|
Post by Amadan on Feb 3, 2017 14:42:16 GMT -5
I don't endorse it, but I'm not disgusted by it either. I reserve my disgust for a little maggot like Yiannopoulos who vomits out bile and then screams his right to free speech in being impeded. Giving him a platform isn't about "free speech" or any of that First Amendment noise. Yes, it is, actually. The entire point of "free speech" is that people who disgust you get to have it too. Otherwise there is no free speech. What is your proposed solution to racist douche nozzles saying things that disgust you? Do you really recommend rioting as a remedy? Is there some level of racism someone has to be exhibit to merit riots, or does anyone saying anything racist justify a riot? Are there any forms of speech that disgust you that don't merit a riot? Lots of straw men here, but no hypocrisy. "I do not approve of riots and assaulting people in response to a racist douche nozzle speaking in public" does not mean "Law and order at all costs." "I think racist douche nozzles should be allowed to speak in public" does not mean "Racism is okay." Riots, burning things, and attacking people, is not just "disturbing the peace." No one here is suggesting the rioters should have been shot. (Though at a certain point, deadly force, which includes throwing bricks at people, is going to incur deadly force from the police in response.) Clearly you have, since your snide parenthetical was directed at me. My question was based at your accusation leveled at celawson, and by extension anyone else who sides against the rioters. One does not have to be a conservative to reliably be on the side that says "Racist douche nozzles still get to have free speech, and riots are not an appropriate response."
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 3, 2017 15:42:26 GMT -5
I don't endorse it, but I'm not disgusted by it either. I reserve my disgust for a little maggot like Yiannopoulos who vomits out bile and then screams his right to free speech in being impeded. Giving him a platform isn't about "free speech" or any of that First Amendment noise. Yes, it is, actually. The entire point of "free speech" is that people who disgust you get to have it too. Otherwise there is no free speech. < insert shrugging of shoulders here> That's your opinion and I have no opinion about your opinion. Sorry, but there's already a topic to be discussed here and I'm merely expressing my viewpoint. Now you may agree with it or disagree with it, but you're not going to change it and I don't intend to endlessly expand on the viewpoint with explanations you don't really want anyway. And probably incur deadly force against the police in response. Deadly force cuts both ways. Feel free to parse away at your heart's content, Amadan. As I have advised you before: if you ask me a direct question ( and I feel like bothering to respond) you're going to get a direct answer. Once I have, whether you accept or reject the answer is out of my control and not something I worry overmuch about. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 3, 2017 15:47:23 GMT -5
You're not disgusted by people getting physically assaulted and attacked for standing outside of a speech venue?
That's disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 3, 2017 15:55:28 GMT -5
Yes, it is, actually. The entire point of "free speech" is that people who disgust you get to have it too. Otherwise there is no free speech. < insert shrugging of shoulders here> That's your opinion and I have no opinion about your opinion. Under US law, at least, your opinion is objectively wrong. If it's your position that US law should change and that people who say things that disgust you should not be entitled to free speech... well, that is certainly an opinion. I will ask you directly: is that your position? I am not trying to change your viewpoint. I am actually trying to understand your viewpoint. You seem to think everyone is playing gotcha or trying to persuade you, but I'm really not. Your posts often, as now, are very vague and indirect, as you convey forcefully how very much you don't care - not even a little, not at all, can we all see how much you don't care? - what anyone else thinks and how impervious you are to having your own viewpoint altered, and a general sense of disgust and disdain for other viewpoints, but when asked directly what you are or are not advocating, you do this shoulder-shrugging evasive shuffle and dance routine where you don't actually come out and say what you think, you just strongly imply it, but if someone asks "Hey, are you saying (thing you implied)?" you roll your eyes and say "I didn't say that, did I?"
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 3, 2017 18:18:38 GMT -5
You're not disgusted by people getting physically assaulted and attacked for standing outside of a speech venue? That's disgusting. Blase indifference to racism is equally disgusting. < insert shrugging of shoulders here> That's your opinion and I have no opinion about your opinion. Under US law, at least, your opinion is objectively wrong. If it's your position that US law should change and that people who say things that disgust you should not be entitled to free speech... well, that is certainly an opinion. I will ask you directly: is that your position? I'll answer you directly: that's not a question. It's an indictment and despite your propensity to rephrase what you think I have said instead of what I actually have said, I'm not about to confirm your absurd accusations and I'm not playing your game. U.S. law, like all laws, are meant more to regulate behavior and enforce conformity. The law has been used to keep an oppressive boot on the neck of the discontented masses. The law has been used to take away the rights of Black people and people not in power. The law serves the interests of those vested interests that pass those laws. Nothing in this country changes by asking for it and saying "pretty please." If there's injustice or bigotry or racism or fascism you call it out as what it is and if you choose to shout instead of whisper, that's the American Way. If that makes people uncomfortable, maybe they ought to be. Actually, I don't roll my eyes. However, I might yawn because I'm being bored. I do not choose to respond to what you think I've "implied." It is not my responsibility to help you understand my viewpoint. That's a game we aren't going to play today. What is vague and indirect to you is clear and direct to me, and you're not obtuse or incapable of grasping the concept of my words. If you're the educated man you claim to be, I have to extend to you that much credit. It seems rather obvious you understand enough of what I say to react to it with your typical negativity. It's not that I don't care what anyone else thinks, Amadan. I care a great deal what people some people think.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 3, 2017 18:36:00 GMT -5
You're not disgusted by people getting physically assaulted and attacked for standing outside of a speech venue? That's disgusting. Blase indifference to racism is equally disgusting. Unless the racism in question involves an act of physical assault/violence, then I would disagree. An innocent person not getting a home loan is not equivalent to an innocent person getting physically assaulted, at least not to me. I would be surprised if a rational person disagreed. However, your entire retort here is nothing more than a red herring, as it has little to do with the situation in this story or any statements made by posters in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 3, 2017 19:26:16 GMT -5
Blase indifference to racism is equally disgusting. Unless the racism in question involves an act of physical assault/violence, then I would disagree. An innocent person not getting a home loan is not equivalent to an innocent person getting physically assaulted, at least not to me. I would be surprised if a rational person disagreed. However, your entire retort here is nothing more than a red herring, as it has little to do with the situation in this story or any statements made by posters in this thread. Funny. I was thinking the same thing about your red herring over how supposedly I'm not disgusted by people getting physically assaulted and attacked for standing outside of a speech venue. It's less funny to see how "posters in this thread" exalt the right of a bigot to freely spread his bigotry but are so incensed by a "retort" that doesn't comfort to their own narrow definition of free speech.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 3, 2017 20:18:26 GMT -5
Unless the racism in question involves an act of physical assault/violence, then I would disagree. An innocent person not getting a home loan is not equivalent to an innocent person getting physically assaulted, at least not to me. I would be surprised if a rational person disagreed. However, your entire retort here is nothing more than a red herring, as it has little to do with the situation in this story or any statements made by posters in this thread. Funny. I was thinking the same thing about your red herring over how supposedly I'm not disgusted by people getting physically assaulted and attacked for standing outside of a speech venue. It's less funny to see how "posters in this thread" exalt the right of a bigot to freely spread his bigotry but are so incensed by a "retort" that doesn't comfort to their own narrow definition of free speech. There's no "supposedly" about it. You flat out stated it in a previous post: I don't endorse it, but I'm not disgusted by it either. I reserve my disgust for a little maggot like Yiannopoulos who vomits out bile and then screams his right to free speech in being impeded. Giving him a platform isn't about "free speech" or any of that First Amendment noise. It's about not enabling a racist douche nozzle because it's hip and edgy and those are two bad reasons. So, there's nothing about what I said that is a red-herring at all, unless we radically change the definition of what a red-herring is. The other option is that you don't understand what the term means, and I doubt that's the case. You clearly said that you were not disgusted by the violence, rioting, and innocent people getting assaulted (pepper-sprayed). It was in direct response to Amadan asking you that very question. The only logical conclusion a person can draw from your own statements is that you feel that a troll saying trolly things is much worse than rioters engaging in violence and attacking people. This seems to be a pattern with you. You'll say something harsh, overly judgmental, or uncompassionate (in this case, arguably immoral), get called out on what you actually said, and then you divert and try to pretend that you didn't say it. That's the same tactic that Trump engages in. Own your words, even the horrible ones.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 3, 2017 20:44:00 GMT -5
What Opty said.
ohio49er, if you won't even answer direct questions, and won't own your words, and worse, are flat out dishonest about what other people have said (no one here is "exalting the rights of a racist" and rioting is not a "retort"), what is your purpose here and what sort of engagement are you expecting?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 3, 2017 21:01:39 GMT -5
Funny. I was thinking the same thing about your red herring over how supposedly I'm not disgusted by people getting physically assaulted and attacked for standing outside of a speech venue. It's less funny to see how "posters in this thread" exalt the right of a bigot to freely spread his bigotry but are so incensed by a "retort" that doesn't comfort to their own narrow definition of free speech. There's no "supposedly" about it. You flat out stated it in a previous post: I don't endorse it, but I'm not disgusted by it either. I reserve my disgust for a little maggot like Yiannopoulos who vomits out bile and then screams his right to free speech in being impeded. Giving him a platform isn't about "free speech" or any of that First Amendment noise. It's about not enabling a racist douche nozzle because it's hip and edgy and those are two bad reasons. So, there's nothing about what I said that is a red-herring at all, unless we radically change the definition of what a red-herring is. The other option is that you don't understand what the term means, and I doubt that's the case. You clearly said that you were not disgusted by the violence, rioting, and innocent people getting assaulted (pepper-sprayed). It was in direct response to Amadan asking you that very question. The only logical conclusion a person can draw from your own statements is that you feel that a troll saying trolly things is much worse than rioters engaging in violence and attacking people. This seems to be a pattern with you. You'll say something harsh, overly judgmental, or uncompassionate (in this case, arguably immoral), get called out on what you actually said, and then you divert and try to pretend that you didn't say it. That's the same tactic that Trump engages in. Own your words, even the horrible ones. Oh, I do. Especially the words you find horrible, Opty. Is there a particular reason I'm supposed to explain myself or justify myself to you or Amadan? I say what I say and whether you or he or whomever deem in "harsh, judgemental or uncompassionate (and there is no such word)" IS FREE SPEECH and unless you don't believe my right to free speech allows me to say horrible words you deem "harsh, judgmental and uncompassionate" because that still doesn't mean they're WRONG. If I say, "I don't endorse it, but I'm not disgusted by it either" what's the problem? Why do I have to be disgusted by YOU think is disgusting? I'll answer that for you: I DON'T. Call it a red, white, or blue herring. Put a flag in its navel and call it Yankee Doodle Dandy. Call it whatever you want, but I still am not disgusted by the effect more than I am the cause. I don't divert. I confront. I don't pretend. I'm as real as it gets and if you think you're going to insult me by comparing me to Trump that's only proof of how little you know about me or my "patterns." I will continue to say horrible things. Horribly true.
What Opty said. ohio49er, if you won't even answer direct questions, and won't own your words, and worse, are flat out dishonest about what other people have said (no one here is "exalting the rights of a racist" and rioting is not a "retort"), what is your purpose here and what sort of engagement are you expecting? You've asked that question before. Didn't you understand the answer before?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 3, 2017 21:10:09 GMT -5
I don't care if your words are harsh or horrible. I do care that your words are not honest.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 3, 2017 21:51:51 GMT -5
I don't care if your words are harsh or horrible. I do care that your words are not honest. You could always run them by the few Black guys you hang out with and see if they agree...
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 3, 2017 22:05:26 GMT -5
I don't care if your words are harsh or horrible. I do care that your words are not honest. You could always run them by the few Black guys you hang out with and see if they agree... So, first you insinuate that Ann Coulter is transgender by mentioning her Adam's apple and now I'm not even sure what kind of racial insult you're trying to make by implying that Amadan doesn't have many black friends, but you're pretty much living up to every negative Regressive stereotype out there. Is it not enough for your arguments to be evasive and borderline intellectually dishonest, but now when you get called out on it, your go-to response is to engage in implied transphobic and racist ad hominems? Is your defense that physical violence is an acceptable retort to speech really that weak?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 3, 2017 22:05:45 GMT -5
I don't care if your words are harsh or horrible. I do care that your words are not honest. You could always run them by the few Black guys you hang out with and see if they agree... So, to summarize, you do indeed believe rioting and physical assault is an appropriate response to a racist speaking in public.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 4, 2017 7:48:06 GMT -5
You could always run them by the few Black guys you hang out with and see if they agree... So, first you insinuate that Ann Coulter is transgender by mentioning her Adam's apple and now I'm not even sure what kind of racial insult you're trying to make by implying that Amadan doesn't have many black friends, but you're pretty much living up to every negative Regressive stereotype out there. Is it not enough for your arguments to be evasive and borderline intellectually dishonest, but now when you get called out on it, your go-to response is to engage in implied transphobic and racist ad hominems? Is your defense that physical violence is an acceptable retort to speech really that weak? Seems to me I don't need any "defense" because I never said physical violence is an acceptable retort to hate speech. If I did you could always try quoting me, Opty. Or is your offense at my "horrible words" really that weak ( because y'know it kinda is)? I'm happy to know I check off all your prerequisites to be considered a "Regressive," a made-up, reactionary pejorative favored by Right-wing reactionaries and Left-wing finger-wagging wimps to stroke their acute sense of moral superiority. Do I win a prize or just a box of Rice-A-Roni? And if you're not sure what kind of "racial insult" I'm trying to make ( but you're sure it's gotta be a racial insult), here's a suggestion: why don't you PM Amadan and ask? That way you can be informed instead of only opinionated. So, to summarize, you do indeed believe rioting and physical assault is an appropriate response to a racist speaking in public. I believe you're all about the effect and not at all about the cause. I believe you are all for supporting a racist speaking in public and totally indifferent to their racism. Summarize that.
|
|