irrelevant; if either Mozilla or Eich didn't want to continue the contract making him CEO because of an employee mutiny, it's their right to not continue it. If they didn't want to do so specifically because of the donation, it's still their right. If they didn't want to do so for any reason other than those specifically outlined in federal and California anti-discrimination statutes, it's still their right.
 
2014-04-17 02:38:30 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


You may have seen the press and academic institutions like that, but the very idea of publicly expressed views as being consequence-free is ridiculous.  That's not how the world works, no matter how you might view it.

Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.
 
2014-04-17 02:39:14 PM  

Gulper Eel: Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


Losing in the marketplace of ideas is not being "shouted out."

Academia is not the place where "everything goes" academically, it is a place where ideas are judged on their merits, especially according to the scientific method.  This article and the white knights here are merely complaining that it's not fair that some ideas don't stand up to such scrutiny.
 
2014-04-17 02:43:24 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.


Right, and don't forget which party has been crusading to strip down any remaining workers' rights in favor of all the cards being held solely by the employer - Just the word "union" is enough to get most of them riled up. Yep, employers can do whatever the fark they want and employees don't matter. "Right to work" and all that. Don't need a reason to fire people in most states now because somehow giving workers any rights is "socialism." As if individual workers are totally able to take on corporations they work for as if it were an equal footing and no rights for employees are needed. Think about that, dumbasses.
 
2014-04-17 02:44:58 PM  

Jjaro: Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat

I'm pretty sure he's not utlilizing a "b-b-b-b-but" against Obama or the Clinton's.  He is commenting on the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue.  How is that not hypocritical?

Nuance seems to be something that the Right has a really hard time understanding. Voting for Obama did not mean you agreed with every position he took. In 2008, gay marriage supporters had two choices: (1) vote for the guy who supports civil unions and hope that his stance on same-sex marriage changes changes over time or (2) vote for a candidate from the party that supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Doesn't seem like hypocrisy to me.

OTOH, there are many people qualified to be the CEO of Mozilla. It wasn't like they had to choose between Eich (who only believed in discriminating against his gay employees outside of the office) and zombie Fred Phelps.
 
2014-04-17 02:45:17 PM  

Dimensio: In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


I'm sure they feel the exact same way when Family Research Council (or other Conservative entities) boycott some company over abortion, homosexual rights, or 'fer the chilldrun' complaints to the FCC, et al. There is no way they would have a double-standard. Double-standards are for liebruls and MSM Lamestream media.

/snicker
 
2014-04-17 02:45:51 PM  

SauronWasFramed: Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Oh, bullshiat. Anyone who says Obama or Clinton got a free pass from the left for anything is just betraying their loyalty to right-wing "news" outlets.
 
2014-04-17 02:46:04 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


I stopped reading at "How the Left-"
 
2014-04-17 02:46:16 PM  
the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.
 
2014-04-17 02:47:02 PM  
So, I guess we should invite Ahmadinnerjacket to our university to speak out about how no homosexuals exist in Iran and that the Holocaust did not exist and sit quietly and respectfully as he makes his remarks?  Or are we allowed by the Right to at least publicly and loudly guffaw as he declares the nonexistence of gay people and Jews killed in the death camps?

Right, that's exactly what the Right said.
 
2014-04-17 02:47:26 PM  

Infernalist: Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.


So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and  she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.
 
2014-04-17 02:47:29 PM  
I actually don't really agree with what happened to the Firefox CEO, but stuff like that has been happening since free markets began.

Anytime a brand is associated with a violation of societies' norms it hurts business.  Think about it, if the same CEO was taking a stand against mixed race marriages or a women's right to vote there would be no butthurt from the right, they accept those things as norms now (in general of course).  Most people would say the CEO was racist and sexist and probably will run the business that way.  I know I would avoid that CEOs products until he was let go.

The only controversy in this case is because gay right/marriage is not accepted at that level yet.  Things sometimes happen faster than we think.

But make no mistake, this is less a function of liberal power than a function of the free market.
 
2014-04-17 02:49:28 PM  

cchris_39: vharshyde: "Debate" "Climate Change". Yeah. There IS no debate.

Agreed. It's a thinly veiled attack on free enterprise. End of discussion.


Because reasons.
 
2014-04-17 02:50:43 PM  

Infernalist: Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he thinks?

Clearly, a lot of people.

Since money is now considered 'free speech'(thanks, SC!), it's perfectly acceptable to enact legal consequences against him for his 'free speech' expression.

To my way of thinking, a boycott against Mozilla because he donated money to Prop 8 is the same as boycotting a diner because the cook is constantly using racial slurs.


This.  If speech = money then you would technically be able to verbally bribe someone or be charged with paying for sex by talking for it.
 
2014-04-17 02:51:18 PM  

heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.


Hadn't you heard? Corporations are people now, and just like people, a disturbingly large number of them are loudmouth dipsh*ts with ill-formed political opinions.
 
2014-04-17 02:52:36 PM  

Jjaro: I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well


Which is immaterial since I was talking about the Clinton administration's behavior being in-line with the prevailing attitude of the time.

Jjaro: Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place


No, "over half of CA" did not vote for prop 8. Over half of the people who showed up did. So 52% of 80% of registered voters - which is 78% of eligible voters - voted for prop 8. So, no, nowhere near half of CA voted for prop 8. It doesn't really matter what the state as a whole thinks if a good chunk of it can't be bothered to actually go vote to make it happen, which is a constant problem for the democratic party in every state.

Jjaro: he did in fact, apologize


No, he did not. The foundation offered an apology, not Eich.

Jjaro: never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.


That has nothing to do with anything as he was never attacked for "restricting the rights of gays at Mozilla". You can't just make up arbitrary things he didn't do as redeeming qualities when nobody is saying he did them in the first place.

Jjaro: And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions


I don't know a lot of things about him, what's your point? I do know that at a bare minimum Obama has never supported prop 8 and has always supported at least civil unions. He is also the first sitting president to state unequivocal support for gay marriage and he was integral in the overturning of DADT, one of the bigger mistakes of the Clinton years.

I also know for a fact that Eich supported prop 8 and nothing else has really been said about him on the subject.

Unlike opinions. There is no comparison between the two. You cannot claim that there is hypocrisy when a person supports one and derides the other when the two are entirely unalike.
 
2014-04-17 02:54:18 PM  

RyogaM: So, I guess we should invite Ahmadinnerjacket to our university to speak out about how no homosexuals exist in Iran and that the Holocaust did not exist and sit quietly and respectfully as he makes his remarks?  Or are we allowed by the Right to at least publicly and loudly guffaw as he declares the nonexistence of gay people and Jews killed in the death camps?

Right, that's exactly what the Right said.


Were my college to invite him, I'd say let him come. Let him say his piece. Let him make a fool of himself in the name of his faith. Let the community see what a shiat he is.

You don't extend the invite and then withdraw it at the first sign of a little heat.

You mentioned Ahmagonnagityousucka. Funny you should mention him. Columbia University invited him to speak. They  did it right. And in the end, he revealed himself as a buffoon.

Brandeis did it wrong, and with a vastly less objectionable speaker.
 
2014-04-17 02:54:58 PM  

heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.


It's funny... all we ever hear is "vote with your wallet", but then, when you actualy do it, somehow that's wrong.
 
2014-04-17 02:55:01 PM  

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


Here's the problem - his job has very much to do with his view, and how the public views them.  The job of a CEO isn't like the job of a carpenter or a clerk.  A CEO's job is to maintain public image and increase the value of the company.  Your public image and personal views go to the very heart of your job.  It doesn't matter if you are good at merger and acquisition activity, speeches, and leading a team of executives.  If your public image can hurt the brand of company, you're directly hurting your job.

We live in a free market, right to work job environment.  The right has embraced this concept for centuries.  With that comes certain drawbacks.  A company can let you go (or ask you to leave) for any reason that hasn't been legally defined as related to a protected class.  As long as they embrace that model, and there aren't safeguards that ensure that only your job performance matters, people WILL be fired for secondary things that the company finds a disruption to their goals, values, or interests.

Now, the government can't censor those views, and can't criminally penalize you for it, but that's it.  The private market can make its own judgements.  Mozilla was legally and ethically justified in asking their CEO to step down.  His views can seriously damage the brand and the company, and it was in their best interests to let him go.

As painful as it is, the free market worked EXACTLY as intended.
 
2014-04-17 02:55:04 PM  

menschenfresser: MurphyMurphy: Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.

Right, and don't forget which party has been crusading to strip down any remaining workers' rights in favor of all the cards being held solely by the employer - Just the word "union" is enough to get most of them riled up. Yep, employers can do whatever the fark they want and employees don't matter. "Right to work" and all that. Don't need a reason to fire people in most states now because somehow giving workers any rights is "socialism." As if individual workers are totally able to take on corporations they work for as if it were an equal footing and no rights for employees are needed. Think about that, dumbasses.


"Right to work" is a loaded topic I'm not about to dive in to... but it really is far from on-topic.

You'very always been able to be fired from a private enterprise for any or even no reason at all.

What is and has been illegal is being fired for a very specific list of protected things. And the freedom to say whatever you want is not amongst them.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:05 PM  

js34603: Headso: Basically they want freedom speech and they also want people who disagree with them to have no freedom of speech to take a shiat on the original free speech.

Not like us. We want our free speech and to make sure people who disagree with us face the consequences. That's much better.


Yes it is. People who disagree with us have a right to say what they want as well and take matters in hand to make us face a consequence if we disagree, apart from anything illegal or immoral.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:19 PM  

heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.


Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:33 PM  

theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg


You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.
 
2014-04-17 02:58:48 PM  
I clicked on that shiat, subby. I demand an apology.
 
2014-04-17 02:59:43 PM  

skozlaw: Jjaro: I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well

Which is immaterial since I was talking about the Clinton administration's behavior being in-line with the prevailing attitude of the time.

Jjaro: Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place

No, "over half of CA" did not vote for prop 8. Over half of the people who showed up did. So 52% of 80% of registered voters - which is 78% of eligible voters - voted for prop 8. So, no, nowhere near half of CA voted for prop 8. It doesn't really matter what the state as a whole thinks if a good chunk of it can't be bothered to actually go vote to make it happen, which is a constant problem for the democratic party in every state.

Jjaro: he did in fact, apologize

No, he did not. The foundation offered an apology, not Eich.

Jjaro: never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.

That has nothing to do with anything as he was never attacked for "restricting the rights of gays at Mozilla". You can't just make up arbitrary things he didn't do as redeeming qualities when nobody is saying he did them in the first place.

Jjaro: And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions

I don't know a lot of things about him, what's your point? I do know that at a bare minimum Obama has never supported prop 8 and has always supported at least civil unions. He is also the first sitting president to state unequivocal support for gay marriage and he was integral in the overturning of DADT, one of the bigger mistakes of the Clinton years.

I also know for a fact that Eich supported prop 8 and nothing else has really been said about him on the subject.

Unlike opinions. There is no comparison between the two. You cannot claim that there is hypocrisy when a person supports one and derides the other when the two are entirely unalike.



I wasn't around then but one day it was OK to be against mixed race marriages, and the next day it wasn't.  It was OK to say the n-word and the next day it wasn't.  It was OK to be against women voting and the next day it wasn't.  Etc.....

We are at that sort of time with gay marriage right now.
 
2014-04-17 03:00:29 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.


I aint suggesting solutions, I'm content to look at reality and find it royally frigged.

There are just moments where it's clear that botulism has gotten into the American Experiment's petri dish - this is one of them.
 
2014-04-17 03:01:12 PM  

Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.


Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.
 
2014-04-17 03:03:25 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: heap: the fun part of this one is way out in tangentville from what's typically discussed - the 'money=speech' routine we've all become innoculated with.

It's now normal to evaluate the politcal stances of the businesses where you buy underwear, a chicken sammitch, or apparently a free browser. It isn't just the businesses speech expressed by the money given by it or its constituent members, it's now *your* money that you'll either give to these companies, or keep in your pocket...that's considered speech.

There are groups dedicated to letting people stay abreast of whether their perveyor of Fruit Loops thinks the right things about gays, guns, and god (on both sides of the issues). This is apparently like...normal.

Can't we just save some time and have the right wing hardware store and the left wing grocery store have a rumble in the shared parking lot? I swear to zombie jesus, the moment that lining up to buy a chicken sammich became seen as a political statement by those involved, Fonzie jumped over 37 sharks.

Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.


Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?
 
2014-04-17 03:03:46 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and  she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.


When you want to get around to addressing what I said, as opposed to what the voices in your head said, I'll be right here.
 
2014-04-17 03:04:07 PM  

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".
 
2014-04-17 03:04:11 PM  

cchris_39: /proud bootstrappy bigot.


you could have erased the rest of your whining and just posted this
 
2014-04-17 03:05:09 PM  

Gulper Eel: You mentioned Ahmagonnagityousucka. Funny you should mention him. Columbia University invited him to speak. They did it right. And in the end, he revealed himself as a buffoon.


And the Right excoriated them for it.  They claimed it would legitimize his positions and give him a platform to expose his ideas, the same argument they used against giving trials to accused terrorists, too, BTW.  That's the farking point, that the RW is suddenly trying to pretend that they care about free speech but only do now that it is coming out against them.

Gulper Eel: Brandeis did it wrong, and with a vastly less objectionable speaker.


Great, you are right, Brandeis farked up.  Now, explain why one fark up by one university in the entirety of this country is supposed to represent a new insurgence of Leftist censorship.  Because it doesn't.  What it does represent is that this particular university skittish as hell about inviting Muslim reprisals against their students.  It sucks, but is understandable.
 
2014-04-17 03:06:01 PM  

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


ahhhh, the conservative victim. That train is never late!
 
2014-04-17 03:06:08 PM  
How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate - from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage

Without reading TFA let me guess:

1. bombing brown people=good
2. global warming=wealth distribution
3. I have a right to be a homophobic bigot


did I miss something?
 
2014-04-17 03:06:17 PM  

cchris_39: stuff


So, your point here is that you take offense at being called a racist, but not enough to change your behavior?  The REAL problem is that liberals are being mean to you?

Oh, and BTW:

"If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined"

There's a name for this belief.  It's called "white supremacy."  If you don't like that fact, then perhaps you need to make some changes.
 
2014-04-17 03:07:21 PM  
Meh. Free expression is and always will be under attack from the expansive fringeosphere. Not worried I'll be denied the right to call you a douchebag.
 
2014-04-17 03:08:03 PM  

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


lantawa: But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.
 
2014-04-17 03:08:30 PM  

Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative? There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance." I'm speaking from personal experience. I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage. If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.


Well, I think there is some intellectual dishonesty at play here. From the beginning of Obama's statements on gay marriage, while he was initially in favor of "civil unions" over "marriage", he was clear in advocating these unions have all the same protections and rights as marriage. Now were there people criticizing him over his unwillingness to go big, of course. But it's important to note that having a prominent Senator, and potential President, on the side of full legal recognition of same-sex couples had great potential, and was a step forward.

None of that is the same as denying rights.
 
2014-04-17 03:09:05 PM  

Gulper Eel: When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.


I was unaware I was still allowed to own slaves.
 
2014-04-17 03:09:25 PM  

heap: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Now that corporations can buy as much "speech" as they want, how to you propose that us serfs influence the political process? It's perfectly valid for me to choose not to contribute to the profits of a company who's speech I find abhorrent.

I aint suggesting solutions, I'm content to look at reality and find it royally frigged.

There are just moments where it's clear that botulism has gotten into the American Experiment's petri dish - this is one of them.


I don't disagree with you, but you're blaming the victims instead of the source of the toxin - a corporatist Supreme Court and the politicians who created it.
 
2014-04-17 03:10:11 PM  

MurphyMurphy: menschenfresser: MurphyMurphy: Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.

Right, and don't forget which party has been crusading to strip down any remaining workers' rights in favor of all the cards being held solely by the employer - Just the word "union" is enough to get most of them riled up. Yep, employers can do whatever the fark they want and employees don't matter. "Right to work" and all that. Don't need a reason to fire people in most states now because somehow giving workers any rights is "socialism." As if individual workers are totally able to take on corporations they work for as if it were an equal footing and no rights for employees are needed. Think about that, dumbasses.

"Right to work" is a loaded topic I'm not about to dive in to... but it really is far from on-topic.

You'very always been able to be fired from a private enterprise for any or even no reason at all.

What is and has been illegal is being fired for a very specific list of protected things. And the freedom to say whatever you want is not amongst them.


I concede that 'right to work' isn't exactly on-topic, but it struck me that the people saying (incorrectly) that "free speech" means anyone should be able to say what they want and not get fired, are the same people who crusade for employees to have no protection versus their employers. I agree with you about speech not being protected for termination purposes and certainly am not defending this knuckle-dragger who was let go, just pointing out what seems to be hipocrisy.
 
2014-04-17 03:10:28 PM  

Aldon: Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?


Possibly, but that's largely because phrases like 'bottom line' mean different things when you're talking about a product that is given away.

In other words, loss to their image mattered more than financial loss - both could be described as 'bottom line' in this case, where in other businesses it might not compare the same.

In other, other words, when you're a mozilla-like company that seems to exist on banked goodwill, pissing on that goodwill will hurt you quicker than in another, more common business setting.
 
2014-04-17 03:11:52 PM  

grumpfuff: Gulper Eel: When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.

I was unaware I was still allowed to own slaves.


you just have to call them interns
 
2014-04-17 03:12:02 PM  

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


I was going to take the time to address this, but it wouldn't penetrate, so why bother?  You're a proud bigot and there's nothing else to be said but that.

This is the part where social consequences come into play.
 
2014-04-17 03:12:11 PM  

cchris_39: If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),


We already know. Was there actually a point to this demonstration?
 
2014-04-17 03:12:12 PM  

Gulper Eel: So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.


And it's impossible to believe that the victim of such violence might - MIGHT, mind you - harbor a few metric tons of resentment over not only the subculture that allows (or demands) this violence, but the larger culture that has not uprooted it; while also combining the many, many stripes of the "culture" (which encapsulates 20-25% of the world's population, so yeah, there's going to be diversity there) into a single one and condemning the whole thing?

We shouldn't give a megaphone to a rape survivor who wants all men castrated, either.
 
2014-04-17 03:14:50 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I don't disagree with you, but you're blaming the victims instead of the source of the toxin - a corporatist Supreme Court and the politicians who created it.


well, blame wasn't my intent.

I suppose it works, tho - I just can't help but notice the whole country is now playing the FRC/Moral Majority game from the 80s, and I don't like it.

You're playing the game you were given. Perhaps it might be more succint to say that I aint hating the playa, my disapprobation is squarely directed at the game.
 
2014-04-17 03:15:15 PM  

Dimensio: In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


Then why aren't they running Obama out of office for the same thing?... they held the same position about marriage at the same time?

The stupid... it burns.
 
2014-04-17 03:15:35 PM  

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


Like the Tea Party members when meeting their elected representatives?
 
2014-04-17 03:16:45 PM  
Brandeis farked up. Mozilla was well within its rights to force out the officer who would be the face of the company for being personally and politically against the perception of that company, especially after his appointment caused a significant amount of internal unrest, including three board members resigning in protest. This wasn't because of OKCupid posting a mean message on their Web site. It wasn't about the homogay lobby. It was about Eich's appointment stirring up more shiat for Mozilla than he was worth.

As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.
 
2014-04-17 03:18:00 PM  

heap: Aldon: Right, who thinks Mozilla would have forced him out if it wasn't going to affect their bottom line?

Possibly, but that's largely because phrases like 'bottom line' mean different things when you're talking about a product that is given away.

In other words, loss to their image mattered more than financial loss - both could be described as 'bottom line' in this case, where in other businesses it might not compare the same.

In other, other words, when you're a mozilla-like company that seems to exist on banked goodwill, pissing on that goodwill will hurt you quicker than in another, more common business setting.


Private businesses exist for one reason, and that always involves money...but not always in the same way so that's why I said "bottom line".
 
2014-04-17 03:20:23 PM  

Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."


O rly?

/angry at him for being against it when it became more politically convenient
 
2014-04-17 03:20:56 PM  

Dr Dreidel: And it's impossible to believe that the victim of such violence might - MIGHT, mind you - harbor a few metric tons of resentment over not only the subculture that allows (or demands) this violence, but the larger culture that has not uprooted it; while also combining the many, many stripes of the "culture" (which encapsulates 20-25% of the world's population, so yeah, there's going to be diversity there) into a single one and condemning the whole thing?

We shouldn't give a megaphone to a rape survivor who wants all men castrated, either.


All religions, Islam, Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. should be publicly criticized, every day of the week, by anyone willing to take on the responsibility, because they are all, without exception, superstitious drivel.  Why someone would volunteer to take on the responsibility should never matter.  They should be applauded simply for opposing balderdash.
 
2014-04-17 03:21:02 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".


That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..
 
2014-04-17 03:21:45 PM  

Gulper Eel: Care to defend what Brandeis did?


They denied her the honorary degree, but offered to have her come and debate her point of view which is "Islam must be exterminated".  And given her history, I can kind of get where she is coming from, but there is no obligation to let her get the degree and speak at commencement.

Keep in mind that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia U, most of the people who were outraged about Ali not speaking were calling to his speaking engagement cancelled.

That's not an apples to apples comparison, but it;s as close as we can get .  Ali was given an opportunity to make her case, she chose to complain to her wingnut friends.  Brandeis should have googled her, rather than giving her an opportunity based on her publicity bio.  They farked up in multiople ways here, but this has nothing to do with the freedom of ideas.
 
2014-04-17 03:21:51 PM  

Aldon: Private businesses exist for one reason, and that always involves money...but not always in the same way so that's why I said "bottom line".


yah - if I was clear as mud w/ that one, I was agreeing, but clarifying. Mozilla is in a situation that makes it more vulnerable to image issues than Home Depot, for example. The fact that their product is free, and their competition is free...gives a certain measure more freedom to the consumer to say 'frig you' if their image isn't what's wanted.
 
2014-04-17 03:22:25 PM  

Infernalist: When you want to get around to addressing what I said, as opposed to what the voices in your head said, I'll be right here.


I addressed exactly what you said - that some ideas are preposterous and retarded. I brought up TFA's example of Brandeis first inviting Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak while praising her courage, and then weaseling out of their commitment under heat from the politically-correct idiots in their student body. Your remarks  defended this sort of anti-intellectualism, if not the outright lying by the college's administration as to why they did what they did. The whiners, in this case, were the students. They feel uncomfortable that their faith was being challenged? Too farking bad. Having beliefs challenged is what they signed up for, even if they were too dim to understand it when they applied.
 
2014-04-17 03:22:41 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


What the fark are you talking about?
 
2014-04-17 03:22:42 PM  

grumpfuff: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

O rly?

/angry at him for being against it when it became more politically convenient


It didn't kill enough brown people or pump up the Halliburton enough.
 
2014-04-17 03:23:50 PM  

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


If that mere disagreement is "lalcks/gays/mexicans" ought to be treated like property, yes.
 
2014-04-17 03:24:03 PM  

Bloody William: As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.


Uh.... The Spectator isn't a U.S. publication...
 
2014-04-17 03:24:25 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


Rubbish.  The Baathists used the Iraqi government to shut down dissent through violence and intimidation of violence.

Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right.  If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.
 
2014-04-17 03:25:31 PM  

Infernalist: Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right. If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.


my bet was 'people are arguing with a quotebot'.
 
2014-04-17 03:26:12 PM  
Does this mean that in a few years, we are going to need affirmative action for bigots? If they become a minority class, won't that make them a protected class?
 
2014-04-17 03:26:36 PM  

Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative?  There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance."  I'm speaking from personal experience.  I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage.  If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.


You made a baseless accusation of hypocrisy. The burden's now on you to show they are hypocrites; apparently you can't, so admit that in the absence of actual evidence of hypocrisy you were wrong to make the charge.
 
2014-04-17 03:26:37 PM  

BSABSVR: Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?

If that mere disagreement is "lalcks/gays/mexicans" ought to be treated like property, yes.


You mean those aren't "mere disagreement?" You mean I'm not just "asking questions?"

I think we need to study it out.
 
2014-04-17 03:27:41 PM  

Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?


liberals are bad, a bloo blah bloo
 
2014-04-17 03:27:47 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?


He's really angry at the people that exist in his head.
 
2014-04-17 03:28:30 PM  

s2s2s2: Does this mean that in a few years, we are going to need affirmative action for bigots? If they become a minority class, won't that make them a protected class?


They'll be moved to the front of the line for shiat-shoveling jobs and cleaning bus station bathrooms.
 
2014-04-17 03:29:14 PM  

Shamwow: Like the Tea Party members when meeting their elected representatives?


Exactly so. Either be ready to debate and not yell past the person you disagree with, or take your Gadsden flag and go the fark home.

BSABSVR: Brandeis should have googled her, rather than giving her an opportunity based on her publicity bio.  They farked up in multiople ways here, but this has nothing to do with the freedom of ideas.


But having made their bed, they were too chickenshiat to sleep in it.
 
2014-04-17 03:29:29 PM  
heap:
...You're playing the game you were given. Perhaps it might be more succint to say that I aint hating the playa, my disapprobation is squarely directed at the game.

Fair enough.
 
2014-04-17 03:30:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?

liberals are bad, a bloo blah bloo TOTALLY JUST LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN!!11! BE AFRAID!

 
2014-04-17 03:32:08 PM  

Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-17 03:32:31 PM  

whidbey: They'll be moved to the front of the line for shiat-shoveling jobs...


They better start taping their mouths shut, then, or the pile they're shoveling will never get any smaller.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:31 PM  
cdn.niketalk.com

The edification of this emancipation reaps destruction of the paradigm that shifted into the systemization of coalescing facts discussed in bath houses. To disagree is to disregard the amalgamation of gentrification of liberalism and the vociferation of mesmerizing dedication.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:33 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.


You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. And obtuse; you seem to be obtuse, as well. Maybe you can settle your thoughts with a nice canine dish and some beer. That'd probably get you back on track so that a meaningful dialogue could be initiated.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:41 PM  

sprawl15: Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?

[i.imgur.com image 437x394]


i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-17 03:36:43 PM  

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


You know, I think they may make a medication for whatever is going on in your head.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:56 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: Dafuq happened in 1770? Saint Reagan holy essence spawned the seed of 'Merica?


Voltaire. "Reverend, I hate what you write, but I will give my life so that you can continue to write."  

Which became the more commonly (but incorrectly) attributed quote along the lines of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
 
2014-04-17 03:38:05 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?


Something that you obviously know nothing about......
 
2014-04-17 03:38:32 PM  

Gulper Eel: But having made their bed, they were too chickenshiat to sleep in it.


Well yes, welcome to every PR farkup everywhere.  That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.
 
2014-04-17 03:40:34 PM  

BSABSVR: Gulper Eel: But having made their bed, they were too chickenshiat to sleep in it.

Well yes, welcome to every PR farkup everywhere.  That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.


Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.
 
2014-04-17 03:40:37 PM  

lantawa: Something that you obviously know nothing about......


I'm sorry, adding "the fark" to my question might have made it seem antagonistic more than confused. I'll reword.

Would you please explain to me what the fark you are talking about, because I honestly don't know what the fark you're talking about and would like some clarification so I can perhaps remove the admittedly incredulous the fark from my statement?
 
2014-04-17 03:42:11 PM  

skozlaw: Bloody William: As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.

Uh.... The Spectator isn't a U.S. publication...


I confused it with the American Spectator.
 
2014-04-17 03:42:39 PM  

BSABSVR: That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.


I think it does. Not that they'll remember much about what the other graduation speakers have to say, but now it's guaranteed to be something along the usual forgettable blah blah blah go forth and blah blah blah you're too hung over to remember any of this blah blah blah and in conclusion blah blah blah good luck with that 200 grand in debt.
 
2014-04-17 03:44:41 PM  

lantawa: UrukHaiGuyz: You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.

You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. And obtuse; you seem to be obtuse, as well. Maybe you can settle your thoughts with a nice canine dish and some beer. That'd probably get you back on track so that a meaningful dialogue could be initiated.


You jump into the thread with equally paranoid and vague ramblings about how liberals in the U.S. are Ba'athists and you want to talk about meaningful dialogue? Not sure if crackpot or weird troll.

/'grats on your expansive vocabulary, though
//makes me lean more towards crackpot
///also....canine dish? wat
 
2014-04-17 03:45:59 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: also....canine dish? wat


muslims don't eat dogs

get it
 
2014-04-17 03:46:24 PM  
 
2014-04-17 03:46:31 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 03:46:46 PM  

stpauler: Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.

Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the ...


It seems the right is attempting to do to the word 'diversity' what they did to the word 'liberal'.
 
2014-04-17 03:47:35 PM  

Infernalist: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

Rubbish.  The Baathists used the Iraqi government to shut down dissent through violence and intimidation of violence.

Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right.  If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.


Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.
 
2014-04-17 03:48:28 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Take 20.


How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company? You can't force people to be customers.
 
2014-04-17 03:49:20 PM  
First of all, as the public, we have never had the universal right to free speech. Secondly, did this asshat of a writer find the same problem with Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A? If not, then STFU. Hobby Lobby is in the Supreme Court attempting to stifle free associations between consenting adults.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the only place anymore it seems where complete and total free speech is allowed is within the political system itself, and any corporation that has direct and close ties to the government (Fox News, I'm looking at you ya bunch of liars). Politicians have free reign to pretty much say whatever the hell they want. About the only thing they can't do is literally hold a noose in one hand and a poster threatening the president in the other hand.
 
2014-04-17 03:50:55 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech


because liberals did it, duh
 
2014-04-17 03:50:55 PM  

Gulper Eel: BSABSVR: That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.

I think it does. Not that they'll remember much about what the other graduation speakers have to say, but now it's guaranteed to be something along the usual forgettable blah blah blah go forth and blah blah blah you're too hung over to remember any of this blah blah blah and in conclusion blah blah blah good luck with that 200 grand in debt.


Ok.  So the commemcement speaker will suck.  Why is that controlling speech?  Ali was given a different option that would have put her "kill all the Muslims" philosophy on similar footing with Ahmedinijhad's "kill all the Jews" philosophy as far as having the opportunity to voice that opinion at a University.  She chose not to take it.  She has no fundamental right to a commencement address just because she won't be reading Doctor Suess.
 
2014-04-17 03:51:23 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Take 20.


lol no

change the channel or stay mad
that dog's been well-beaten in this threads
 
2014-04-17 03:51:40 PM  

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.


lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.


lantawa: The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.


Two statements. Directly undermining each other. Next to each other.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE MOCKED AND SCORNED.
 
2014-04-17 03:51:41 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: also....canine dish? wat

muslims don't eat dogs

get it


Ah, gotcha, thanks. I'm having a really hard time trying to make sense of this guy. He keeps on about "methodologies" and "tactics" without ever bothering to explain in detail what he's talking about. Very strange indeed.
 
2014-04-17 03:51:44 PM  

skozlaw: Jjaro: I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well

Which is immaterial since I was talking about the Clinton administration's behavior being in-line with the prevailing attitude of the time.


.
And I was saying Eich's views were inline with the prevailing attitute in 2008.  Although, I was referring to Hillary, not neccesary Bill.


skozlaw: Jjaro: Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place

No, "over half of CA" did not vote for prop 8. Over half of the people who showed up did. So 52% of 80% of registered voters - which is 78% of eligible voters - voted for prop 8. So, no, nowhere near half of CA voted for prop 8. It doesn't really matter what the state as a whole thinks if a good chunk of it can't be bothered to actually go vote to make it happen, which is a constant problem for the democratic party in every state.


Okay, you have me here.  Over half of the people who voted in a Presidential Election, and whom voted overwhelmingly for Obama, voted for Prop 8.  Not half of the state.  I apologize for not specifying.

skozlaw: Jjaro: he did in fact, apologize

No, he did not. The foundation offered an apology, not Eich.


Yes, he did.  Nice try though. "Before his resignation, Eich posted an apology on his blog for the "pain" he said his views had caused. He vowed to uphold a culture of equality as Mozilla's CEO, including maintaining the nonprofit's health benefits for same-sex couples "

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-ceos-exit-tests-silicon-valleys-tolera nc e-012554106--sector.html

2008, while only 6 years ago, was a hell of a lot different in terms of acceptance of gay marriage.  I just think its absurd that all these people were so adament that he resign.  I understand why he had to, and unlike some, I don't neccesarily think Mozilla is at fault.  It pretty much had to happen.  But I do agree with the point of this article, which can be witnessed pretty clearly by observing many Fark members, where dissenting opinion is simply not tolerated.
 
2014-04-17 03:52:53 PM  

lantawa: . Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 03:52:56 PM  

lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

Rubbish.  The Baathists used the Iraqi government to shut down dissent through violence and intimidation of violence.

Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right.  If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.

Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.


So, a troll. Fair enough, but you're not very good at it.
 
2014-04-17 03:53:28 PM  

BSABSVR: Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?

[img.fark.net image 285x171]


Nice.  Childishly stupid and indicative of a juvenile mentality, but well done, son.  American eagle gif spews cum from a man's loins; it's all part of a meaningful debate about political methodology.  You should be so proud of yourself.  Gold stars all around....
 
2014-04-17 03:54:43 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I'm having a really hard time trying to make sense of this guy. He keeps on about "methodologies" and "tactics" without ever bothering to explain in detail what he's talking about.


i talked to some scientists and they are pretty sure it's mostly anger at being kicked out of a club for not bathing
 
2014-04-17 03:55:41 PM  

whidbey: Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.


Thank you for stating so clearly that she's the bigot.

Not the medieval shiats who carved her up when she was a child.
Not the goons who forced her into an arranged marriage.
Not the savages who threaten her life to this day, and have tailed her around the world.
Not the professional victims at CAIR who see a bigot behind every package of bacon.
Not the useful idiot snowflakes who are uncomfortable with what she has to say about their faith.
Not the easily-cowed administrators who couldn't be bothered to learn the first thing about her until the heat was on, and then promptly folded.

Nope, SHE's the Islamophobe. (shun.jpg)

Not only should we have the right to call out this monstrousness, we have the duty to do so, to offend the easily-offended (especially those who use 'offense' as a pretext to shut down debate), and whatever may be most noxious to their adherents and defenders, to do those very things and then some.

Yes, even if she hangs out with those awful neocons sometimes.
 
2014-04-17 03:55:46 PM  

lantawa: Nice.  Childishly stupid and indicative of a juvenile mentality, but well done, son.  American eagle gif spews cum from a man's loins; it's all part of a meaningful debate about political methodology.  You should be so proud of yourself.  Gold stars all around....


I gotta admit that really you put you people in your place. Sit down, John.
 
2014-04-17 03:55:49 PM  
There speaks the voice of a generation: celebrate diversity by enforcing conformity.
 
2014-04-17 03:56:21 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: Take 20.

How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company? You can't force people to be customers.


Obamacare would like a word with you.

/amidoing it right
 
2014-04-17 03:56:43 PM  

Felgraf: Libertarians: "The free market will prevent people from discriminating! People just won't shop at places whose proprietors discriminate!"

*PREMISE ACTUALLY WORKS FOR ONCE*

"ZOMG HOW DARE YOU USE SUCH TERRIBLE FORCE THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER."



Looks like those well-farked chickens have come home to roost in a bed of their own making...  or something.

Regardless, please cry more sweet, sweet helpless victim tears.
 
2014-04-17 03:57:43 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company?


It's not. Why not watch the video and get back to me?
 
2014-04-17 03:58:19 PM  

whidbey: change the channel or stay mad


Yeah...um...whut?
 
2014-04-17 03:58:26 PM  
Mark Steyn is usually the least derpy of right wing pundits.

This column is beneath him.
 
2014-04-17 03:58:41 PM  

lantawa: American eagle gif spews cum from a man's loins


I'm certain I heard that at the last poetry slam I went to.
 
2014-04-17 03:58:46 PM  

mrshowrules: UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: Take 20.

How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company? You can't force people to be customers.

Obamacare would like a word with you.

/amidoing it right


Oh, nice! :) Very much so. Apparently the government is the one exception, unless you're talking to "taxes are theft" nutballs.
 
2014-04-17 03:59:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company?

It's not. Why not watch the video and get back to me?


Because I have work to do as well. Why not just answer the simple question?
 
2014-04-17 03:59:58 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.

Thank you for stating so clearly that she's the bigot.

Not the medieval shiats who carved her up when she was a child.
Not the goons who forced her into an arranged marriage.
Not the savages who threaten her life to this day, and have tailed her around the world.
Not the professional victims at CAIR who see a bigot behind every package of bacon.
Not the useful idiot snowflakes who are uncomfortable with what she has to say about their faith.
Not the easily-cowed administrators who couldn't be bothered to learn the first thing about her until the heat was on, and then promptly folded.

Nope, SHE's the Islamophobe. (shun.jpg)

Not only should we have the right to call out this monstrousness, we have the duty to do so, to offend the easily-offended (especially those who use 'offense' as a pretext to shut down debate), and whatever may be most noxious to their adherents and defenders, to do those very things and then some.

Yes, even if she hangs out with those awful neocons sometimes.


Dude whatever it is you're so slyly trying to defend, it means I probably have to read tfa, so no.

Here are the points I'm concerned with:

1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence
 
2014-04-17 04:01:07 PM  

Flappyhead: There were a lot of words in that article but for some reason it all read like


I'll never understand why right wing media tries so hard to portray themselves as whiny little crybabies with massive persecution complexes (sprinkled with a dash of hypocrisy).
 
2014-04-17 04:01:22 PM  
Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?
 
2014-04-17 04:01:55 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: whidbey: change the channel or stay mad

Yeah...um...whut?


Oh it's the "I don't know what you're talking about card
so I'll keep posting that same stupid link I got called out a bunch of last times card"

it's a double play
 
2014-04-17 04:03:21 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.

lantawa: The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.

Two statements. Directly undermining each other. Next to each other.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE MOCKED AND SCORNED.


You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.
 
2014-04-17 04:03:27 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company?

It's not. Why not watch the video and get back to me?

Because I have work to do as well. Why not just answer the simple question?


I'll cut to the chase:

The boycott against Mozilla was wrong, because their agenda got an innocent man fired from his job.
 
2014-04-17 04:05:13 PM  

lantawa: Bloody William: lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.

lantawa: The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.

Two statements. Directly undermining each other. Next to each other.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE MOCKED AND SCORNED.

You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.


For a "mature intellect" you sure as hell have a hard time making an actual direct point. Shine on, though. You're more interesting than the usual claptrap.
 
2014-04-17 04:06:21 PM  

lantawa: You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.


Is it something I said that's making you not want to actually explain your statements or offer any sort of evidence or logic behind them? Because this might surprise you, but your assertions are not self-evident. They seem disconnected, jarring, and paranoid, and if you can't actually back them up they're going to keep seeming disconnected, jarring, and paranoid.
 
2014-04-17 04:06:39 PM  

colon_pow: Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-17 04:08:02 PM  

grumpfuff: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

O rly?

/angry at him for being against it when it became more politically convenient


I did not know that about Obama.  But yeah, kinda damning he regressed on that stance before Biden essentially forced him to embrace it again.


Wooly Bully: Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative?  There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance."  I'm speaking from personal experience.  I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage.  If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.

You made a baseless accusation of hypocrisy. The burden's now on you to show they are hypocrites; apparently you can't, so admit that in the absence of actual evidence of hypocrisy you were wrong to make the charge.


It wasn't baseless.  As I said, I am speaking from personal experience.  And the evidence is the lack of the same sort of public calls/petitions of disdain against Obama or Hillary for not supporting gay marriage on the national level until it become political beneficial for them to do so.
 
2014-04-17 04:09:17 PM  

whidbey: lantawa: Nice.  Childishly stupid and indicative of a juvenile mentality, but well done, son.  American eagle gif spews cum from a man's loins; it's all part of a meaningful debate about political methodology.  You should be so proud of yourself.  Gold stars all around....

I gotta admit that really you put you people in your place. Sit down, John.


Got it.  You're throwing your voice into the ring to back up the childish cum-spewing eagle gif that was posted by your comrade.  Stand in the corner, Mortimer.  While you're at it, how about giving me some feedback on the Baathist movement and the points that I've brought up.  You know, real discussion.
 
2014-04-17 04:09:18 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Take 20.


And you are trying to prove...what?
 
2014-04-17 04:09:38 PM  

Jjaro: I did not know that about Obama.  But yeah, kinda damning he regressed on that stance before Biden essentially forced him to embrace it again.


He's stated in the past that personally he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. These are views I disagree with and they do make him slightly bigoted in a religiously fueled way, but they are also views he has not only not acted upon, but shows no inclination to act upon. He recognizes that his personal beliefs in this should not be codified into law.
 
2014-04-17 04:10:07 PM  

lantawa: BSABSVR: Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?

[img.fark.net image 285x171]

Nice.  Childishly stupid and indicative of a juvenile mentality, but well done, son.  American eagle gif spews cum from a man's loins; it's all part of a meaningful debate about political methodology.  You should be so proud of yourself.  Gold stars all around....


You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".
 
2014-04-17 04:10:11 PM  

Gulper Eel: You ought to read the article, then.


I clicked the link, and the very first sentence gave me a concussion.

I realize how frightening it is to contemplate a world where gay men can no longer be dragged behind your pick-up truck with impunity, but I do not feel victimized by this new state of affairs.  Unlike the author.  Jesus, grow a pair, man.  What a god damn whiner.
 
2014-04-17 04:10:11 PM  

whidbey: Gulper Eel: whidbey: Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.

Thank you for stating so clearly that she's the bigot.

Not the medieval shiats who carved her up when she was a child.
Not the goons who forced her into an arranged marriage.
Not the savages who threaten her life to this day, and have tailed her around the world.
Not the professional victims at CAIR who see a bigot behind every package of bacon.
Not the useful idiot snowflakes who are uncomfortable with what she has to say about their faith.
Not the easily-cowed administrators who couldn't be bothered to learn the first thing about her until the heat was on, and then promptly folded.

Nope, SHE's the Islamophobe. (shun.jpg)

Not only should we have the right to call out this monstrousness, we have the duty to do so, to offend the easily-offended (especially those who use 'offense' as a pretext to shut down debate), and whatever may be most noxious to their adherents and defenders, to do those very things and then some.

Yes, even if she hangs out with those awful neocons sometimes.

Dude whatever it is you're so slyly trying to defend, it means I probably have to read tfa, so no.

Here are the points I'm concerned with:

1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence


God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.
 
2014-04-17 04:10:14 PM  

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.


I see you have the usual plethora of ad hominems, and no actual facts. Keep on keepin on!
 
2014-04-17 04:12:19 PM  
Oh right, another "you're the bigot for calling me a bigot" articles. No, I will not tolerate your close-minded opinion. I stopped reading after about three sentences.
/pre-revisionist definition of marriage my ass
 
2014-04-17 04:13:23 PM  

lantawa: meaningful debate about political methodology.


Meaningful debate like this?

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.

 
2014-04-17 04:14:36 PM  
And using the phrase cum-spewing?  How juvenile, son.  Use the real words, not your vile gutter slang.
 
2014-04-17 04:15:36 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company?

It's not. Why not watch the video and get back to me?

Because I have work to do as well. Why not just answer the simple question?


It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."
 
2014-04-17 04:16:30 PM  

BSABSVR: And using the phrase cum-spewing?  How juvenile, son.  Use the real words, not your vile gutter slang.


'star spangling'
 
2014-04-17 04:18:40 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?


I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.
 
2014-04-17 04:19:07 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.

Is it something I said that's making you not want to actually explain your statements or offer any sort of evidence or logic behind them? Because this might surprise you, but your assertions are not self-evident. They seem disconnected, jarring, and paranoid, and if you can't actually back them up they're going to keep seeming disconnected, jarring, and paranoid.


When a political movement seeks to not disclose its techniques for beating its opponents, then it falls to deduction and observation to arrive at conclusions.  I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.  It is a curious phenomenon, and not one that I'm particularly afraid of.  I'll give you jarring and disconnected as a correct view that *you* may have, but it's as clear as day to me when you look at the global political machines that exist throughout the different cultures.

I've explained myself as best I can, and have offered up a few research tools for the uneducated.  There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.  Upthread, someone said that it's the literal FIRST time that they've ever heard of Baathism.  Sorry, but that's just indicative of someone who really needs to study up on their politics, if they intend to post in Politics threads.
 
2014-04-17 04:19:18 PM  
Freedom of speech =/= Freedom from repercussions.
 
2014-04-17 04:22:46 PM  

lantawa: I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.


"I can't prove it, I just know it's true"


lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


Please provide a detailed list of examples of Baathist influence, including citations and explanations of how that particular event shows Baathist influence.
 
2014-04-17 04:23:01 PM  

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


So, I was right. It's just the new "OMG SOCIALIST/MARXIST" with a dash of SAUL ALINSKY and FASCISM/NAZI thrown in for good measure.

Never heard that stuff before.
 
2014-04-17 04:23:07 PM  

Jjaro: And the evidence is the lack of the same sort of public calls/petitions of disdain against Obama or Hillary for not supporting gay marriage on the national level until it become political beneficial for them to do so.


Are you seriously attempting to draw an equivalence between not advancing the cause of gay marriage, and actively working against it? Those two are precisely equal to your addled brain?
 
2014-04-17 04:23:15 PM  

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."


And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.


HA!  When you put it that way it makes it sound so much more reasonable and traditional...
 
2014-04-17 04:24:27 PM  

BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".


There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.
 
2014-04-17 04:24:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?

I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.


Lord, you're tiresome. How about no, for reasons previously stated.
 
2014-04-17 04:24:55 PM  

grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."


Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr
 
2014-04-17 04:25:24 PM  

lantawa: how about giving me some feedback on the Baathist movement and the points that I've brought up.  You know, real discussion.


Um, I see your tirade more of a smokescreen to distract from the real issues, that making bigoted statements do have consequences. As for "shutting down debate," repeating the same fallacious claim over and over after called on it isn't "discussion."

Diversity of opinion =/= tolerance of bigotry

now back to your eagle-squirting
 
2014-04-17 04:26:39 PM  

Jjaro: God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.


God forbid you summarize the argument so we don't have to click on that utter garbage.
 
2014-04-17 04:27:04 PM  

lantawa: BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".

There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.


Huzzah! A thousand cheers for you making an actual concrete assertion. Now provideany credible evidence this is so. Even "scary socialist" Europe tends towards multiparty representation.
 
2014-04-17 04:27:18 PM  
Mentat: that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

How does your last sentence follow from the previous one? It is not bigoted to dislike someone for holding odious views. Their views are part of who they are. You can't really separate the two. When those people are also friends and family, then sure, it puts you in a more conflicted position. You have to decide if what you like about a given person outweighs what you don't like enough that you still want to associate with them.

For some people close to you, you've obviously decided that your ties to them are more important than their odious views. That's fine. Deciding otherwise is fine too. It's still not bigotry.
 
2014-04-17 04:27:55 PM  

lantawa: When a political movement seeks to not disclose its techniques for beating its opponents, then it falls to deduction and observation to arrive at conclusions.  I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.


So instead of pointing at examples or presenting a trend from known events, you're saying you can't back up your assertions. In fact, you're saying you don't actually have anything which which to back your assertions.

The correct response to [citation needed] is not "It's a secret and they won't tell us!" It's "Here are some news reports, studies, statements, and papers that back up what I'm saying." You're trying to connect Baathism to Western left-wing politics without anything more than a vague fog of intellectual persecution to back it up.
 
2014-04-17 04:28:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?

I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.


The video really has nothing at all to do with this topic where  people used their free speech to shiat on a bigot. But yeah institutionalized censorship is bad...
 
2014-04-17 04:28:37 PM  

lantawa: BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".

There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.


Citation Needed. If this is true, show us a specific event in which this has happened. Otherwise your claims are meaningless noise. If you want people to take you seriously and not lump you in with Creationists, Geocentrists, Truthers, and Birthers, you need to actually support your claims with evidence.

You have a thesis, but it needs support. Otherwise you lack credibility.
 
2014-04-17 04:29:23 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr


Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.
 
2014-04-17 04:30:42 PM  
As a liberal, I admit to personally participating in a conspiracy to permanently quash the free speech rights of everyone who does not agree with me entirely.  In return for immunity, I will also confess the names of my co-conspirators: they precisely match the names of anyone who ever voted for a democrat.

My role in this conspiracy was to tell people they were being bad people when their opinions were inhumanely shiatty, sometimes even hurting their feelings, essentially as the most evil agents of the conspiracy.

I also didn't buy products from companies that had inhumanely shiatty opinions.
 
2014-04-17 04:31:08 PM  

lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


I'm trying to assume you're not a troll, so I'll offer some constructive criticism.

Asserting an outside influence from a specific force without being able to offer evidence of that specific force exerting influence is paranoia. It is a sign of schizophrenia. Without evidence, your claims have no more weight than Lyndon LaRouche supports claiming modern politics is a plot of the British royal family to take over the United States. They're only superior to assertions that political leaders are aliens in the sense that there is evidence the groups involved in your scenario actually exist.
 
2014-04-17 04:31:40 PM  
I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.
 
2014-04-17 04:32:30 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.


It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.
 
2014-04-17 04:32:53 PM  

lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States


Yeah, they're the ignorant ones...comparing Baathists to American politics is totally legit.  Just like comparing Obama to Hitler.  Only the ignorant people don't see the connection.
 
2014-04-17 04:33:10 PM  

TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.


I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.
 
2014-04-17 04:33:54 PM  

Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.


You don't know any teabaggers, huh?
 
2014-04-17 04:34:54 PM  

Headso: UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.

It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.


Oh, thanks. Yes that would be bad. Probably why the founders saw fit to put free speech right up front.
 
2014-04-17 04:36:29 PM  

Bloody William: TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.

I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.


"Hey, look. We can use this new polarizing buzzword to antagonize people when we talk about propaganda techniques that have been applied on all sides of debates to one degree or another for centuries! And it's not the Nazis for one! Hurray!"

The only way to beat that nonsense is to ignore it. Don't mock it. Don't pay attention to it. Just ignore it, shake your head, and talk with *sensible* people you disagree with. If someone can't debate or discuss a situation without that kind of crap, they're not worth talking to. Yes, that's being judgemental. No, I don't care what people who oppose me think of that.
 
2014-04-17 04:36:44 PM  

Bloody William: TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.

I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.


They're going to make Saddam look like Cecil Rhodes.
 
2014-04-17 04:37:08 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States

Yeah, they're the ignorant ones...comparing Baathists to American politics is totally legit.  Just like comparing Obama to Hitler.  Only the ignorant people don't see the connection.


My god, they both led countries.  Neither one lowered the capital gains rate to 0%.  Both gave speeches to large audiences in a public square in front of their country's capital.  Both had treaties with france.  The parallels don't stop there.
 
2014-04-17 04:37:16 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: colon_pow: Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x377]


But who photoshopped it?
 
2014-04-17 04:38:19 PM  

s2s2s2: UrukHaiGuyz: colon_pow: Why bother winning the debate when it's easier to close it down?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x377]

But who photoshopped it?


Ba'athists. Are you even paying attention?
 
2014-04-17 04:38:45 PM  

Jjaro: You made a baseless accusation of hypocrisy. The burden's now on you to show they are hypocrites; apparently you can't, so admit that in the absence of actual evidence of hypocrisy you were wrong to make the charge.

It wasn't baseless. As I said, I am speaking from personal experience. And the evidence is the lack of the same sort of public calls/petitions of disdain against Obama or Hillary for not supporting gay marriage on the national level until it become political beneficial for them to do so.


You called a specific group of people who signed a petition against Eich for supporting Prop 8 "hypocrites".

Unless you have "personal experience" that these people gave someone on "their team" (your words) who did the same thing a pass, your charge of hypocrisy is baseless.
 
2014-04-17 04:39:49 PM  
Apparently "baathist liberals" is going to take the place of "fabian socialist" and "alinskyite tactics" to make people who have never opened a book past the cover sound like they know farkall about politics.
 
2014-04-17 04:40:03 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: How about no


Ignorance is bliss!
 
2014-04-17 04:40:32 PM  
It's not too bad over here just yet, it's Europe and others that have caught it pretty bad.

Hate speech laws, jailed holocaust deniers, internet filters, and the treatment of investigative journalists is becoming concerning all over.
 
2014-04-17 04:40:56 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Headso: UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.

It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.

Oh, thanks. Yes that would be bad. Probably why the founders saw fit to put free speech right up front.


yeah, which is why he had to link to a speech about  a Canadian hate speech law I assume...
 
2014-04-17 04:41:00 PM  

whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence


Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.
 
2014-04-17 04:42:22 PM  

Bloody William: lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.

I'm trying to assume you're not a troll, so I'll offer some constructive criticism.

Asserting an outside influence from a specific force without being able to offer evidence of that specific force exerting influence is paranoia. It is a sign of schizophrenia. Without evidence, your claims have no more weight than Lyndon LaRouche supports claiming modern politics is a plot of the British royal family to take over the United States. They're only superior to assertions that political leaders are aliens in the sense that there is evidence the groups involved in your scenario actually exist.


I can see how what you are saying is true. The humorous way to approach that perception would be to say that yes, I'll go study it out and bring back some citations.  More seriously, I guess I have to admit that it is a thesis without background citations.  So, that admission should please the butthurt in this thread.  Okay.  In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.  I admit that just posting a couple of Baathist links by Wiki and a blog are insufficient evidence for the disbelievers.

TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.


"The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades.  You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it.  I'll wait for your admission.
 
2014-04-17 04:42:47 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How about no

Ignorance is bliss!


I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.
 
2014-04-17 04:43:10 PM  

Nabb1: Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.

I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.

Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that - but breaking it down to the essential elements, there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public, one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever. He'll be fine, I am sure, but I just don't know if that's something we want to see on a regular basis.


Well half the board did resign when he was named and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with his views on gay marriage.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/28/three-mozilla-board-members-r es ign-over-choice-of-new-ceo/

//your blog sucks
 
2014-04-17 04:43:18 PM  

lantawa: Upthread, someone said that it's the literal FIRST time that they've ever heard of Baathism.  Sorry, but that's just indicative of someone who really needs to study up on their politics, if they intend to post in Politics threads.


For the record, first time I'd heard the term used in association with any type of political 'movement' in the US (or the West in general).
 
2014-04-17 04:43:27 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.


The discussion of David Irving is a good start.
 
2014-04-17 04:44:26 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work.


Which means you'll watch it after work right?
 
2014-04-17 04:44:51 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.


this isn't your first experience with the Obtuseotron 4000, is it?
 
2014-04-17 04:45:29 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


Pure hypotheticals don't really help your argument.
 
2014-04-17 04:46:57 PM  
I take great pride in my own personal right to punish and reward speech I find agreeable or offensive. I also take great pride in knowing that I would defend the right of those idiots I disagree with, to sound like idiots as long as said speech remains speech and does not threaten my ability to exercise my own rights. When that speech tries to remove my rights, or incite violence against me or my loved ones, I take even greater pride in knowing that I can speak or use my other rights to fight back. Fortunately, I have a capable enough brain to recognize true threats, so I don't feel the need to make them up in order to justify irrational fears.

Farkers that biatch about the idea of someone ignoring/silencing speech on a personal and individual level must never use the blocking system here on Fark. I use it, sure. But sparingly. And only on obvious, add-nothing-to-conversation trolls.
 
2014-04-17 04:47:21 PM  

lantawa: "The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades. You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it. I'll wait for your admission.


Or you could get off your ass and provide some citations.  There must be loads of them out there.  PLEASE SHARE!!
 
2014-04-17 04:47:40 PM  

lantawa: "The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades.  You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it.  I'll wait for your admission.


2/10.
 
2014-04-17 04:49:46 PM  

heap: UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.

this isn't your first experience with the Obtuseotron 4000, is it?


No. It's easy to stay smug if you remain vague and obtuse instead of actively engaging in debate. It's apparently been working well for him a long time. If it ain't broke...
 
2014-04-17 04:50:19 PM  

lantawa: I can see how what you are saying is true. The humorous way to approach that perception would be to say that yes, I'll go study it out and bring back some citations.  More seriously, I guess I have to admit that it is a thesis without background citations.  So, that admission should please the butthurt in this thread.  Okay.  In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.  I admit that just posting a couple of Baathist links by Wiki and a blog are insufficient evidence for the disbelievers.


My butthurt is indeed pleased as if a great ointment has been applied to it, but a few clarifications.

It's not insufficient evidence for the disbelievers. It's insufficient evidence to the nonbelievers. People who simply don't believe your assertion, not people who actively push against your assertion. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion, and claiming those who disagree as "disbelievers" or implying that only those directly antagonistic to your claims would not be satisfied by your lack of evidence is dishonest.

You should also recognize why the links you posted are insufficient. The Wikipedia entry for Baathism is not self-evident and offers no statement supporting your claims of American liberal politics being influenced by it or any citation to follow through on it. The blog post you linked was not a claim about American politics and liberals being influenced by Baathism. It was a post from an Iraqi American talking about Iraqi politics and how Baathism was itself influenced by Russian and German totalitarian politics.

The connection you make to liberals is not self-evident. There is no evidence of it at all. And the promise you make for the future doesn't help:

In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.

Stop. "Could be" is not "is." It certainly isn't "clearly is." It definitely isn't "can be proven to be." If you're saying all you can offer is speculation and tenuous conceptual connections with no evidence, don't bother. You won't convince anyone. Not just disbelievers, but  anyone. The only person to whome liberal Baathism is self-evident is you.
 
2014-04-17 04:51:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work.

Which means you'll watch it after work right?


Not likely, gotta go make some money playing music (my second, but much preferable job).

/check out my sweet-ass bootstraps
 
2014-04-17 04:51:40 PM  

ikanreed: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States

Yeah, they're the ignorant ones...comparing Baathists to American politics is totally legit.  Just like comparing Obama to Hitler.  Only the ignorant people don't see the connection.

My god, they both led countries.  Neither one lowered the capital gains rate to 0%.  Both gave speeches to large audiences in a public square in front of their country's capital.  Both had treaties with france.  The parallels don't stop there.


Workers unions!!! BAATHIST!!!
 
2014-04-17 04:51:46 PM  
So the left being able to say their opinion on what those on the right say is "Shutting down free speech"?

According to the author not letting people criticize those on the right is "Free speech".
 
2014-04-17 04:52:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


and bonus points if you can figure out how that relates with this story.
 
2014-04-17 04:52:43 PM  

Corvus: So the left being able to say their opinion on what those on the right say is "Shutting down free speech"?

According to the author not letting people criticize those on the right is "Free speech".


Yep. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Funny how that works out, isn't it?
 
2014-04-17 04:56:10 PM  

BSABSVR: Apparently "baathist liberals" is going to take the place of "fabian socialist" and "alinskyite tactics" to make people who have never opened a book past the cover sound like they know farkall about politics.


I think it falls somewhere between "liberal fascists" and "shape-shifting reptile people control the world". All of these concepts are idiotic and wrong. It's a matter of degrees of crazy.
 
2014-04-17 04:56:40 PM  
After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.
 
2014-04-17 04:57:26 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.


That just proves that Google is in on it.
 
2014-04-17 04:57:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


Is your point that his imprisonment is an example of free speech being suppressed or an example of an arguably reactionary law in a country that just might be overly sensitive about its association with the holocaust?

Because, if something like were to happen outside of Austria or Germany, you might have a point about the former, but as it is it seems more the latter.
 
2014-04-17 04:58:49 PM  

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?


That might be slander if the truth wasn't the best defense in court, but airing out someone's personal business like that is dirty pool.
/snerk
 
2014-04-17 04:59:40 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr


Funny, that's the same excuse you posted last time, and when you finally did post it, I responded to it and you never answered.
 
2014-04-17 04:59:59 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.
 
2014-04-17 05:00:12 PM  
Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?
 
2014-04-17 05:01:18 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?


Like what, Reagan/Quayle slashfic?
 
2014-04-17 05:02:14 PM  

lantawa: dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views


In defense of dogmatism,

Regardless of how legitimate someone believes their view to be (or they evidence they have to back it up), dogmatic dismissal can actually be appropriate. Debates encourage a society to gradually normalize a topic and frankly there are things we shouldn't normalize. Sometimes it really is better to live a cynical/hypocritical existence rather than openly discuss toxic ideology.
 
2014-04-17 05:02:41 PM  

qorkfiend: UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.

That just proves that Google is in on it.


It's a conspiracy!  The potatocracy will hear about this!
 
2014-04-17 05:02:51 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


Here, let me answer that for you. I am a liberal atheist. Richard Dawkins is a farktard who should stick to evolutionary biology.
 
2014-04-17 05:04:06 PM  

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


Whoa, now. Not sure I'm okay with that. DIA, for all his wry elusion of actual debate, is a fellow Texan, and I'll defend his right to be a smarmy git to the death. It's our birthright and our duty as Texans.
 
2014-04-17 05:09:26 PM  

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


But frankly, we aren't, and I don't see why you still seem to think her bigoted statements aren't without consequence.
 
2014-04-17 05:10:23 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Not likely


Imagine that.

Bloody William: You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point.


Here...let me write a full page opinion on how I believe men are endowed by their creator the inalienable right to completely unfettered free speech and give lengthy examples of where in the world the right is and has been or is in danger of being denied...and you won't bother to read it anyway so, yeah, I'll give you a link to a short speech by someone who said it better than I ever could in just the smartass tone that I would say it. With the same results.

Bloody William: You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


You are working on the flawed premise that I give a flying fark what some guy on the internet thinks of me.
 
2014-04-17 05:12:23 PM  
lantawa:
There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.
www.politablog.com
 
2014-04-17 05:12:25 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Not likely


Imagine that.


If you won't put any effort into debate, why should I? There are other dissenting viewpoints with which I can have real discussions beyond two or three words.
 
2014-04-17 05:12:45 PM  
guys i don't care about what you think of me

guys

listen this is important

guys

i don't care what you think of me

really guys

i don't

i have to let you know

that i don't care

it is very important
 
2014-04-17 05:13:40 PM  
After you read the first line of this article you have made up your mind on whether you agree.

This is a form of manipulation, whether you agree or disagree it is still group-think.

Best to take a step back and observe, take in facts, make your own decisions. However this is terribly boring, therefore you will most likely continue eating the pre-processed news of the major networks.

I don't offer any alternatives, just asking you to be cognizant of your bias, and question why the words are placed in a certain order.
 
2014-04-17 05:13:40 PM  
BSABSVR:

What the fark are you talking about?

[img.fark.net image 285x171]


Freedom Boner!
 
2014-04-17 05:15:09 PM  

KillaChinchilla: After you read the first line of this article you have made up your mind on whether you agree.

This is a form of manipulation, whether you agree or disagree it is still group-think.

Best to take a step back and observe, take in facts, make your own decisions. However this is terribly boring, therefore you will most likely continue eating the pre-processed news of the major networks.

I don't offer any alternatives, just asking you to be cognizant of your bias, and question why the words are placed in a certain order.


Words the are order placed certain otherwise it because hard very read to.
 
2014-04-17 05:18:09 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.


Is your google-fu really that weak?  Are you guys really that clueless?

this link is the FIRST result from the googled term "baathism":   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism

These paragraphs, below, are from that article.  How hard is it to put two and two together.  Seriously guys.  C'mon!

Aflaq deeply supported some Marxist   tenets, and he considered the Marxist concept of the to be one of modern humanity's greatest discoveries. However, he disagreed with the Marxist view that dialectical materialism was the  only truth. Aflaq believed that Marxism had forgotten human's spirituality. While believing that the concept would work for small and weak societies, the concept of dialectical materialism as the  only truth in Arab development was wrong.

For a people as spiritual as the Arabs, the working class was just a group, albeit the most important group, in a much larger movement to free the Arab nation. Aflaq agreed to Karl Marx's view that the working class was a central force, but not which role it played in history. In contrast to Marx, Aflaq believed in, and believed that in the Arab world all classes, and not just the working class, were working against. What in the west was a struggle between various classes was in the Arab world a fight for political and economic independence.

For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in which the repression of the peasant nullified the people's political liberty. Liberty meant little to nothing to the general poverty-stricken populace of Syria; Aflaq saw socialism as the solution to their plight.

According to Aflaq, the ultimate goal of socialism's not to answer the question of how much   was necessary or economic equality, but instead socialism was "a means to satisfy the animal needs of man so he can be free to pursue his duties as a human being". In other words, socialism was a system which freed the population from enslavement and created independent individuals. However, economic equality was a major tenet in Ba'athist ideology; the elimination of inequality would "eliminate all privilege, exploitation, and domination by one group over another". In short, if liberty was to succeed, the Arab people needed socialism.

Aflaq labelled this form of socialism  , to signify that it existed in harmony with, and was in some ways subordinate to,. According to Aflaq, who was a Christian, the teaching and reforms of the Prophet had given socialism an authentic Arab expression. Socialism was viewed by Aflaq as, and the reforms of the Prophet Muhammed were both just and wise. The Ba'athist would, in modern times, initiate another way of just and radical forms just as the Prophet had done in the seventh century.


So, don't tell me about how extremely diligent your academic efforts were.  And do you good folk not see how readily these views by a Baathist founder could be Westernized?  Is that REALLY so hard for you?

Some of you had a good time with the snark machine, but the ease with which I just generated both Marxist and socialist underpinnings in the Baathist movement proves, to me, the lazy, dogmatically close-minded approach that many of you are taking in this thread.

So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.  C'mon.  Let's hear it.  Eager minds await your edifying comments.
 
2014-04-17 05:22:48 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: If you won't put any effort into debate, why should I?


I gave you a little more to chew on a couple of posts up.

Got any videos of the full band? I might just come catch a gig.
 
2014-04-17 05:23:09 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Here...let me write a full page opinion on how I believe men are endowed by their creator the inalienable right to completely unfettered free speech and give lengthy examples of where in the world the right is and has been or is in danger of being denied...and you won't bother to read it anyway so, yeah, I'll give you a link to a short speech by someone who said it better than I ever could in just the smartass tone that I would say it. With the same results.


Then write another page about how what he was saying is any way connected with the mozilla guy, as someone who actually bothered to listen to the video you posted that part would interest me.
 
2014-04-17 05:23:56 PM  

Rixel: Dammit.....

[img.fark.net image 226x239]
                RIP  IDIC


Yeah conservatives don't have the right to use that image. Or co-opt other things from Star Trek.
 
2014-04-17 05:24:04 PM  
lantawa: wiki

Again, I went looking for evidence of anything relative to baathists and left leaning etc.  I saw that there was a wikipedia article describing what baathism is.  Not the same thing.  There was nothing to back up the assumptions you have created from reading a wikipedia article about an Iraqi political movement.

/Still waiting for the evidence beyond "can't you see it guys, the cloud looks just like a rabbit."
 
2014-04-17 05:24:38 PM  

sigdiamond2000: I disagree with Pizza Hut's definition of "pizza" so I don't eat there and dissuade others from eating there as well.

How is that different from the Mozilla thing? Because it isn't such a hot-button issue?

(OK, maybe pizza is a bad example around here.)


Yeaaah, were you here for the last few Chicaco vs NYC pizza threads?
 
2014-04-17 05:24:47 PM  

whidbey: Jjaro: God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.

God forbid you summarize the argument so we don't have to click on that utter garbage.


So since you don't want to read something, you expect other to summarize it for you?  Sounds like we have a real intellectual heavyweight here.
 
2014-04-17 05:25:43 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?


STILL  butthurt about that photoshop picture that I posted about a half a year ago?  Not done with me yet?  Grow a sense of humor.  Did you notice that NO ONE supported you when you tried to "ghey-bait" me with YOUR gross imagery?  You're engaging in cheesedick moves that have NOTHING to do with the current topic.  Stahp it!
 
2014-04-17 05:25:49 PM  

lantawa: So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.


What?  You claimed a connection, back it up!  There is a "possible" connection between Republicans and Nazis, but if I ever actually make that connection, please call me on my bullshiat, just as I am calling you on yours.

Yes, baathism exists (or existed), and yes, there are Americans who support leftist views.  But you have provided no actual link between American liberals and baathists, just "I can imagine a link, why can't you?"

It's utter bullshiat.

Provide evidence of the link, please.
 
2014-04-17 05:26:06 PM  
lantawa: idiotic derp

I was willing to hear your thesis, but you just failed. Horribly.

Baathism may have had its origins in a Spiritialistic Arabic form of Marxism, but that entire passage you quoted speaks only to influences on Baathism, not Baathism's influences on Western Liberal policies.

And the LATTER of the two is what is being discussed, as it is the premise of your argument.
 
2014-04-17 05:26:12 PM  

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


That would require him to own his opinions.
 
2014-04-17 05:26:50 PM  

lantawa: Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  ...  Be aware of it:  It is real.



lantawa: So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.


Funny how suddenly everyone else has to prove to you that "there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection" when you were declaring Baathist political ideology HAS reached the west. You are just using a different word to cry "socialist" and "rule for radicals"! It may be the latest cover version, but it's still the same old tune.
 
2014-04-17 05:28:06 PM  

lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?

STILL  butthurt about that photoshop picture that I posted about a half a year ago?  Not done with me yet?  Grow a sense of humor.  Did you notice that NO ONE supported you when you tried to "ghey-bait" me with YOUR gross imagery?  You're engaging in cheesedick moves that have NOTHING to do with the current topic.  Stahp it!


Ok. So you're trolling. Got it. Bye. Kill yourself.
 
2014-04-17 05:28:41 PM  
lantawa:For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in ...

Okay, I'll contribute one thing to your "discussion" before I start heading out to run some brief errands.

"So, some guy decided that certain ideals and tactics would help him achieve his goals for the people he wanted to support. This is evil! Evil I tell you!"

.. and, so what? You're still trying to Godwin a discussion by using this guy instead of Hitler, because he used some of the same propaganda techniques that are used today by organizations left -and- right of center? Whoop-de-hell. BFD. You're an idiot, and that's not "snark machine" talk, that's genuine "TellarHK's MFing Opinion" talking.

"Select views and techniques from a guy people don't like could be shared and used by completely different groups with goals sharing only the most vague and debatable similarities if any! Get the whole story here only on Fox 11!"

Wheeeeeeee. Such amazing conversation. I'm bored now. Time for a taco.
 
2014-04-17 05:28:47 PM  
Bloody William:
My butthurt is indeed pleased as if a great ointment has been applied to it, but a few clarifications.

I'm amazed at how much time you've spent on this guy. I for one am just hoping he goes full Glenn Beck and posts a chalkboard drawing with arrows showing the connections between the Democratic Party, Baathists, George Soros, Joseph Stalin, and Saul Alinsky.
 
2014-04-17 05:29:32 PM  

BSABSVR: Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.

That would require him to own his opinions.


One might say that he dances around the issue.
 
2014-04-17 05:31:44 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: If you won't put any effort into debate, why should I?

I gave you a little more to chew on a couple of posts up.

Got any videos of the full band? I might just come catch a gig.


The band I've been gigging with most often recently is a honky-tonk/bar band called Hazardous Dukes. We're playing around DFW usually 3 or 4 nights a week. Sometimes we make it out a bit further (Austin, Tyler, Houston). Playing the Revolver brewery in Granbury in a couple days. Come out sometime and I'll buy you a beer.

The pay's a hell of a lot better playing two-step music than the rock/indie stuff I play with. More of a crowd pleaser, too.

/end threadjack
 
2014-04-17 05:32:37 PM  
We're still talking about this?

Ugh. Give it a rest already. Go back to talking about how the NWO and aliens conspired to kill lizard people in Benghazi.
 
2014-04-17 05:32:43 PM  

lantawa: UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.

Is your google-fu really that weak?  Are you guys really that clueless?

this link is the FIRST result from the googled term "baathism":   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism

These paragraphs, below, are from that article.  How hard is it to put two and two together.  Seriously guys.  C'mon!

Aflaq deeply supported some Marxist   tenets, and he considered the Marxist concept of the to be one of modern humanity's greatest discoveries. However, he disagreed with the Marxist view that dialectical materialism was the  only truth. Aflaq believed that Marxism had forgotten human's spirituality. While believing that the concept would work for small and weak societies, the concept of dialectical materialism as the  only truth in Arab development was wrong.

For a people as spiritual as the Arabs, the working class was just a group, albeit the most important group, in a much larger movement to free the Arab nation. Aflaq agreed to Karl Marx's view that the working class was a central force, but not which role it played in history. In contrast to Marx, Aflaq believed in, and believed that in the Arab world all classes, and not just the working class, were working against. What in the west was a struggle between various classes was in the Arab world a fight for political and economic independence.

For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in ...

We have a Major Problem,

Creation is Cubic Opposites,
2 Major Corners & 2 Minor.

Mom/Dad & Son/Daughter,
NOT
taught Evil ONEism,
which  VOIDS Families.
********************************************************************* * ********************

Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life
Intelligence - or you die evil.
********************************************************************* * ******************
 Evil God Believers refuse to
acknowledge  4 corner Days
rotating simultaneously around
4 quadrant created Earth -
in only 1 rotation, voiding the
Oneism Evil  1 Day 1 God.
You worship Satanic impostor
guised by educators as 1 god.

No 1 God equals 4 - 24 hour

Days Rotating Simultaneously
within 1- 24 hour Rotation of
 4 quadrant created Earth.
Ignoring 4 Corner Earth Days
will Destroy Evil Humanity.
I am organizing Children to
join "Cubic Army of 4 Days"
to convert Evil 1 Day Adults
to 4 Day mentality existence,
to serve perpetual humanity.

"Nothing on Earth more Evil

than a human educated as 1,
when composed of opposites
that cancel out as an entity."
In fact, man is the only 1 Evil,
and will soon erase himself by
ignoring Cubic 4 Day Creation.
If a Man cannot tear a page
from the bible and burn it -
then he cannot be a scientist
,
or participate in Symposium -
to measure Cubing of Earth
with Cubic intelligence wiser
than any man or god known.
Educators have destroyed the
human analytical brain to a
single perspective, in spite of
all creation within  Universe
being based upon opposites,
binaries & antipodes, including
Sun/Earth binary relative to the

 human male/female binary. No

 ancient insignificant dead 1 Jew
 godism can match or exceed the
enormity of the Sun/Earth
Binary. His heart is not big
enough for sharing with the
vastness of created opposites.
1 has no heart beat or breath,
constituting death of opposites.
God in Human form has human

 limits as body controls activity.

You are taught Evil, You act
Evil, You are the Evil on Earth.
Only your comprehending the
Divinity of Cubic Creation will
your soul be saved from your
created hell on Earth
- induced
by your ignoring the existing
4 corner
harmonic simultaneous
 4 Days rotating in a single cycle
of the Earth sphere. Religious/
Academic Pedants cannot allow
4 Days that contradict 1Day 1God.
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?

Creation ocurrs via opposites,

but Religious/Academia pedants
suppress it teaching Satanic One.

After 30 years of research, I now

possess the Order of Harmonic
Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -
too large for physical form, but
Binary Spirit of the masculinity
Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.
ONEism is demonic Death Math.
I have so much to teach you, but
you ignore me you evil asses.
You will recognize 4 corner Days
or incur
Easter Island Ending.

Never a Genius knew Math

to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.
Cubic thought Reigns as the
Highest Intelligence possible
on the planet Earth. One 96
hour rotating Cube within a
single rotation of Earth -- is
an Ineffable Transcendence.
Bible and Science falsify 1
corner day for the Cubic 4
corner Days rotating daily.
A single god is not possible
in our 4 Day Cubic Science,
that equates Cubic Divinity.
Everybody is both stupid and
evil for ignoring the 4 days.
Cube Divinity transcends all
knowledge, Humans can't
escape 4 corner Cubic Life.
Fools worship mechanics of
language - while they wallow
in fictitious & deceitful word
.
Exact science based on Cubics,
not on theories. Wisdom is
Cubic testing of knowledge.
Academia is progression of
Ignorance.   No god equals
Simultaneous 4 Day Creation.
Humans ignore their 4 corner
stages of life metamorphosis.
This site is a collection of data
for a coming book - peruse it.
No human has 2 hands as they
are opposites, like plus and
minus, that cancel as entity.
Academia destroys your brain,
your ability to think opposite.
The eyes of the flounder fish
were relocated, why were yours

 relocated? Your opposite eyes

were moved to 1 corner to overlay
for single perspective, but that
corrupts your Opposite Brain.
*****************************

KNOW CUBE, OR HELL.

Education and Religion
severely diminishes
your
intelligence and mentality,
instituting ONEness Evil
,
You are educated stupid -
and you have no inkling to
just how EVIL you think.

Seek in haste to attend a

lecture by Dr. Gene Ray,
Cubic and Wisest Human -

His Wisdom is Awesome.
*************************************
For Cumming, GA 30041 Lecture,
email: oray61­2­959[nospam-﹫-backwards]knil­htrae­*ne­t
*******************************************
Both Cubic Thinkers and SnotBrains were
born with opposite brains, capable of math
analysis to know most everything.    The
Religious/Academic Oneness Brotherhood
destroys the Brain's ability to think opposite
of singularity trash taught.
Such reduced
Brain intelligence
begets the student a
tag of SnotBrain android - encapable of
comprehending absolute proof of 4 Days
rotating simultaneously within a single
rotation of Earth. Cubics comprehend it.
You are a Cubic Thinker, or SnotBrain.

You SnotBrains will know
hell for ignoring TimeCube.
I do not promote or suggest
anyone killing you, but you
are unfit to live on Earth.
Binary Life Force
is more
Powerful than ONE God -
especially the ole dead Jew,
for which you've denounced
your own mother and father.
1 side brain can't reason
without the opposite side.
Americans are so dumb,
educated stupid and evil,
they have snot for brain.
Believers have snot brain.
Educated have snot brain.
God worship only needs
a snot brain, but it takes
Opposite Brain Analysis
to know Harmonic Life.

The masculinity Sun and
femininity Earth - form
a Binary of Harmonic
Opposites
  at Center of
Universe - Greater than
either Sun or the Earth,
debunking all fictitious
Oneism Gods taught by
religious/academic Word
Animals. The invention of
fictitious WORD inflicts
humans as Word Animals
- the dumbest and most
Educated stupid and Evil
animal to inhabit Earth
and the Universe. Watch
for Giant Erasor as there
is a great danger of the
human Word Animal being
self-erased.   You cannot
comprehend the actual 4

 simultaneous days in single

rotation of Earth, as 1 day
1 God ONEism blocks the
ability to think opposite of
the ONEism crap taught.
Education destroys brain.

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human

**********************************

Gene Ray interview by Lionel on Air America Radio,

The Lionel Show - 10am, Friday, August 3, 2007

Creation is the Harmonics of Opposites -

Opposites are the Harmonics of Creation.
God entity is queer sex, or no opposite sex.
God Oners must ban all sex with Opposites.
Trinity of males degrade female opposites.
Sex okay for atheist, but not God Oneists.
Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a
Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs.
Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult.
No 1 God can create a planet of opposites,
which equate to a zero value existence, and
cancels to nothing as an entity in death.

**********************************
"Cubic Time" - Cubes
Earth, Life and Truth

Word God is Bad Math
MATH SHOWN HERE IS
FAR SUPERIOR TO GOD
AND CHRISTIANITY. USE
IT TO SAVE HUMANITY.

HONOR THE 4 DAYS



OR YOU SHOULD DIE.


Dr Gene Ray is the
Greatest Philosopher,
and is the Greatest
Mathematician.
www.TheWisestHuman.com
********************************************


Cubic Harmonics
Only Cubic Harmonics can save
humanity. Cubic Harmonics
will pacify all religions.

96-hour Cubic Day

debunks 1-day unnatural god.
96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day as witchcraft.

96-hour day willdisprove disunity

god. Academians are teaching -
pseudoscience.

Worshipping a Word God

will destroy the USA.
********************************************************
 
2014-04-17 05:33:26 PM  

cman: We're still talking about this?

Ugh. Give it a rest already. Go back to talking about how the NWO and aliens conspired to kill lizard people in Benghazi.


Shhhh! You'll get us all assimilated!
 
2014-04-17 05:34:17 PM  

BSABSVR: you'reself.


sorry, pet peeve

UrukHaiGuyz: honky-tonk/bar band


gross
 
2014-04-17 05:34:45 PM  

patrick767: Bloody William:
My butthurt is indeed pleased as if a great ointment has been applied to it, but a few clarifications.

I'm amazed at how much time you've spent on this guy. I for one am just hoping he goes full Glenn Beck and posts a chalkboard drawing with arrows showing the connections between the Democratic Party, Baathists, George Soros, Joseph Stalin, and Saul Alinsky.


I assumed it would be yarn between blog printouts in a dark room with tin foil covering the windows
 
2014-04-17 05:36:15 PM  

sprawl15: BSABSVR: oneself.

sorry, pet peeve



Likewise
 
2014-04-17 05:36:47 PM  
Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?
 
2014-04-17 05:37:27 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: honky-tonk/bar band

gross


*Shrug* It's not for everyone, but people like to dance and drink, and I like playing for them. We probably play at least some stuff you'd like. How do you feel about the Stones?

/resume threadjack?
//whatever, this thing went off the rails long ago
 
2014-04-17 05:37:50 PM  

cman: sprawl15: BSABSVR: oneself.

sorry, pet peeve

Likewise


me as well and such like
 
2014-04-17 05:38:25 PM  

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


Yes. Me.

On a wide variety of subjects; back when I started FARKing I was leaning towards Republican/Libertarian.

I got better.
 
2014-04-17 05:38:52 PM  

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


I have, certainly. Especially when it comes to parsing Supreme Court decisions and such. I'd say have your views refined is a much more reasonable metric.
 
2014-04-17 05:40:19 PM  

Summercat: KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

Yes. Me.

On a wide variety of subjects; back when I started FARKing I was leaning towards Republican/Libertarian.

I got better.


sparks.brushfireoffreedom.org
 
2014-04-17 05:41:18 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: The pay's a hell of a lot better playing two-step music than the rock/indie stuff I play with. More of a crowd pleaser, too.


Two step eh? Let me know when you do an indie gig. If on the off chance you're making PsychFest in Austin, drop me a line.

BSABSVR: That would require him to own his opinions.


Which I have expressed....but that would require you to read.
 
2014-04-17 05:41:39 PM  

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


Yes. I decided Bush's vacations were not nearly worth the fuss the Democrats were making.
 
2014-04-17 05:41:52 PM  

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


That's a pretty vague question. I can say with certainty that I came into a thread with one notion, and in fact argued based on that notion, learned things I hadn't known, and changed my mind. I can't recall the subject and it certainly didn't fundamentally alter my political leanings, but I, for one, am not afraid to admit that I've learned something, when I have, that changed my mind.
 
2014-04-17 05:43:17 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: We probably play at least some stuff you'd like. How do you feel about the Stones?


my tastes are kind of all over the place. the playlist i have on right now has toadies, clutch, isis, the glitch mob, puscifer, aesop rock, lovage, toundra, murder by death, and matthew good band

sadly my playlists are always getting gutted because of youtube terminating accounts :(

toundra, tho

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


ron paul 2008
 
2014-04-17 05:44:47 PM  
The list erroneously conflated government action and private action.
 
2014-04-17 05:46:18 PM  

Summercat: BSABSVR: Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.

That would require him to own his opinions.

One might say that he dances around the issue.


[horatio-caine.jpg]
 
2014-04-17 05:46:54 PM  
If you don't agree with me I will do my best to change the laws to force you agree with me.

Screw your religion. I want the government to make you buy me stuff and shut you down if you try to resist.

And the things I can never accomplish at the ballot box I will relentlessly pursue through the courts. I have a 14th amendment right to any damned thing I want.
 
2014-04-17 05:48:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Two step eh? Let me know when you do an indie gig. If on the off chance you're making PsychFest in Austin, drop me a line.


Sure thing.
 
2014-04-17 05:49:48 PM  
Tony Snark:  huge wall of text

Is that from a Dr. Bronner's soap container?  It is, isn't it? Heh.
 
2014-04-17 05:51:14 PM  

cchris_39: If you don't agree with me I will do my best to change the laws to force you agree with me.

Screw your religion. I want the government to make you buy me stuff and shut you down if you try to resist.

And the things I can never accomplish at the ballot box I will relentlessly pursue through the courts. I have a 14th amendment right to any damned thing I want.


What the hell are you babbling about?

Oh yes, oppression or something.

Better grab a gun, patriot!!
 
2014-04-17 05:51:22 PM  

BSABSVR: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?

STILL  butthurt about that photoshop picture that I posted about a half a year ago?  Not done with me yet?  Grow a sense of humor.  Did you notice that NO ONE supported you when you tried to "ghey-bait" me with YOUR gross imagery?  You're engaging in cheesedick moves that have NOTHING to do with the current topic.  Stahp it!

Ok. So you're trolling. Got it. Bye. Kill yourself.


That would be an incorrect assertion and an unpleasant suggestion, but, anyhoo........... well, bye.
 
2014-04-17 05:51:39 PM  

sprawl15: my tastes are kind of all over the place. the playlist i have on right now has toadies, clutch, isis, the glitch mob, puscifer, aesop rock, lovage, toundra, murder by death, and matthew good band


That list is pretty...eclectic.

CSB: I met two of the dudes from Isis about 10 years ago, but not the lead singer; US Customs deported him for "unauthorized imports" because he brought a bunch of their CDs in his luggage.
 
2014-04-17 05:52:28 PM  

cchris_39: If you don't agree with me I will do my best to change the laws to force you agree with me.

Screw your religion. I want the government to make you buy me stuff and shut you down if you try to resist.

And the things I can never accomplish at the ballot box I will relentlessly pursue through the courts. I have a 14th amendment right to any damned thing I want.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-04-17 05:53:08 PM  
cchris_39:

No.  Your religion does not give you the ability to not follow laws that everyone else must follow.  It does not matter if your religion says that you may kill disobedient children, society says no one can so neither can you.

Minority rights are not a ballot box issue. If you believe that something should not be a right, feel free to amend the Constitution.
 
2014-04-17 05:53:57 PM  

cchris_39: If you don't agree with me I will do my best to change the laws to force you agree with me.

Screw your religion. I want the government to make you buy me stuff and shut you down if you try to resist.

And the things I can never accomplish at the ballot box I will relentlessly pursue through the courts. I have a 14th amendment right to any damned thing I want.


Yeah man, you show those strohvolk!
 
2014-04-17 05:54:19 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: We probably play at least some stuff you'd like. How do you feel about the Stones?


my tastes are kind of all over the place. the playlist i have on right now has toadies, clutch, isis, the glitch mob, puscifer, aesop rock, lovage, toundra, murder by death, and matthew good band


Right on. The bolded are on a few of my playlists as well. I grew up playing mostly jazz and classical stuff. I do understand the aversion to country- there's a metric f*ck ton of simply awful alt-country on the airwaves.
 
2014-04-17 05:54:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: The pay's a hell of a lot better playing two-step music than the rock/indie stuff I play with. More of a crowd pleaser, too.

Two step eh? Let me know when you do an indie gig. If on the off chance you're making PsychFest in Austin, drop me a line.

BSABSVR: That would require him to own his opinions.

Which I have expressed....but that would require you to read.


You never express your actual opinion on anything. You hint and you imply. If someone asked you if you wanted Mexican or Italian food, it would be a 20 minute dialog where you talked about how you have issues with Marinara, you're trying to avoid breads, would be inclined to get something with some spice, could probably choose a better drink than wine with dinner etc.

At no time would you just say "let's do Mexican tonight". It would force you to make a statement that someone might contradict.
 
2014-04-17 05:57:03 PM  

qorkfiend: sprawl15: my tastes are kind of all over the place. the playlist i have on right now has toadies, clutch, isis, the glitch mob, puscifer, aesop rock, lovage, toundra, murder by death, and matthew good band

That list is pretty...eclectic.


my more eclectic stuff i don't really throw into playlists. book of knots or peste noire or whatever showing up unexpectedly can really throw off a mood

qorkfiend: CSB: I met two of the dudes from Isis about 10 years ago, but not the lead singer; US Customs deported him for "unauthorized imports" because he brought a bunch of their CDs in his luggage.


huh i thought they were all americans. wouldn't they just confiscate the cds?

UrukHaiGuyz: I do understand the aversion to country- there's a metric f*ck ton of simply awful alt-country on the airwaves.


as little a fark i give about country as a genre, the whole bro country movement needs to just die

also john prine is forever an exception to any of my biatching
 
2014-04-17 06:02:40 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


...I stopped at "by Mark Steyn".

He might have more credibility if he'd hire a lawyer to represent him in the Michael Mann defamation case.  As it stands, it seems like he's trying to lose a winnable case on his antics, just so he can paint the government as pro-climate change and anti-free speech. (And Ken from Popehat is not helping either Steyn or himself with his blatant cheerleading of Steyn even through his antics.  There's a time to cut your losses.)
 
2014-04-17 06:06:54 PM  

Jjaro: whidbey: Jjaro: God forbid you have to read an article that highlights a different viewpoint than what you believe.

God forbid you summarize the argument so we don't have to click on that utter garbage.

So since you don't want to read something, you expect other to summarize it for you?  Sounds like we have a real intellectual heavyweight here.


s25.postimg.org

Enjoy being a 3rd hand, dude.
 
2014-04-17 06:07:46 PM  

lantawa: ........... well, bye.


So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"
 
2014-04-17 06:09:48 PM  
Bull-at least in the United States.

The First Amendment is amazingly broad, and not just in regards to campaign finance issue.  Things that are common practice elsewhere (banning hate speech or Nazi references, government run movie or video game classification and censorship boards, etc.) are completely illegal in the US.

Now, the First Amendment also allows for individuals and private companies, colleges, and organizations to be able to attack, fire, or boycott somebody or something due what they say or believe.
 
2014-04-17 06:10:24 PM  

lantawa: And do you good folk not see how readily these views by a Baathist founder could be Westernized?


The question isn't whether it's possible. The question is whether it has actually happened. You have spent a lot of time arguing that there is an actual, factual Baathist influence on Western politics. What you haven't done is show any proof that that is actually happening. Just saying it might happen is not proof that it has happened.

You still have the same amount of crediblity as Truthers and Birthers and Geocentrists. That won't change until you provide actual evidence of the specific influence actually happening, not just speculation on what could happen.
 
2014-04-17 06:20:04 PM  

IlGreven: bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.

...I stopped at "by Mark Steyn".

He might have more credibility if he'd hire a lawyer to represent him in the Michael Mann defamation case.  As it stands, it seems like he's trying to lose a winnable case on his antics, just so he can paint the government as pro-climate change and anti-free speech. (And Ken from Popehat is not helping either Steyn or himself with his blatant cheerleading of Steyn even through his antics.  There's a time to cut your losses.)


...and, of course, now I see I'm a fool seeing he no longer has a fool for a client.  It still seems like he's willing to lose the case despite the only really defamatory word I could see being "fraud" (and that "Jerry Sandusky" bullshiat is opinion anyway). If he wasn't, he'd have kept NRO's counsel.
 
2014-04-17 06:23:14 PM  
sprawl15
ron paul RON PAUL 2008

Fixed.
 
2014-04-17 06:30:18 PM  

sprawl15:

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

ron paul 2008


Fair enough.

RyogaM: KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

Yes. I decided Bush's vacations were not nearly worth the fuss the Democrats were making.


I love this comment because I agree with it, but you could replace Bush with Obama and Democrats with Republicans and I would have hated it, and i literally have zero context as to what you are talking about.

But in my mind Democrats=Bad and Republicans=Good. So we have bonded, and you are now one of my fav Farkers. (I am new here, are "Farkers" a thing?)

UrukHaiGuyz: KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

I have, certainly. Especially when it comes to parsing Supreme Court decisions and such. I'd say have your views refined is a much more reasonable metric.


Refined is good too, I just get so angry on political forums. I don't understand why people argue here. Your example was more of a process that you gained knowledge around. It still seems pointless to me, people just shout at each other, and, if anything, it makes people more steadfast and ignorant in their own values.

Summercat: KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

Yes. Me.

On a wide variety of subjects; back when I started FARKing I was leaning towards Republican/Libertarian.

I got better.


I have this strange idea that if a comments section can change your opinion on an actual political affiliation level you are easily manipulated. Also, that if your ideas don't change you are hardheaded and an idiot. There is no winning.

I always like talking to converts, what made you switch and why? Do you walk the line on a lot of issues or are you pretty anti-republican/libertarian now?

theknuckler_33: KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

That's a pretty vague question. I can say with certainty that I came into a thread with one notion, and in fact argued based on that notion, learned things I hadn't known, and changed my mind. I can't recall the subject and it certainly didn't fundamentally alter my political leanings, but I, for one, am not afraid to admit that I've learned something, when I have, that changed my mind.


More broad than vague, but I see your point. This is a good explanation. More of a micro change than a macro change, but that is the value I see in comments sections, they are a way to add context to the news stories. Lets the little man speak, however softly.
 
2014-04-17 06:33:13 PM  

Mentat: Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views? If so, do his views disqualify him from every job? Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them? These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.


IMHO, these are very easy questions to answer.  If your personal views reflect poorly on a company, then it is up to that company to decide whether your value as an employee offsets the PR damage and ensuing monetary losses.  If applicable, the same decision will be made for each future position.  Also, customers owe a company and its employees NOTHING.  So, in that capacity, their right is absolute in denying someone their livelihood.
 
2014-04-17 06:37:13 PM  

KillaChinchilla: I have this strange idea that if a comments section can change your opinion on an actual political affiliation level you are easily manipulated.


This really isn't the case, at least not all the time. Simple example, waaaaaaay back when, I was a bit of a Truther. Lurking on Fark and reading articles from places like PopSci that other Farkers posted is one of the major reasons I no longer am.
 
2014-04-17 06:37:26 PM  

vrax: Mentat: Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views? If so, do his views disqualify him from every job? Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them? These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.

IMHO, these are very easy questions to answer.  If your personal views reflect poorly on a company, then it is up to that company to decide whether your value as an employee offsets the PR damage and ensuing monetary losses.  If applicable, the same decision will be made for each future position.  Also, customers owe a company and its employees NOTHING.  So, in that capacity, their right is absolute in denying someone their livelihood.


You are correct 100%. Public opinion dictates policy. Because everything is a product and if the customer has ANY reason to not use your product, you change that farking reason.
 
2014-04-17 06:43:06 PM  

Jjaro: Yes, he did.  Nice try though. "Before his resignation, Eich posted an apology on his blog for the "pain" he said his views had caused. He vowed to uphold a culture of equality as Mozilla's CEO, including maintaining the nonprofit's health benefits for same-sex couples "

http://news.yahoo.com/mozilla-ceos-exit-tests-silicon-valleys-tolera nc e-012554106--sector.html

2008, while only 6 years ago, was a hell of a lot different in terms of acceptance of gay marriage.  I just think its absurd that all these people were so adament that he resign.  I understand why he had to, and unlike some, I don't neccesarily think Mozilla is at fault.  It pretty much had to happen.  But I do agree with the point of this article, which can be witnessed pretty clearly by observing many Fark members, where dissenting opinion is simply not tolerated.


I said in an earlier thread that the only concern regarding him keeping his job would be if he changed policies to the detriment of LGBT employees or clients.  He clearly stated that he would not but the pro gay marriage crowd wasn't satisfied with that assurance and insisted on destroying him.

That's where I part ways with people that rabid about it.
 
2014-04-17 06:43:47 PM  
This article is obviously silly because, as many commenters have already pointed out, it's not necessarily that speech is being limited as much as people are merely being taken to task for saying disagreeable. That being said, I'm a little wary of how fast the boundaries of what constitute unacceptable speech, and the willingess to mercilessly remove people from polite society who transgress in this area are expanding. I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases. The social-justice types who supported #CancelColbert are bolstering their numbers every day and they are every day demanding additional concessions from society. They've already made huge inroads in academic institutions and are always looking to expand their influence. There's likely not a single person here who doesn't hold a view that these social-justice types would consider misogynistic, transphobic, racist, et cetera. How long before each of us becomes villified for our transgressions against social justice?
 
2014-04-17 06:45:00 PM  
Meh. More conservative persecution complex drivel.
 
2014-04-17 06:46:29 PM  

bdub77: How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

[i340.photobucket.com image 250x272]

/more like Spec-tater.


You should have kept reading, you might have learned something. I honestly think most liberals' hearts are in the right place but they're just as full of intolerance and hatred than the Conservatives they're trying to silence.
 
2014-04-17 06:52:24 PM  
Lots of hand wringing over a CEO getting fired for speech (in the form of a political conribution that the board of directors didnt' like.

Has a CEO ever fired a subordinate for saying something he didn't like?  I'm sure it happens 100s of times a day, where is the outrage for that?
 
2014-04-17 06:54:18 PM  

SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.


Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views
 
2014-04-17 06:55:40 PM  

SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.


did eich donate ironically

was there a wink implied

SeriousGeorge: How long before each of us becomes villified for our transgressions against social justice?


a better question would be why the fark anyone would care about how many tumblr bumps a glutensexual gets for raging on the internet
 
2014-04-17 06:57:06 PM  

RyogaM: cchris_39:

No.  Your religion does not give you the ability to not follow laws that everyone else must follow.  It does not matter if your religion says that you may kill disobedient children, society says no one can so neither can you.


Here's hoping farking Roberts etc. remember this basic farking fact when the ruling on Hobby Lobby finally comes down, instead of the usual judicial hackery we've seen as of late.
 
2014-04-17 06:58:55 PM  

SeriousGeorge: This article is obviously silly because, as many commenters have already pointed out, it's not necessarily that speech is being limited as much as people are merely being taken to task for saying disagreeable. That being said, I'm a little wary of how fast the boundaries of what constitute unacceptable speech, and the willingess to mercilessly remove people from polite society who transgress in this area are expanding. I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases. The social-justice types who supported #CancelColbert are bolstering their numbers every day and they are every day demanding additional concessions from society. They've already made huge inroads in academic institutions and are always looking to expand their influence. There's likely not a single person here who doesn't hold a view that these social-justice types would consider misogynistic, transphobic, racist, et cetera. How long before each of us becomes villified for our transgressions against social justice?


You sound concerned. A little fearful, very uncertain, and full of doubt.
 
2014-04-17 06:59:29 PM  
  Good ol conservatives,  I want to do whatever i want and be entirely free of any consequence of my actions!   Between this and  always being afraid of some boogie man it's as if at it's core they're a bunch of moronic children.  Probably why stories about cowboys rescuing them from the evil commies work so well on this lot.
 
2014-04-17 07:02:54 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.

Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views


What I find more amusing is that many of the people screaming about how Eich is being oppressed are the same people who called for Bashir to be fired.
 
2014-04-17 07:03:44 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"


Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....
 
2014-04-17 07:09:13 PM  

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....


Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)
 
2014-04-17 07:11:47 PM  

cchris_39: Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.


No. It's more like this:

If you want the immigration laws enforced because you hate Latinos- BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay without justification - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills because you think it's immoral for women to use it to have sex without consequences- BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born because women should be punished for having intercourse- BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates  in a way that suggests black people are innately inferior- BIGOT! (racist),

 If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote because it disenfranchises your inferior opponents- BIGOT! (more racist),
 If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined  because white people are innately more intelligent and productive- BIGOT! (extremely racist).
 
2014-04-17 07:12:39 PM  

Tymast: Good ol conservatives,  I want to do whatever i want and be entirely free of any consequence of my actions!   Between this and  always being afraid of some boogie man it's as if at it's core they're a bunch of moronic children.  Probably why stories about cowboys rescuing them from the evil commies work so well on this lot.


Not "as if" they were grown babies, modern Conservatism pretty much only appeals to these days.
 
2014-04-17 07:13:28 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Tymast: Good ol conservatives,  I want to do whatever i want and be entirely free of any consequence of my actions!   Between this and  always being afraid of some boogie man it's as if at it's core they're a bunch of moronic children.  Probably why stories about cowboys rescuing them from the evil commies work so well on this lot.

Not "as if" they were grown babies, modern Conservatism pretty much only appeals to those typesthese days.


Proofreading failure.
 
2014-04-17 07:15:34 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....

Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)


Hey  Lionel, y'all be debating a hypocritical clownshoes troll who has posted more than enough of his own creepy closeted gay imagery involving Obama.
 
2014-04-17 07:17:56 PM  

Jackson Herring: sprawl15: so does this mean it's now illegal to put shiatposters on ignore

~fartz~


I think that was a shart. ;)
 
2014-04-17 07:19:36 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.

Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views


I think the more apt comparison is to Melody Hensley and her "I got PTSD from Twitter" comment. Many of the people who condemned Eich still defend Hensley even after she threatened to report active duty military who merely questioned whether she had PTSD (although probably belligerently, as in "biatch, I know what PTSD is, and you don't have PTSD").

And it's relevant as Hensley is the Washington DC Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit secular (read: atheist) org that has furthering "freedom of thought" in its mission statement.

/But it's okay because she's a feminist. Right, Rebecca Watson?
 
2014-04-17 07:20:21 PM  
Conservative: We don't need all these laws to stop discrimination. The invisible hand of the free market will force this companies to have non-discriminatory behavior.

[Boycott actually happens against a business for discriminator behavior]

Conservative: OMG you must stop that now you are infringing on their free speech!!!
 
2014-04-17 07:22:38 PM  

IlGreven: Lionel Mandrake: SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.

Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views

I think the more apt comparison is to Melody Hensley and her "I got PTSD from Twitter" comment. Many of the people who condemned Eich still defend Hensley even after she threatened to report active duty military who merely questioned whether she had PTSD (although probably belligerently, as in "biatch, I know what PTSD is, and you don't have PTSD").

And it's relevant as Hensley is the Washington DC Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit secular (read: atheist) org that has furthering "freedom of thought" in its mission statement.

/But it's okay because she's a feminist. Right, Rebecca Watson?


I don't think armchair psychologists should be diagnosing people they find distasteful from across the internet, but that's just me.

Wondering how hyperbolic that Twitter PTSD was meant though, really hoping she wasn't trying to be serious.
 
2014-04-17 07:22:41 PM  

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


Yes, regarding Elizabeth Warren. I fully expected her to go the usual limousine-liberal route, especially given that she's landed a seat in the famously self-important and reality-detached United States Senate from the famously self-important and reality-detached state of Massachusetts...but while I am far from agreeing with her positions I do appreciate that her rhetoric has been much more measured than that of her more swoony acolytes, that she shows signs of having done her homework before opening her mouth, can speak in something other than market-tested buzzphrases, and has a strong good-government streak that so far has not been chewed up by the usual DC sausage-making process like some other new-ish Democratic senators I could mention (coughGILLIBRANDcough).
 
2014-04-17 07:25:41 PM  

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


Yes, I have a couple of times.

The use of the phrase "free speech" is a distraction. The author is talking about the ability to speak freely.
If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.
I have less of a problem with speakers being disinvited, but an Educational institution should embrace debate not run from it.
The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.

Also, I might add, terms such as racist and bigot are used with zero evidence existing to prove either and have diluted them to near meaninglessness.

The right is not completely innocent in this, but the culprits are predominantly liberal, and younger.

/The order should probably read younger and liberal as I think it has more to do with age than it does your type of politics.
 
2014-04-17 07:27:57 PM  

CanisNoir: If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.


i2.cdn.turner.com

CanisNoir: The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.


"We don't need anti-discrimination laws, the free market will fix it!"

*free market fixes it*

"WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING HIM??"

Not to mention, saying it sets a dangerous precedent is stupid. Both sides have called for boycotts and people to fired before.
 
2014-04-17 07:30:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....

Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)


Look.  Don't be moronic about why someone might leave a thread.  Was I on this thread for hours?  Yes.  Did I need to poop, eat, take a walk, spend time with my wife, etc?  Yes.  Yes, I did need to do all of those things.  What is with you?

Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.  Glad I'm not within striking distance of any of you, cause, gathered together, it seems very much like a thug-gang would descend upon me and beat me senseless.  You'd like that, wouldn't you?  And you, ironically, don't even see the problems with that kind of attitude.

Take, for instance, the issue in Nevada regarding the rancher out there. You know all of the calls that there have been to have the Feds go out there and bomb those guys, exterminate those guys, kill those guys?  You've seen those writings, no doubt. Well, that's what Baathists do.  They mercilessly kill and maim their opponents physically, and torture them emotionally and physically.

I thank God for the rule of law, and the fact that I am a law-abiding and intelligent citizen of this country. Yes I do.  Put that in that little hopper you call a brain and think about it. No torture for you.  Not yours......
 
2014-04-17 07:32:50 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....

Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)

Hey  Lionel, y'all be debating a hypocritical clownshoes troll who has posted more than enough of his own creepy closeted gay imagery involving Obama.


I'm well-aware of what he is...but I believe in second, third, etc chances.  I keep hoping that one these FARK "conservatives" will actually back up their shiat, and set the table for an actual intelligent discussion.

Sometimes it actually happens!  Or, used to, any way.  I don't expect much from this particular troll/coward, but I am always hopeful that one will actually provide some starting ground for a discussion.  But it's pretty much always: Outrageous statement followed by requests for citations followed by diversion (you're so naïve!!) followed by further requests for evidence, followed by silence)

Some days I'm in the mood to give another opportunity and I don't mind typing a bunch.  These moods are ephemeral and so far have born no fruit...but I will continue to try from time to time.  Maybe...someday...maybe,,,
 
2014-04-17 07:37:15 PM  

CanisNoir: an Educational institution should embrace debate not run from it.


QFMFT.

Outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Ali and Hitchens (may God, Allah, Buddha, Cthulhu, Zoroaster, Odin, Zeus and Eric Clapton rest his soul, just to take the piss out of him) should be the very people a religious student association should welcome to campus, eager for debate.

Instead we get this insipid whining from the Muslim Snowflake Association that their feelings are hurt, and the administration bends over for them.
 
2014-04-17 07:37:55 PM  

lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.

news.psu.edu

You walked right into that one chief.....
 
2014-04-17 07:39:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....

Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)

Hey  Lionel, y'all be debating a hypocritical clownshoes troll who has posted more than enough of his own creepy closeted gay imagery involving Obama.

I'm well-aware of what he is...but I believe in second, third, etc chances.  I keep hoping that one these FARK "conservatives" will actually back up their shiat, and set the table for an actual intelligent discussion.

Sometimes it actually happens!  Or, used to, any way.  I don't expect much from this particular troll/coward, but I am always hopeful that one will actually provide some starting ground for a discussion.  But it's pretty much always: Outrageous statement followed by requests for citations followed by diversion (you're so naïve!!) followed by further requests for evidence, followed by silence)

Some days I'm in the mood to give another opportunity and I don't mind typing a bunch.  These moods are ephemeral and so far have born no fruit...but I will continue to try from time to time.  Maybe...someday...maybe,,,


It's very sad that American conservatism has sold itself out such that it only appeals to miscreants, retards, and generally worthless assholes today :(
 
2014-04-17 07:41:56 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?


This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.  Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.  Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.
 
2014-04-17 07:42:13 PM  

lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.


So you still have nothing.  Got it.

Please restrict your response to backing up your original accusations.

Or talk more about what I would do or like to do, as if you know fark-all about me.  It's a very handy diversion.

And I don't know fark-all about you either, other than your complete inability to back up your claims.

Any time you care to get back to the claim you made, and provide evidence to back it up, I will be here to listen and consider it very seriously.

And if you choose to leave, or whine some more, I will be here to laugh at you.
 
2014-04-17 07:42:25 PM  

Gulper Eel: CanisNoir: an Educational institution should embrace debate not run from it.

QFMFT.

Outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Ali and Hitchens (may God, Allah, Buddha, Cthulhu, Zoroaster, Odin, Zeus and Eric Clapton rest his soul, just to take the piss out of him) should be the very people a religious student association should welcome to campus, eager for debate.

Instead we get this insipid whining from the Muslim Snowflake Association that their feelings are hurt, and the administration bends over for them.


Much like many institutions have similarly bent over backwards for butthurt Christians for decades at the expense of Atheists, or you know enshrined pro-Christian discrimination into law and institutional procedure. Try being an unmarried yet together couple getting your kids into school in the year 2014, you'll be asked some exceptionally insulting questions a married couple will not.
 
2014-04-17 07:43:30 PM  

lantawa: To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.


TIL that asking for proof is "ganglike suprressive efforts"

lantawa: Take, for instance, the issue in Nevada regarding the rancher out there. You know all of the calls that there have been to have the Feds go out there and bomb those guys, exterminate those guys, kill those guys?  You've seen those writings, no doubt. Well, that's what Baathists do.  They mercilessly kill and maim their opponents physically, and torture them emotionally and physically.


Calls for death of the other guy have been used by basically every political side ever. Trying to use this to link Baathists and liberals is just sad.
 
2014-04-17 07:44:54 PM  

Gulper Eel: CanisNoir: an Educational institution should embrace debate not run from it.

QFMFT.

Outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Ali and Hitchens (may God, Allah, Buddha, Cthulhu, Zoroaster, Odin, Zeus and Eric Clapton rest his soul, just to take the piss out of him) should be the very people a religious student association should welcome to campus, eager for debate.

Instead we get this insipid whining from the Muslim Snowflake Association that their feelings are hurt, and the administration bends over for them.


There's a difference between being an atheist, and saying:

"Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."
 
2014-04-17 07:45:00 PM  
i dont know what's sadder, that someone's just spraying a firehose of piss at the thread or that dozens of posters are rushing it, mouths open
 
2014-04-17 07:45:51 PM  

lantawa: This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.

[theinternetisseriousbusiness.jpg]
 
2014-04-17 07:46:26 PM  

lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you. You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.


I lol'd.
 
2014-04-17 07:47:33 PM  

ScaryBottles: lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.
[news.psu.edu image 200x200]

You walked right into that one chief.....


It's true that I did walk right into it, and I even forgot the combination to my locker, heheh.

To be fair, that is what Baathists do, though it's way too much of a stretch to believe that the average ITG Farker is a truly violent Farker.
 
2014-04-17 07:50:22 PM  

lantawa: ScaryBottles: lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.
[news.psu.edu image 200x200]

You walked right into that one chief.....

It's true that I did walk right into it, and I even forgot the combination to my locker, heheh.

To be fair, that is what Baathists do, though it's way too much of a stretch to believe that the average ITG Farker is a truly violent Farker

assets.diylol.com

You're making this too easy.
 
2014-04-17 07:51:20 PM  

grumpfuff: CanisNoir: If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.

CanisNoir: The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.

"We don't need anti-discrimination laws, the free market will fix it!"

*free market fixes it*

"WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING HIM??"

Not to mention, saying it sets a dangerous precedent is stupid. Both sides have called for boycotts and people to fired before.


One example of a person shouting a single word does not make a pattern, and is not comparable to what Condi Rice, Cheny and others faced when invited to speak.

Your second example would be valid if there were actual discrimination at work, but Eich did not discriminate against anyone. Sorry, that one fails hard. There was no outward evidence of his political views, they only became widely known because someone vindictively took advantage of a California law and published the prop 8 donor list and then another company used it to take the heat off of themselves after one of their employees tweeted something obnoxious.
 
2014-04-17 07:52:17 PM  

grumpfuff: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.

I lol'd.


For once I'm glad someone quoted a troll I got listed as I wouldn't have been able to drink in the pure schadenfreude from the butthurt pussy* being given a taste of his own medicine. Oh the poor baby got his pwecious feewings hurt

*Don't think of the dynamics of that phrase for long
 
2014-04-17 07:54:05 PM  

ScaryBottles: lantawa: ScaryBottles: lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.
[news.psu.edu image 200x200]

You walked right into that one chief.....

It's true that I did walk right into it, and I even forgot the combination to my locker, heheh.

To be fair, that is what Baathists do, though it's way too much of a stretch to believe that the average ITG Farker is a truly violent Farker[assets.diylol.com image 413x510]

You're making this too easy.


So are you: See?  I can picture too!

i466.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-17 07:56:36 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Much like many institutions have similarly bent over backwards for butthurt Christians for decades at the expense of Atheists, or you know enshrined pro-Christian discrimination into law and institutional procedure. Try being an unmarried yet together couple getting your kids into school in the year 2014, you'll be asked some exceptionally insulting questions a married couple will not.


You're talking about a different situation. Yours is a problem with the pre-existing culture and you have a legitimate beef. Those kind of questions are none of anybody's business. All the school need know about your home life is name, address, contact info and the usual health info and the like - and if Cletus Biblethumper on the school board can't get that through his skull, the courts will eventually explain it to him, and then the district superintendent will explain to Cletus that his Godhumping ways just cost the district half a million dollars in legal fees that could've been spent on football.

Colleges, on the other hand, like to market themselves as places where unpopular, provocative and even occasional straight-up batshiat ideas can get a fair and fact-based drama-free hearing - but in the Brandeis case, the college a) failed to do their homework then b) backpedaled on their stated principles because a student pressure group got sulky, and c) tried spinning a bullshiat tale about their reasons for doing so.

This at a college named after one of the nation's great champions of justice and free speech.
 
2014-04-17 07:56:42 PM  

lantawa: ScaryBottles: lantawa: ScaryBottles: lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.
[news.psu.edu image 200x200]

You walked right into that one chief.....

It's true that I did walk right into it, and I even forgot the combination to my locker, heheh.

To be fair, that is what Baathists do, though it's way too much of a stretch to believe that the average ITG Farker is a truly violent Farker[assets.diylol.com image 413x510]

You're making this too easy.

So are you: See?  I can picture too!

[i466.photobucket.com image 200x86]

dev.solita.fi

I can do this all day captain.....
 
2014-04-17 07:57:10 PM  

CanisNoir: One example of a person shouting a single word does not make a pattern, and is not comparable to what Condi Rice, Cheny and others faced when invited to speak.


I've never heard of them being shouted at while making a speech. Trying to act like one side does this more than the other is blatant partisanship. Both sides do it, because both sides have immature little farks who do not know how to act.

CanisNoir: Your second example would be valid if there were actual discrimination at work, but Eich did not discriminate against anyone. Sorry, that one fails hard. There was no outward evidence of his political views, they only became widely known because someone vindictively took advantage of a California law and published the prop 8 donor list and then another company used it to take the heat off of themselves after one of their employees tweeted something obnoxious.


So the problem isn't that he made the donation, it's that people found out? Really? Not to mention he claimed he still held those beliefs.
 
2014-04-17 07:58:07 PM  

sprawl15: i dont know what's sadder, that someone's just spraying a firehose of piss at the thread or that dozens of posters are rushing it, mouths open


worst of all are the people who feel the need to say "LOL! He's a troll and y'all are stupid!  LOL!)

Seriously dude, just sit the thread out if it bothers you.

Or go check out the recent greenlights and make a big deal about repeats!!
 
2014-04-17 07:58:08 PM  

CanisNoir: grumpfuff: CanisNoir: If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.

CanisNoir: The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.

"We don't need anti-discrimination laws, the free market will fix it!"

*free market fixes it*

"WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING HIM??"

Not to mention, saying it sets a dangerous precedent is stupid. Both sides have called for boycotts and people to fired before.

One example of a person shouting a single word does not make a pattern, and is not comparable to what Condi Rice, Cheny and others faced when invited to speak.

Your second example would be valid if there were actual discrimination at work, but Eich did not discriminate against anyone. Sorry, that one fails hard. There was no outward evidence of his political views, they only became widely known because someone vindictively took advantage of a California law and published the prop 8 donor list and then another company used it to take the heat off of themselves after one of their employees tweeted something obnoxious.


Turd dog, all political donations over $100 in California are public knowledge and Eich knew that when he made the donation, and he knew he made that donation when he accepted the CEO position, also knowing this would make him a public figure. But of course you support his bigotry even if it's far more passive than your own so he shouldn't ever have to take responsibility for them. The free market is supposed to enable you to discriminate against people you dislike, not actually be a free market, right? I'm waiting for your pathetic, unconsidered, limp wristed rationale as to why not.
 
2014-04-17 08:00:03 PM  

Gulper Eel: Crotchrocket Slim: Much like many institutions have similarly bent over backwards for butthurt Christians for decades at the expense of Atheists, or you know enshrined pro-Christian discrimination into law and institutional procedure. Try being an unmarried yet together couple getting your kids into school in the year 2014, you'll be asked some exceptionally insulting questions a married couple will not.

You're talking about a different situation. Yours is a problem with the pre-existing culture and you have a legitimate beef. Those kind of questions are none of anybody's business. All the school need know about your home life is name, address, contact info and the usual health info and the like - and if Cletus Biblethumper on the school board can't get that through his skull, the courts will eventually explain it to him, and then the district superintendent will explain to Cletus that his Godhumping ways just cost the district half a million dollars in legal fees that could've been spent on football.

Colleges, on the other hand, like to market themselves as places where unpopular, provocative and even occasional straight-up batshiat ideas can get a fair and fact-based drama-free hearing - but in the Brandeis case, the college a) failed to do their homework then b) backpedaled on their stated principles because a student pressure group got sulky, and c) tried spinning a bullshiat tale about their reasons for doing so.

This at a college named after one of the nation's great champions of justice and free speech.


It's okay when institutions one is legally required to enroll one's children into for reason such as yadda yadda yadda something lame and arbitrary
 
2014-04-17 08:00:48 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Turd dog, all political donations over $100 in California are public knowledge and Eich knew that when he made the donation, and he knew he made that donation when he accepted the CEO position, also knowing this would make him a public figure.


I take back my earlier comment.


Not to mention, all he had to do was say "Oops, I'm sorry." That's it. Had he said that, everything would have blown over. But he was more interested in taking a political stance than keeping his job, so I can't really say I pity him.
 
2014-04-17 08:01:14 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: grumpfuff: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.

I lol'd.

For once I'm glad someone quoted a troll I got listed as I wouldn't have been able to drink in the pure schadenfreude from the butthurt pussy* being given a taste of his own medicine. Oh the poor baby got his pwecious feewings hurt

*Don't think of the dynamics of that phrase for long


Crotchrocket Slim: grumpfuff: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.

I lol'd.

For once I'm glad someone quoted a troll I got listed as I wouldn't have been able to drink in the pure schadenfreude from the butthurt pussy* being given a taste of his own medicine. Oh the poor baby got his pwecious feewings hurt

*Don't think of the dynamics of that phrase for long


Okay sport. Here ya go.  You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader;  you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to i