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 744
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6038 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



744 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 01:42:13 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.


He didn't merely express a belief. He provided financial support toward the removal of rights, toward institutionalized religious discrimination and inequality before the law.
You can think and say whatever the fark you want. If he just openly talked about his beliefs, I wouldn't give a flying fark and I wouldn't be bothered by using the services his company provides.
But when someone is going to take the money I give them or help them to generate to contribute towards the continuation of people, including myself, being treated like second-class citizens then you're damn right I'm going to call out for his termination if the company every wants my business again.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 744 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report