Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences

[RolandCuthbert]

There have been a few questions/takes about this "freedom" issue. Of course, at GaG and throughout most of American society, it pretty much just means the "freedom" to use racial slurs, hurl insults, and engage in all manner of speech that is less than civil. But traditionally, it meant the "freedom" from having your government dictate the forms of permissible speech within our society. A "free" press could criticize the government. Freedom of speech allowed groups to peacefully protest and voice grievances. Because before that, under English rule, dissension was not allowed. People who protested or express disagreement could be jailed or killed. Any press that was not beneficial to the monarchy was prohibited. I really encourage everyone, "Blacks", "Whites", American Indians, Asians, etc. in America to read about the Founding Fathers. Each major figure actually "figures" prominently in the institutions we have today. James Madison and his views on the Freedom of Speech and the Press. George Washington basically created the office of the President. John Adams, fiercely anti-slavery and a staunch defender of the basic right to legal counsel. Alexander Hamilton, the creator of the economic system.

But I digress. I wanted to talk about the Freedom of Speech, a concept that has be co-opted by the Anti-PC movement.

1. The Freedom of Speech is not without limits. You can't really be serious about the concept if you think it is. You can't threaten to kill others or threaten bodily harm to public officials. Just ask Kathy Griffin. I know she claims it was only a mask. But it was interpreted as a threat that she wanted to behead the President. Threats against public officials veiled or otherwise are against the law. She deserved to be fired from CNN and deserved to lose her livelihood for a time. I think she even deserved to be investigated by the Secret Service so they could ensure no real threat existed. All of that stuff that came afterwards, being on Interpol's no fly list, etc. as just silliness designed to punish her. I disagree with that stuff.

You can't claim your freedom of speech was violated if you did something this stupid.

2. You can't make up lies about people and not expect to be sued. Alex Jones lied about the Sandy Hook tragedy. He claimed it was just a government hoax and the kids did not die. He claimed the parents were just paid actors. Well, he is in court now fighting for his livelihood because the parents from the Sandy Hook massacre are suing him. It is against the law to slander and commit libel. Your Freedom of Speech does not cover lies. If you look at past "takes" on the Freedom of Speech many contain blatant lies about positions or statements from certain individuals quoted to give more weight to the poster's arguments.

Just a lying fat turd.

3. You are not free from consequences just because you have the freedom to say or do something stupid. You can be fired from your job. People can exercise their Freedom of Speech and say something insulting or negative towards you. People may not patronize your restaurant, see the incident at the Red Hen where the owners refused to serve Sarah Sanders and her family. Now people are protesting the restaurant and refusing to dine there. Your Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being called a racist, a sexist, an idiot, or a turd. People exercising their Freedom of Speech does not violate your own.

These are the consequences of kicking a public official out of your restaurant.

4. In America, there is no law prohibiting hate speech. Hate speech is protected under the Constitution as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Anti-PC crowd would have you believe the exact opposite because some person loses their job over saying a racial slur. You have the right to Freedom of Expression. You don't have the right to be employed by your employer. And if that employer believes your publicly stated views reflect poorly on their organization they the right to terminate you based on that assessment alone. Get over it!!!!

Free speech is one of this nation's founding principles, but you have to be unbalanced to think it is without limit.

It is so "convenient" how the Anti-PC folks frame this debate. Their chief concern is not that the government would actually limit freedom of speech. Especially now, since the turd in office is so thin-skinned, he can't take a joke or much criticism. Their only concern is that they want to be able to hurl racial insults and engage in uncivil discussion without any repercussions. So in reality, they have never cared about Freedom of Speech. They will discard the concept as soon as it proves to be unhelpful in achieving their goals. Everything has consequences. Become an adult and find a way to deal with that. In other words, put on your big boy pants and stop being a snowflake.

Blue Anons you are guys are allowed on this one. Oh Praise Be!!!!!

[BlueCoyote]

Great MyTake! I think what a lot of anti-PC advocates on the political right don't understand is that the freedom of speech is intended precisely for the kind of speech you DON'T agree with. I see this lack of insight a lot with idiots like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos. In their immaturity, they think they're taking some kind of brave, heroic stance whenever they defend disgusting neonazis with odious views. However, especially in the case of Milo, who agrees with many of these people, that's not something special. It's not hard to support people you already agree with.
The freedom of speech - in a broader, societal sense - exists to protect the kind of speech we disagree with. For example if a progressive like myself calls for Ben Shapiro's right to speak publicly, I'm defending his freedom speech. By doing that, I'm basically saying "I think he's an idiot and he's wrong BUT I believe he should be allowed to say what he wants to say."
Yet, most of these right-wing commentators who call themselves the gods of anti-pc and the royal defenders of the freedom of speech commit exactly this hypocrisy. They love crying about their buddies who get deplatformed at colleges, yet I have never heard them say a single word against the deplatforming of pro-palestinian advocates or atheist speakers.

The anti-pc crowd thinks they're being some kind of heroes but they're also just abusing the freedom of speech for their own convenience. In that sense, they are no different from the extreme people on the authoritarian left that they pretend to criticize.

Freedom of speech - as a societal principle - only works if we grant it to everyone, regardless of how much we sympathize with their views.

[RolandCuthbert]

Thank you for your post. But it appears that the issue that has folks mad is plain ole' capitalism. Most businesses in the U. S. make a living off of providing good and services. And the more people who buy their goods and services, the more money these businesses make. Well, it is bad business to promote discrimination or bigotry. So most business try to be as inclusive as possible in their messaging. Of course, this will draw the ire of certain people who dislike that message and they may take to certain platforms to complain.

The point is that when they do, they are risking their livelihoods. But that does not stop them from voicing their opinion.

[ladsin]

I agree with most all of it. I would just point out one potential error and one area I wish you had covered more.

I think in part you were conflating freedom of assembly and free speech at the beginning. Not a big deal both pretty much go hand-in-hand, but I think that as freedom of assembly is such a novel and important phenomena it's good to recognize it as well.

On to the more important part. I would've liked to hear how far you think libel and slander should go. For example a fellow I know of stated something like, "Listen And Believe is stupid! I'm a skeptic and I think a person should only be incriminated when there's sufficient evidence to do so, because news flash women can be awful people too. Because they're people." In response he was doxed and his employer was called by multiple persons and informed that he was in fact a rape apologist and perhaps a rapist himself. He was called into his boss' office and fired. When informed of why he responded that he hadn't raped anyone, in fact he's only slept with two women and both of them instigated it. The employer didn't seem to care and fired him anyway.
-That is at least his rendition of the events- What do you think should happen here if he properly described what happened? Was this sufficient grounds to be called slander? What could he do, they're anonymous? Should the employer be sued for wrongful termination of employment? If so is that not against their right to hire and fire as they choose? Etc, I think that in today's society this is very difficult to parse out and would have enjoyed more discussion on these difficulties.

Anyways, thanks for the read!

[RolandCuthbert]

I guess I don't understand. If he thinks he was slandered, why doesn't he bring a lawsuit? I really don't have much of an opinion on what he should do. Sufficed to say, if he thinks he was wronged he should do something about it.

This might be his moment. Perhaps there are many others who can identify with his situation and he can give voice to a new "social" movement.

[ladsin]

Who can he sue?

[ladsin]

They were anonymous tips from people around the world.

[RolandCuthbert]

The company and the complainers. If he can prove that these complaints of rape lead to his dismissal, he should be able to win his claim. But, if they are dismissing him because of something else. . . like him initiating intimate relations at his place of work, he might not win.

For example, I worked with a firm that fired a high ranking executive. He cheated on his wife with a single woman at work. He was her superior. And while the relationship was consensual, he was much more senior than her.

So they dismissed him.

The only variable was that she refused to continue to see him because of guilt over his wife, I guess. And he didn't like that.

[ladsin]

They were anonymous tipsters, hows he supposed to sue them?

[RolandCuthbert]

Hmmm. . . the more you talk the more I think your friend is Tavis Smiley. He is suing too, but he is going to lose.

You understand why, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbRePSNkPk0

[ladsin]

I didn't call him a friend, but a "fellow I know". I don't know the guy all that well, but I also don't know who the guy you linked is. So I don't know why he'd lose.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well Tavis had a show on PBS and over the last 30 years or so he had different relationships with women in the workplace.

Well, I guess an anonymous complaint was lodged against him at PBS. And so the company did an investigation and found other instances of women complaining about Tavis in the past and of course other relationships he had with women at other media companies before he came to PBS.

So they dismissed him.

He is suing because he claims they used anonymous sources that said he violated workplace conduct guidelines.

1. So I wanted to prove that even if the sources were anonymous, your friend can sue.

2. That it is an extremely hard lawsuit to win because he has to argue how workplace guidelines are being interpreted. There is no such thing as a company having to prove its "case" before firing someone. Again, I have seen people lose their jobs for far less than having an affair on the job.

[ladsin]

I agree that businesses can fire people without cause, but I don’t think people should be able to use false allegations as a social weapon to get people fired who didn’t do what they’re claiming.

Do you see what I’m saying? For the sake of argument let’s presume that the fellow in question honestly did not sexually assault or harass anyone. Instead as he claims the people were simply angry about his political beliefs. Do you think that false accusations to destroy someone’s life should be legal?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh wait! There was one instance where a guy won a settlement. He didn't claim that he did nothing wrong. But he claimed that the employer did not inform him of the policy about workplace harassment. That's one of the reasons why many companies have harassment training now.

As for the charges being false, I don't know Lasdin. I can't judge. Tavis claims the charges against him are false. But he admits he had sex with different women who worked for him.

For some reason, he does not see that as being unethical. I don't know your friend's situation, but if you are going argue on his behalf, perhaps you should check to see what the workplace guidelines as his firm were.

If you are just arguing philosophically about whether or not a person should be fired because of a false charge. . . well obviously that should not happen. And I don't know who would claim that it should.

[ladsin]

Do you agree with the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”?

[RolandCuthbert]

Lasdin, in a court of law, of course.

The problem is you are not in a court of law when you are working for a company.

Its weird. You seem to think I don't know what right or wrong is. Of course, I do. But I have worked in the field since before I graduated college. And long before metoo, employee working conditions were unfair, abusive, and harsh. Metoo is just another thing you have to deal with in these environments now.

So being an old guy and seeing a person get dismissed over buying the wrong flavor of ice cream shake, I can deal with metoo. It is wrong to fire someone for a simple mistake like forgetting a flavor. But the CFO of that company felt she had that right.

Unlike Tavis and unlike the guy you said isn't your friend, I will never have sex with my employees or co-workers.

Its an easy thing to avoid.

[ladsin]

Wait, what? I think you're very confused about what I'm saying. I'm presuming that since you're thinking about someone else that's affecting what you think I am talking about. I'll try to clarify. My question is pretty simple, should people be able to use their free speech to lie and get a person fired. That is technically not a violation of free speech and it is a social consequence that MAY be utilized against you. In the particular case I'm talking about the fellow is a somewhat known atheist youtuber who questioned rape statistics as being dishonestly represented. He was then doxed and his employer was told that he was:
1.) A rape apologist.
2.) A possible rapist himself.
Neither of these claims are true (so far as I can tell) and I think that is quite problematic. I was also not saying that you didn't touch on the subject with reference to libel, but I would have liked to see more of your thoughts on the subject.

[RolandCuthbert]

Lasdin, what in the world are you talking about? Slander is not protected under free speech laws. That is a violation.

Look it up.

And if you can agree that it is against the law, then perhaps we can move on.

[ladsin]

Wow. Dude. Why is this always so difficult with you. “I would've liked to hear how far you think libel and slander should go.“ Christ.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not a judge. I cannot tell you what a court would rule in terms of libel or slander. I only know it is wrong and not considered to be free speech.

You can make that into some complicated thought if you wish. But to me it is simple. No one engaging in libel is exercising free speech. They are lying and using the lie to get someone in trouble.

[ladsin]

Cool, so you didn't write this with the intent of addressing those more complex issues. That's cool enough.

[RolandCuthbert]

What complex issues, Lasdin?

I will not engage in hypotheticals. I am not a judge. That's what the justice system is for.

[ladsin]

I’m not asking you to be a judge. As I pointed out in my initial comment, there are complexities surrounding “social ramifications” for free speech. I just gave one example of a person being fired and losing their livelihood for:
1.) a lie
2.) questioning a political/ social point.

Everyone knows that freedom of speech means that other people can use their free speech. For example if I call you an ass you are well within your rights to call me an ass. If I call you an ass online and your response is to call my boss and get me fired, we’ll thats obviously not quite the same thing is it?

[RolandCuthbert]

I am still not following you. You don't think I have had people call my clients and claim that I said something or one of my employees did something?

I don't know what to say to you.

I am not talking hypotheticals. I live this. I just told grey-wisp about a guy I had to fire because was drinking at the company bar with the client of a client. And he screamed out, "we need amaretto in this b! tch". The client was not angry about him using the b-word. He was angry because amaretto is a competitor.

I had to fire him immediately.

I have had other guys who had complaints too. One was by the woman who was an assistant to the COO. I talked to the COO personally because I deemed this guy valuable. We came to an agreement that he would not deal with the COO's assistant anymore.

You keep drawing up hypotheticals, when I have had to deal with complaints about my employees and myself.

[ladsin]

I don't know what to say to you. I stated at the beginning that I agreed with you. The only criticism I had is that I wished you had spent more time talking about slander and libel. Where do you draw the line? Discuss what sorts of societal repercussions you think acceptable and which not, if any.

This is getting tiresome though, so I'll just try to reiterate it once more. "I would've liked to see you discuss slander and libel in more detail."

[RolandCuthbert]

You are about as big an expert on libel and slander as I am. I already said that libel and slander are not free speech. I don't know what else do you want. You keep telling me about how do I draw the line.

It is such a weird question. Because it isn't asking for anyting specific. I don't know what to say about people who lie to get others in trouble. I know a COO's assistant that I deal with on one account and she has complained about every single person who has dealt with her. Including me. She has always been out to get people in trouble.

Did you know that life is not always fair? Sometimes bad people in the workplace get away with doing bad things.

What do you want me to tell you?

[ladsin]

Cool. Have a good day bud.

[tinesters]

I'm glad you outlined an example about Trump. Too many people cannot look at facts objectively today, but it seems like you actually did that, so I'm proud of you. What I also agree with is that you cannot make up lies about other people i. e. character defamation and not expect to have consequences. Ditto with inciting someone to violence or murder. That would go under hate speech, I believe. I do think however that many times nowadays people actually feel the right to cross someone or hurt someone if they made them look poor, didn't feed their egos or otherwise disagreed with them. Even name calling should not be punished, if you ask me. A slur is just a slur. It is not the end of the world unless someone puts you in a position where you lose power, livelihood or credibility. And lol at Praise be. I take it you are familiar with the Handmaid's Tale...

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I love the handmaid's tale. The first episode I watched literally had me shaking. But I want to make one comment. Hate speech is permitted under our Constitution. That means you can talk about hatred of one group or another. The issue is, you cannot incite people towards violence. That is against the law.

So yes, name calling is permitted. But Kathy Griffin posting with a mask of Trump, needed to be investigated. Because she knew what she doing. It looked like a threat against Trump's life.

I dislike Trump too. But anyone and I mean anyone threatening his life has to be investigated. And thrown in jail if need be.

[tinesters]

Yes, agreed. You are a very principled fellow.. that's good. While I am a conservative and support Trump, I don't hate those who don't. I can understand them to a degree. I have trouble with people talking of hatred about one group or another. And yes, the handmaid's tale.. the book was very good and the movie series was just excellent. I especially liked the relationship between Nick and Offred. Probably says a lot about me but I haven't seen anything as erotic on screen in a while, lol...

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, it is just the women who side with the society remind me of Samuel L. Jackson's character in Django. I thought it was easily Jackson's greatest performance as an actor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpB_FLKMOU

[tinesters]

The women who side with the society... interesting. I've never met a single woman in my life who conducted herself in that way, definitely not a white woman. Black people and white people have and used to have interesting relationships. Perhaps this fellow in this movie is smarter than he appears. But I guess one could say there's some people who are Crixus and others who are Spartacus. America tends to be in love with the latter, despite the fact that the Crixuses of the world did their share to stay with their head above the game.

[RolandCuthbert]

Hmmm. . . I know this is off on a tangent.

But I don't get the comparison

I compared the women of Gilead society like Selena and the Marthas with Sam Jackson's character in Django.

But weren't Spartacus and Crixuses both gladiators who escaped from Rome?

[tinesters]

They were... but Crixus was trying to win by following its rules while Spartacus led a revolt. The old man in Django would be Crixus. He got his position by being true to the rules that were put upon him, by playing along and not disagreeing, by being a "good", behaved slave. While Django would be Spartacus who led the breakthrough. I used to believe only the Spartacuses of the world were the true revolutionaries, but credit should be given to those in the position of Crixus for working their way up the ladder in a system designed to kill them.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, I don't think Sam Jackson's character is anything like Crixus. I never watched the series Spartacus. It seems a bloody mess to me. But I did read about Spartacus long ago. And Crixus was killed fighting against the Roman empire. The gentleman from Django was not going to leave a revolt against anyone. Violent or not. He was quite certain that "Blacks" were supposed to be slaves and were in their proper place. And the hatred that Sam Jackson shows towards Django, the way it is communicated is one of the greatest acting jobs I have ever seen.

It was stunning.

And I think you kind of contradict yourself with the second half of your post. That's the point about Sam Jackson's character. He has more freedoms than other "Blacks" because he is good at subjugating other "Blacks". He can be trusted to be as ruthless and as cruel as any slaver to keep them in line.

Like the Marthas or the women of status in Handmaid's tale.

Selena is easily, the most compelling character.

[tinesters]

Well, could be. But in that case the case of Sam Jackson is one of brainwashing and internalized self-hate of the highest degree. Nobody would act against their own like that otherwise. I'm getting the feeling that you are painting this character as unreedemable, and with that I'd have to disagree. And I wonder if it's possible in a system like that to stay completely clear and untainted by any of the influences that made Sam Jackson who he was vs Django. Most people are a product of their environment to a degree. And how do I contradict myself? How is being ruthless and cruel to his own kind anything else than the gladiator fights that Crixus fought to the death of his fellow gladiators.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, that's the human experience. You know there were Jews who put other Jews into the ovens at Auschwitz, right? Elie Wiesel detailed such experiences in "The Night".

And yes, I think he is unredeemable. But I am not certain why I should have to come to a different conclusion. Elie Weisel reaches a different conclusion. Because he watched his father die and refused to help him. He was scared that if he helped his father that would jeopardize his ability to get food.

As for the contradiction, I thought Crixus also rebelled against Rome. He just had disagreement with Spartacus. I didn't see the series, but I thought this was well documented.

[tinesters]

What is the human experience. Brainwashing and internalized self-hate? You certainly must be joking. And there is a redeemability to nearly everyone. To not believe that is to buy right into the thinking that made something like chattel slavery possible. And in the case of Elie Wiesel, it's cowardice. A very vile and ignoble behavior indeed, but is not the same as vitriolic cruelty. If one is put in the situation of survival you vs me, we're always going to choose one's self. To not to would be to go against the human condition.

[RolandCuthbert]

You don't sound like the forgiving type to me. I mean, if you were Mother Teresa, I might stop and listen to what you have to say, but. . .

:D

I just don't think you roll that way.

And yes, these feelings, these emotions are apart of the human experience. The human reaction to these situations. I thought that was established already.

As for Elie Weisel, you think what he did was cowardice? I don't think he denied that before he died. He described his state when he was liberated from the Nazis as simply being. . ."a starved stomach".

It was the most striking line from that book.

[tinesters]

Oh you know me? It's interesting that you make assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. So far that says more about you than me.

[tinesters]

And lol. That's like saying if you were Ghandi I might consider listening to you. Who's judgmental now

[tinesters]

By the way Pamina blocked me. Looks like the egalitarian does not believe in freedom of speech for all nor fair debate.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I just don't think you are the forgiving type. Maybe I am wrong. I have to admit that.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, is there some compelling reason why I am supposed to listen to you?

Haha!

You mean I have to respect your authority?

[tinesters]

My authority? What authority. You are in a conversation with me. That means we both have an equal responsibility of courtesy and respect. Beyond that, nope, there's no need for you to pay me mind. What does interest me is what statements you are gleaning all this from.

[RolandCuthbert]

Pamina blocked you? Well that is disappointing. I am disappointed in you @pamina.

I would stay in the pocket. We have to get to a point where we stop arguing and start talking. Right now our conversations are not honest. So we argue around topics and not through them. I think people like Pamina, hate the feeling of being uncomfortable.

I hate being uncomfortable too. But for some reason I feel compelled to plow through.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well @tinesters, you state things like they are universal truths. A lot of folks in America do not believe in redemption or forgiveness.

But let's try to get off the tangent. We went down this rabbit hole because of the handmaid's tale.

I think you and I have general agreement over freedom of speech. I am kind of worried with all of these new incidents where people are confused over consequences like with James Gunn and the Guardians of the Galaxy.

I just think people are being obtuse. Gunn will be fine. He will get plenty of chances to direct. I don't know why people are getting upset over a business decision.

[tinesters]

I'm feisty for sure and I like the idea of cosmic justice, which can in some ways look like retribution. However, I'm not the type to shut people up. Harassment is a different chapter. But simple disagreement is not enough for me to dislike someone. Talking back is a fact of life, and if someone doesn't like that, that's really a matter of not being able to look at one's self from a less serious angle. I don't know who James Gunn is. What I agree with you on is that talented people tend to find a way to remake themselves and continue on the path that leads them to their goals even after a significant setback. It's really a matter of perspective. As I explained to Pamina, I only find something dehumanizing if it bars someone from access to necessities. Other than that, a punishment is a punishment and it stands as such.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh James Gunn. . .

metro.co.uk/.../

Director James Gunn has been fired from the next installment of Guardians Of The Galaxy over offensive tweets he posted.

But what exactly did he say?

Gunn will no longer be able to direct Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3 following a string of unearthed social media posts.

A series of tweets were found from before Gunn began as director on Guardians Of The Galaxy, which made light of subjects like paedophilia and rape.

One tweet read: ‘I like when little boys touch me in my silly place.’

[tinesters]

Lmao... that's quite funny actually.

[RolandCuthbert]

Capitalism at work.

:D

[Pamina]

The concept of free speech has been hijacked by Right-Wingers in recent years and has been completely bastardized for their deceitful cause. They ignore the parts about it that don't suit them, make up shit about it that does suit them, and voilá - they got themselves a very neat Right-Wing propaganda version of what was once known as free speech. And the cherry on top of all that is that they - they racists, sexists, homophobes, and general bigots - can now (100% falsely) paint themselves as the new defenders of "free speech". And people are actually buying it.

What a farce.

[tinesters]

What a complete farce to paint people who are right of the aisle all as racists, bigots and homophobes. You seriously don't think that shows a negative light on you? You are not being objective, you are just hating.

[RolandCuthbert]

@tinesters But that is permitted under free speech laws. You can call me a racist. I can call you one.

The fact is, calling you a racist is not violating your freedom of speech. You can call me one back and I can't censor you either.

[tinesters]

I didn't say she was violating that. I disagree with her painting people of one political conviction a certain way. Hating and hate speech aren't the same. Hate speech is persecution. Hating is spreading negativity and mixed with false information.

[RolandCuthbert]

@tinesters Hey, she is wrong. I prefer to use the term conservative. Conservatism as a political philosophy is not even concerned with race. But I created this thread to clarify what is meant by free speech.

Hate speech, such as Pamina's is permitted. Name calling is too.

[tinesters]

True and yes

[Pamina]

@tinesters Right-Wingers are bigots by default. Otherwise they wouldn't be Right-Wingers. Sure, there are different branches of it, but they're bigots one way or another. That's not a generalization, it's part of what defines Right-Wing ideology.

But of course Right-Wingers will protest and deny that, because who wants to admit to being a racist, for instance? Well, there are lots of Right-Wingers who are even proud of it, but the majority of all the mainstream Right-Wingers are going to try to hide it, disguise it, deny it, and so on. And it's working.

[Pamina]

@tinesters And no, it doesn't show negative light on me. You people think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is only present when it's displayed openly and blatently. You are completely blind to any form of latent and disguised bigotry.

Like I said, Right-Wing propaganda is working very well...

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina I just realized something. You live in Germany. Over there the terms left-wing and right-wing have a totally different meaning.

[Pamina]

Not really. The term that has a very different meaning in Europe is Liberalism. But Right-Wing has pretty much the exact same meaning in Europe as in the US.

[tinesters]

You seem to be full of hate and negativity. Conservatism is a legitimate political philosophy that is not connected to concepts like race, gender or sexuality. The fact that you're throwing around the word right-winger and left-winger shows your bias and misinformation.

[Pamina]

@tinesters Full of hate for hatred against minorities, if that's what you mean. I'm okay with that. It's based on my love for love and compassion.

I didn't even speak of Conservatives, I explicitely said Right-Wingers. But sure, I'm the misinformed one... lol

[tinesters]

Well conservative is on the right. And that's what I am. And I don't believe in persecuting people for the color of their skin

[Pamina]

@tinesters Good for you. But you keep putting words in my mouth. First of all, I didn't say all Right-Wingers espouse every type of bigotry there is, I said every Right-Winger espouses some type of bigotry. Whether that's racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever other dehumanizing view. And secondly, again - I never mentioned Conservatives. While most Conservatives sure lean to the Right and many are even far right, believe it or not, Conservativism isn't necessarily right. Conversely, there are many Right-Wing branches that are not conservative,

[tinesters]

Well we can fight over semantics but the truth is, when people especially in America say right-winger they mean Conservatives and Republicans. I never said you were saying all Conservatives espouse all bigotry but I specifically understood your claim to be that all espouse some. Where I have a problem with this is that you put this as if liberals didn't, which is blatantly untrue. Dehumanizing, ostracizing and firing someone for saying the n-word is just as biased and anti-human as saying all people of a certain color are bad. It seems that different measures are being used for different people.

[Pamina]

@tinesters The reason why I corrected you on that I didn't say that all Righ-Wingers espouse all types of bigotry, is because you felt the need to proclaim that you're not a racism - which is just one type of bigotry.

I think a lot of traditional Conservatives in the US would agree that the Alt-Right, for instance, are not Conservatives. To name just one example.

"Where I have a problem with this is that you put this as if liberals didn't, which is blatantly untrue."
- I never said that. You're making assumptions.

"Dehumanizing, ostracizing and firing someone for saying the n-word is just as biased and anti-human as saying all people of a certain color are bad. It seems that different measures are being used for different people."
- So you're saying racism should be tolerated instead of faught, I see. You think you should be free from consequences at your workplace for your racism and that a company/employer should not be allowed to fire someone for saying the n-word.

[Pamina]

It's not different measures for different people, it's different measures for different deeds.

I, as an employer, am free to choose to not have racists work for me. Apparently you find it "dehumanizing" to show someone the consequences of actually dehumanizing others. Are you sure you know wbhat dehumanizing means?

Stop trying to turn the tables. You can't "discriminate" discrimination. That's a paradox.

[tinesters]

You don't know what racism is. It is so much more than individual acts of meanness. If calling someone the nword is the worst a person of color ever experienced life would be easy. And you want to pin me as a racist for saying I don't hate anybody. Let's look at it this way. You are calling groups of people irredeemable, which says a lot more about you than my statements say about my sentiments. I stated how I think yet you want to paint me as something vile and bad. You need to take a step back and look at what you're doing.

[tinesters]

I think it's clear that you don't. Consequences for behavior and ostracism from vital functions of life are not the same. By advocating to hate hate, you are still advocating hate.

[Pamina]

@tinesters "It is so much more than individual acts of meanness."
- I agree. You're again making wrong assumptions.

"If calling someone the nword is the worst a person of color ever experienced life would be easy."
- Never said it was. More assumptions.

"And you want to pin me as a racist for saying I don't hate anybody."
- Also no. But you sure as hell like to defend racists.

"Let's look at it this way. You are calling groups of people irredeemable, which says a lot more about you than my statements say about my sentiments."
- What groups would that be? And more importantly - what makes them a group? Because I think the latter is what we actually disagree about.

"I stated how I think yet you want to paint me as something vile and bad."
- I don't paint you as anything, I'm only responsing what you're saying. And unlike you, I do only that without putting words in your mouths.

"You need to take a step back and look at what you're doing."
- Practice what you preach, cupcake.

[tinesters]

You are very aggressive. You need to seriously look at your own behavior before you attack anybody else. Calling me names, being condescending. You are no better than the people you claim to hate. By saying that you don't hate groups you are confirming that you think of sexism or racism as individual acts rather than systemic problems. People can be the problem but we need to look at structures and laws that enable these one sided outcomes. And those who want to keep those in place or are unaware of them should be questioned. I defend people's right to freedom of speech. If that makes me racist, you definitely don't know the definition.

[Pamina]

@tinesters I don't see how I'm aggressive. I'm not using all-caps or exclamation marks, I'm not threatening you. It seems that you're rather emotional about this and very sensitive right now. Which I understand. But I'm not aggressive with you.

"By saying that you don't hate groups you are confirming that you think of sexism or racism as individual acts rather than systemic problems."
- Is there a word missing in that statement? Because that made zero sense.

"People can be the problem but we need to look at structures and laws that enable these one sided outcomes. And those who want to keep those in place or are unaware of them should be questioned."
- I agree.

"I defend people's right to freedom of speech. If that makes me racist, you definitely don't know the definition."
- Nope, neither does that make you a racist, nor did I call you one. Still not. You keep putting words in my mouth and making assumptions. That happens when you respond too emotional before taking a breath.

[Pamina]

And I'm not even saying that to be condescending. I know it from myself - when I respond out of a strong emotion, I too tend to make a lot of assumptions before I ask (myself or the other person) whether my assumptions might be wrong.

[tinesters]

You're the one who's emotional. I've been responding to you very calmly. Racism is systemic. It is in our way of thinking and our laws. Some people act out specific things directed at another race and that is what we usually see as racism. It is the invisible principles that make it dangerous. Freedom of consequences is not one of them

[Pamina]

@tinesters Ah, so we're doing the "no you're it!" thing now. Nah, not doing that. I'm responding calmly to you as well. Like I said, no caps-lock, no exclamation marks. All calm here. And I'm not saying you're responding in an emotional way, I'm saying you're rather responding out of strong emotions. Which to me explains all these assumptions you keep making.

"Racism is systemic. It is in our way of thinking and our laws."
- I completely agree.

Some people act out specific things directed at another race and that is what we usually see as racism."
- That too is racism, yes.

"It is the invisible principles that make it dangerous."
- Again, I agree. That doesn't mean though that blatant racism coming from individuals should be free from consequences.

"Freedom of consequences is not one of them"
- Not one of the invisible principles of systemic racism that make it dangerous? Or how do you mean that?

[tinesters]

No I'm not saying you are racist. I merely pointed out that you seem to be responding from strong emotions by the fact that you belittle me, name call me and act like I'm putting words in your mouth when I'm simply explaining things to you you seem to be misunderstanding. Yes, freedom of consequences is not part of the invisible principles.

[Pamina]

"No I'm not saying you are racist."
- I never said or thought that you were saying that I'm a racist. Not sure why you would say that.

"I merely pointed out that you seem to be responding from strong emotions by the fact that you belittle me, name call me and act like I'm putting words in your mouth when I'm simply explaining things to you you seem to be misunderstanding."
- You have put many words in my mouth and I have pointed out each one of them so far. I'm not gonna repeat them.

"Yes, freedom of consequences is not part of the invisible principles."
- That's true, freedom of consequences is a very visible one.

[tinesters]

I'm not putting words in your mouth when it's plain for all to read...

[Pamina]

@tinesters I corrected you on many assumptions that you made about me. Scroll up and re-read every single one of them that I responded to. I actually quoted you on each of them and responded to each of them.

[tinesters]

I read what you wrote, and based and what you wrote I was the one who corrected you...

[Pamina]

Or, if you're too lazy to scroll up and/or are suffering from short-term memory, I'll do the work for you and refresh your memories:

""It is so much more than individual acts of meanness."
- I agree. You're again making wrong assumptions.

"If calling someone the nword is the worst a person of color ever experienced life would be easy."
- Never said it was. More assumptions.

"And you want to pin me as a racist for saying I don't hate anybody."
- Also no. But you sure as hell like to defend racists."

Those are just three examples. There were more. And they will probably be more with your next response.

It's very dishonest of you to deny that now.

[Pamina]

*short-term memory loss

[tinesters]

Lol, you're interesting. So much effort just to prove someone else wrong.

[Pamina]

@tinesters Well, at least you're now admitting to be in the wrong. Then we're cool. I'm fine with disagreeing, as long as we're being honest with each other. You were putting words in my mouth, several times, and I just proved it by quoting your own words. That's that.

Anything you you have to say? Or are we done now?

[tinesters]

No such thing. I'm pointing out how you are qualifying yourself to a complete stranger just to be in the right. That's an awful lot of effort. But keep at it. We don't all have the same goals.

[Pamina]

@tinesters Ah, so you weren't trying to do the same with a complete stranger (me) this whole time? Nah, of course not.

You're being intellectually dishonest. You're accusing me of things and at the same time do the exact same thing you're accusing me of. If you can't be honest with me (or yourself), you are disqualifiying yourself from the discussion.

Apparently you have a hard time handling debates. You've been trying to prove yourself right to me (a stranger) this whole time - which is normal, that's what people do in debates. But the moment I have proven you wrong (with your own words), you start complaing about how I try (and in this case succeeded) to prove myself right to you and how awful that supposedly is.

How disingenuous and hypocritical of you. I don't debate dishonest people. We're done.

[RolandCuthbert]

@pamina I don't think so. I have been to more than a few nations in Europe. The debate you have over there are not similar to the ones we have in American society.

[Pamina]

Oh, I agree. I just think it's rather the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" that are used quite differently in the US than in Europe. I've been to the US several times and a good portion of my friends are from there. There are indeed many differences in politcal terminology, but I think the main problem in coming to an agreement to what is Right and what is Left, is the fact that American politics has shifted far to the right. Especially with someone like Trump having become mainstream. You have a Right-Wing hardliner who keeps pandering to groups like the Alt-Right and is worshipped by the Tea Party who, until a couple of years ago, were considered the fringe extremists of the Republicans. And now that's considered to be normal "Conservativism". It's grotesque. And it's playing right into the hands of Right-Wingers like Trump.

[RolandCuthbert]

Understood. But trumpism does not have much in common with conservatism. As for the political conversation it has shifted. I guess extreme right is a term that could be used. I just want to make it clear that conservatism does not share much common ground with those supposed right wing folks.

[Pamina]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say this whole time, also to that girl who commented here. For instance, in Germany, Merkel is pretty much a classical Conservative with liberal values. She's not Right-Wing.

[RolandCuthbert]

Okay. I guess I get you.

My heroes. . . they are not without their flaws. But they have integrity.

bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/.../...ge.jpg

www.blackpast.org/.../Tony_Brown.jpg

cdn.britannica.com/.../85184-004-2670BC77.jpg

cdn.cnn.com/.../...-the-bell-tolls-exlarge-169.jpg

[Pamina]

Yes, I blocked her. If you read the thread here, you will know why. She was being dishonest about my and her words. Repeatedly.

[RolandCuthbert]

@pamina @tinesters I think the issue is the same all over America, even though Pamina is not from the U. S. The actual difference in opinion is not the chasm that is being perceived. You two are much closer on ideas than you realize. The issue is mostly one of emotion. Because the conversation is dishonest.

We argue to the same images and in the same cycles. No one tries to bring the conversation to a halt to move things to a different perspective. But I don't know. Maybe no one wants to.

Do you know what I mean?

[Pamina]

I don't block people for having a different opinion than me. And like you said, her opinions weren't even that far from mine. I blocked her for being dishonest. And that's that.

[RolandCuthbert]

But dishonest about what? She said that you call her a racist. And while you didn't do that directly, you know how Americans feel when they are called racist.

Of course, "White" Americans rarely do honest conversations about that charge and how it makes them feel. But you know. . . or should know how sensitive people are about that charge, given our history.

Is that so hard to see?

[Pamina]

No, that wasn't it. Did you read the whole thread?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I understand that you felt like she mis-characterized your positions and mis-represented what you said.

But again, you know why she did that.

[Pamina]

It doesn't matter. I gave her several chances to stop being dishonest and she chose to stick to it and even continue.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I am going to create another "Take" on your point about fact vs pseudo-science. I had not thought of things that way before.

[madhatters4]

you'd hope this type of clear and easy to understand explanation would end the rants and raves about freedom of speech... but sadly those who should read it probably won't

[RolandCuthbert]

Because it is used a political baseball bat. If you can scare the minions into thinking their right to criticize people "trumps" the right of people to criticize them back, you have won.

You have imposed restricting freedom of expression by claiming you are saving it.

Mad, analyze this "so-called conservative" movement. Lies are the truth. Democracy is authoritarianism. Justice for all means some people are above the law. And restricting freedom of expression is actually saving freedom of speech.

It is how they are being herded. And they are just cows following the butt in front of them, unable to think about where they are actually headed.

[madhatters4]

yeah it's wild and a bit unnerving. it's still in a minority but it is a growing minority that poses a rather legitimate threat to American "democracy".

[RolandCuthbert]

In this thread, a guy is claiming that the human race is being taken over by lizard human hybrids. And get this. . .

The lizard human hybrids are apart of the liberal/democratic wing of society. So. . . the aliens don't just want to eat humans or babies or whatever these minions have imagined. They want to install a political system of homosexuals, immigrant rights, "Black" lives matter, Islam, and communism.

I kid you not.

And that guy in this thread has already been banned from GaG once.

This is the state of our political discourse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUDbvKYbWk

[madhatters4]

any time alex jones is the source of someone's info the credibility is DOA.

haha he called you a GMO slave.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yet Mad. . . over 12 million people believe him.

Because their political beliefs align.

[MlleCake]

Many people mistakenly think the First Amendment means no one can sanction your speech.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh yes. They want freedom from being confronted over stupidity. I remember when Bill Maher was going to get strung up for saying terrorists were the "brave ones". To his credit he apologize and took what was coming. He didn't blame Dinesh D'Souza who basically said the same thing. He didn't try to deflect to other media personalities that said something similar.

He took his punishment and did not complain.

But we have to listen to folks whine because they want to say some sexist or racist garbage.

Did you hear that Facebook was going to let holocaust deniers have the freedom to spout on their platform?

[jacquesvol]

Many people mistakenly think the First Amendment means no one can sanction your speech if you're Conservative.
(remember the Scotus Mandel verdict)

[Anon-ymous1]

Can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater if there's no fire.

[Trolldad]

Alex Jones is not a holocaust denier. They are trying to censor EVERYONE who has ANY different viewpoint other than what CNN spews. You are so misguided, TURN OFF THE TV.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Trolldad Yeah Alex Jones just believes in the lizard alien invasion.

I am going to create a take on this since this is apart of our political discourse now.

[jacquesvol]

We should build a fake concentration camp with actors and make Zuckerberg live in it for a week, not knowing it's all fake.
But he thinks only about clickbaits for Facebook.

[Trolldad]

@jacquesvol We already have concentration camps. They are called FEMA camps.

[Trolldad]

@jacquesvol http://lisahaven. news/2017/03/its-happening-thousands-of-fema-camps-activated-slave-labor-initiated-and-lobbyists-back-it/

[RolandCuthbert]

@Trolldad What does that have to do with Zuckerberg giving license to holocaust deniers?

[ThisDudeHere]

Freedom of speech should just stop at threats and defemation. Everything else should fly.

[RolandCuthbert]

Mostly agreed to!

[ShortCircuit]

As I've become increasingly more involved in this topic of debate, it has become increasingly more apparent that both sides are doing absolutely nothing but straw man-ing each other.

Most liberals do not want to actually prosecute and imprison people for using offensive language--only things like libel, slander, and false reports of threat (which are already illegal with what seems to be bipartisan approval).

Most conservatives do not expect zero social repercussions for using offensive language, they just want to be able to do so without *legal* repercussions if they so chose to (and most wouldn't anyway, of their own accord)--under the false impression that legal repercussions are actually being threatened in the first place.

Free speech, as long as it doesn't directly incite violence, is and has always been a bipartisan issue (at least in the U. S.), and most likely always will be. In fact, I have my suspicions that these nonexistent arguments were tactically conceived by the two parties that hold a monopoly on our political landscape, in order to distract the populace.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, why don't you address the part of my argument that you claim to be non-existent. I am right here.

And the funny thing is, "so-called conservatives" have already gotten pissy in my thread claiming their rights are being infringed upon.

[ShortCircuit]

"Well, why don't you address the part of my argument that you claim to be non-existent. I am right here." Are you suggesting that you actually do want to prosecute and imprison people for using offensive language? If so, I hold to my belief that such thinking is not common in mainstream liberalism. So then you would be in the minority.

Or were you referring to the other side, and claiming that there are conservatives who expect zero social repercussions? If so, I never suggested that there weren't any. I suggested that wasn't common belief among conservatives.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know what you want. I am stating the simple fact that people are deliberately claiming that their freedom of speech is being interfered with because they face consequences of speaking out.

That is not a liberal or conservative issue. Though people try to politicize it because they think it strengthens their argument.

Kathy Griffin is a comedian I actually like. But she wanted freedom from consequence. She appeared with a bloody mask of Trump and she lost her job. She deserved that condemnation.

Alex Jones claimed Sandy Hook was faked. He deserves that lawsuit.

I don't understand how to make my point simpler.

[ShortCircuit]

If I seem to recall, Kathy Griffin apologized profusely and accepted the consequences. She didn't insist that the repercussions violated her freedom of speech.

I'm not familiar with the Alex Jones situation, but even if I grant you that he is claiming his freedom of speech is being violated, he is but one individual. The vast majority of both liberals and conservatives want freedom of speech to be upheld, except for speech that directly incites violence--but each side believes the other side wants something else. And from what I do know, I'm not so sure that the consequences for Alex Jones were just. Losing your job because your employer considers you bad business is not the same thing as having actual legal action taken against you.

[RolandCuthbert]

Your recollection is correct. But let me update you. She has retracted her apology. I actually liked her more when she did that. Because she basically stated, this was her viewpoint and the stunt was not that bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_p8HgQAOGI

No, I do not believe the vast majority of people want freedom of speech upheld. A lot of people want to be able to say stupid things or make outrageous claims and be free from criticism.

That's what I see and that is why I created this take.

Wait. . . if I had a son who died in a shooting and Alex Jones said he was still alive and I am a paid actor.

I am suing.

And I am not infringing upon his right to freedom of speech. That is slander.

[ShortCircuit]

I agree with the sentiment that "people should not be immune to (mere) criticism of their speech", and that there are of course people who disagree (including Kathy Griffin according to the video you provided), however, my fear is that you are exploiting extreme examples of no-consequence free speech advocates in order to foster support for expansion of the current legal restrictions on free speech--as you haven't made your views on free speech itself, in the legal sense, particularly clear. That's why I've been hesitant to collaborate with you all this time. I don't mean to be presumptuous, it's just a phenomenon that I've observed too many times to count, so naturally I've become suspicious. If you wouldn't mind detailing your views on free speech, it's constitutionality, what legal restrictions on it you believe to be in order, and whether you're satisfied with the laws currently in place or seek reform of some kind, maybe we could clear up any misunderstandings.

[ShortCircuit]

Also, my opinion on the Alex Jones situation hinges on the answer to this question: "Did Alex Jones issue a public statement listing specific names that he believed to be complicit in the fabrication of the Sandy Hook shooting?".

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, you can "believe" whatever you wish. I don't know why you are pretending to want a debate. You can't even read the words I type on this website. So why are you talking me? I will not change my position. I will not change my view.

Just because you have freedom of speech, does not give you freedom from consequence. Now, create any strawman you wish and argue with that.

When you can look at my viewpoint and choose to agree or disagree come back and have a discussion with me.

I have no idea what you mean by saying I have not made myself clear on free speech.

That is absurd.

Read the constitution for a definition of free speech. What does our justice system say regarding free speech?

If you do not know, then why are you even posting me?

[RolandCuthbert]

No it does not hinge on that question. It hinges on the lawsuit. You are 17 years old. Clearly you are not a judge. You are not even old enough to sit on a jury. So your decision will not factor in the lawsuit brought by the families. His insanity will not be allowed to continue. These families actually ignored him thinking sooner or later he would go away.

He forced this. I think he actually believes it is good publicity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4phQqsfPMM

[ShortCircuit]

"Just because you have freedom of speech, does not give you freedom from consequence."
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, as long as by "consequence" you mean "social consequence" (such as criticism and firing), not "legal consequence" (such as fines and imprisonment). I know what your opinion on free speech is as it pertains to social consequences--that was the subject of this take, which I read in full. I, however, haven't the foggiest what your opinion is on free speech as it pertains to legal consequences.

I am well aware of what the current legal restrictions on free speech are: libel, slander, and incitement. I only wanted to know whether you are content with these restrictions or seek to expand them to include other things.

I said *my opinion* hinges on whether or not Alex Jones specifically listed names. I never claimed that the basis for the lawsuit hinged on the listing of names (although I believe it should).

[RolandCuthbert]

That is intellectual dishonesty. I defined freedom of speech in my take and several times throughout these threads. The funny thing is you just posted my definition, yet you still want me to define it again.

the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

I am glad we agree that the Alex Jones lawsuit does not hinge on your interpretation of the law.

[Oram52]

Anti-PC and proponents of free speech would agree with you mostly. I see no contradiction.

Lets start with hate speech. There is NO such thing as hate speech, each individual is free to express their opinion even if offensive. Are they free from repercussions that may arise maybe not. Example being James Gunn fired for obscene pedophlic jokes.

But criticizing religions for example is NOT hate speech. SJWs seem keen on calling everything hate speech hence why emphasize on that exists. Government should in NO way interfere in right to opinion even if offensive.

Expressing harm to someone calling for rape for example, murder, bodily harm is punishable by law, because you are threatening someone. That's why countries have laws setting limits where harassment begins and freedom of speech ends.

You can't make up lies you are right hence why again law protects us. Specific laws designed to protect us from exactly this. Again no correlation with anti-PC vast majority agree with this.

Again freedom of assembly is still protected you can freely protest, something majority agree with. As long as it is peaceful and does not violate someone else's liberty or property. There was case of starbucks where black guys had police called on them. There were protests and people were appalled.

Again something I've defended. If you make racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist comments I would fire in a heart beat.

You seem to have misunderstood anti-PC sentiment which is majority now sick and tired of thought police. It has nothing to do with above, for example you can't yell bomb on airplane.

Take is great I agree I however don't see the relevance to anti-PC as they can distinguish points you described above.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't see anything in your post to respond to. Are you trying to make a point?

[worldscolide]

You are right about most of it.. What the right including my self stand against is criminalizing offensive speech.. Never mind the loss of jobs part thats at the discretion of the companies that choose to fire. No what i am talking about is What Canada is doing.. The use of incorrect pronouns is now a criminal offense. Or what the UK is doing, cat calling or wolf whisteling is now considered a hate crime. Or take what the UK courts did to Count Dankula for teaching his dog a funny trick.. People seem to believe that being being offensive should be a criminal offense, as if feelings matter... they dont.. Remember offense cannot be given only taken.. People that get so offended so easily are at fault for being offended, because they chose to take offense.

“Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” - Cathy Newman

“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.” - Jordan Peterson

Jordan is right.

[RolandCuthbert]

Sorry man. I can't do anything about the UK or Canada or any of those other nations. I just know such legislation is impossible here. "Freedom of speech" lives in our bones.

[worldscolide]

agreed

[Anonymous]

I agree. Here in Canada the limitaitons we have on freedom of speech is for hate speech. Which is debatably good or bad. Pros to it are that you don't have bigoted idiots spreading messages involving racism or sexism around to other suggestible idiots. Cons are that you get a lot of closeted racists and sexists.

Also I do agree that with free speech you don't get freedom of consequences. Though I think in some cases those consequences are a bit BS. Like I don't agree on firing someone for a difference of opinion, religion, or for liking an opposing political party. i think that goes a bit far. Some thing should be left at an agree to disagree and not bring it up again sor tof thing.

Also as for Kathy Griffin I dn't think she meant a death threat on Trump, though I do think her "joke" (if you could even call it that) went way over the line and was stupid. There are people who I don't like and I wouldn't go around holding up a bloody replica of their head. I do think she got what she deserved. Actions and words have consequences and we should expect people to accept the consequences.

[RolandCuthbert]

That's the thing. You can agree or disagree with a firing. You agree that Kathy Griffin deserved to be fired. I am not sure she deserve to be on no-fly lists, etc. But the other stuff was okay to me.

The issue before us isn't something so trivial has agreeing or disagreeing with someone's continue employment.

IT IS MY GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE WHO I THINK IS DAMAGING MY BRAND.

Do you understand that?

fm.cnbc.com/.../...09-04-at-9.52.03-am.530x298.jpg

[Opinion Owner]

If something is taken as a death threat (especially towards the leader of her country) even though I don't think Kathy Griffin meant it as one then yeah I can see there being an investigation and her being on a no fly list. I think the investigation would be a waste of time since I couldn't see her causeing ztrump and physical harm but when you're dealing with the governemnt they take these issues very seriously and rightfully so.

Of course it's not as trivial as agreeing or disagreei to get fired but this is one instance of the consequence of free speech. Another instance may be saying something that turns fans away from your band, or saying something that gets the neighbours to hate you.

I understand that it's the right of an employer to fire and employee they think is DAMAGING (being the key word here). It's another thing and stupid thing to fire someone because you find out (outside of work) that they have a different religious belief than you do, especially when their (cont)

[Opinion Owner]

Religion never interfered with your job or your brand. Well we're on the topic, I think it's also stupid and wrong to fire someone for simply stating their religion but not actually shoving it (because this could be DAMAGING TO YOUR BRAND) down other people's throats.

Do you understand that?

[RolandCuthbert]

You can think it is stupid. We live in America, so that is possible in this nation. But again, as an owner of a company I get to decide what is damaging to my brand. And as long as your thoughts do not conflict with my ability to turn a profit, hire/fire, you can think whatever you wish. Because the decisions about how I do that need to reside with me and me alone.

So all of that other stuff you post about religion, etc. is all just noise. We have protections for religious beliefs in our constitution. So there is no point to debating something so absurd.

[Opinion Owner]

We also have protection for religious and political views over here. Though it doesn't stop people form necessarily getting fired for them. Though the fact is beng fired for a mere difference of beliefs or views could have consequences for employers over here.

I don't think we disagree with a person saying stuff that is damaging to your brand (and example of this could be James Gunn being fired by Disney because pedophilia jokes are inappropriate for Disney's brand) so there's no point in debating this. All I'm saying with this is that it should be within reason because there are potential consequences (at least in Canada) for employers that fire people unreasonably (and rightfully so).

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, I think you are just stating something that is absurd. There are protections for employees, they have legal remedies if they think they have been wronged. But too many young foks at GaG don't understand how things work in corporate America. You can be fired for the smallest of infractions. And that is just the way it is.

[Opinion Owner]

Maybe that's the difference between America and Canada. minor infractions generally don't get you fired over here and harm the employer more. The exception is when you have a bunch of minor infractions that violate company rules. Then there sre the obvious things that get people fired like doing something extremely damaging to a company, saying something that goes viral that reflects negatively on your company, or just not showing up for work or always coming in late (being late could be a major or minor infraction depending on the type of job and how busy stuff is). Though over here that is also just the way it is and I don't see it as absurd.

There are also legal remedies over here for employees who feel they've been wronged. Sometimes they have been, sometimes an employer has always just wanted to fire them ove rminor things that aren't damaging, sometimes they haven't been wronged. I do think employees should have those legal remedies and if they have been wronged things should

[Opinion Owner]

Be fixed is all I'm saying.

[RolandCuthbert]

I kid you not. A CFO at a company I consult had an employee fired for being her the wrong flavor milk shake.

That's just the way it is.

[Opinion Owner]

Lmao, that's pretty ridiculous. I'm not doubting you though. If that's just the way it is in America then that's just the way it is. Though I don't agree with it (not that it really matters). Imm just glad it's not that way over here.

[Benedek38]

Freedom of speech should be absolute as long as nobody gets harmed as a direct consequence of it. There, I said it in short.

Threatening? Not right.
Slander? Not right.
Provocation and call for violence? Not right.

The only area I can think of that I think should be protected by freedom of speech is calling for a boycott. Sure, it inflicts financial harm on a company or person, but that's just basic market strategy. However, if you lie about someone to ruin their lives - this is covered by slander -, you shouldn't be protected.

[coralee]

Exactly! I would also add that it does not mean the right to a platform. I can start a cult claiming the sky is green and that we believe it is blue is a government conspiracy but my local University does not have to allow me to speak on their premises.

[RolandCuthbert]

Thanks for that illustration.

[lucidmemoirs]

If its a Public University and you are a taxpaying citizen by what right could they refuse you?

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs You mean a public university has to accept any person who wants to speak about the sky actually being green?

[lucidmemoirs]

Yep. As well as Flat Earthers, UFOlogists, Ghost Hunters and whomever else pays the required fees and reserves the venue. Its a Public Space. Not a space for people whose beliefs I agree with and find worthwhile.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs No. A public school must stick to basic scientific facts, at the very least. Claims that are proven to be plainly and simply UNTRUE, not only should be disregarded but actually deplatformed by public school.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina Then you would have to do away with 90% of the humanities as well as the study of all religions and prohibit anyone from speaking on these subjects.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs There's a difference between teaching *about* unproven or disproven things, and teaching unproven/disproven things as facts. Flat Earthers and Creationists deny science facts.

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs Hmmm. . . I don't think that is correct. Can you provide us with usage policies and guidelines regarding public spaces at universities?

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina No. Plenty of the humanities teach theories and conjecture as postulate despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs Then I don't know what you are talking about. Example?

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina Just type "Marxist professors" into a youtube search. You'll find examples of tenured professors at state universities making claims that range from "No one was murdered under Stalin" to "The US government is a white heteronormative patriarchal entity that must be overthrown by violence" . And I'm not even talking about random guest speakers unendorsed by the Universities. I'm talking about tenured professors. At least Flat Earthers attempt to justify most of their positions through scientific method and don't endorse violence against people who disagree. If anything they have more right to speak at universities than many of those professors whose salaries are paid for by our tax dollars.

[lucidmemoirs]

@RolandCuthbert According to the First Amendment Center, Courts have held that public universities can only deny requests if they have reason to believe the speaker will advocate violence against the government or immediate, destructive or disruptive action against the host university. Even though some professors employed by public universities do just that and they don't seem to have an issue with it.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs Oh, I'm fully aware that there are plenty of lecturers who teach utterly untrue bullshit. And unlike you, I think they should be allowed to teach that. Teaching students that "no one was murdered under Stalin" is a blatant lie that shouldn't be allowed to be taught on universities. But - assuming this was a history course - that doesn't mean that history shouldn't be taught, obviously. It just means that that particular professor and his lies should have no place in public education.

[Pamina]

*shouldn't be allowed to teach that

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina Nowhere did I say they should be entrusted to teach. I said they should be allowed to speak. There is a difference. And if you serious about banning this type of revisionist history, advocacy data and unscrutinized research you'd be taking a veritable chainsaw to the fields of sociology, and basically any major ending with the word "studies" as they are taught in today's universities. Which I'm totally fine with by the way. But you should at least be consistent about it. Until you purge the universities of the people making these types of claims you can't consistently deny Flat Earthers and Ghost Hunters a seat at the same forum.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs Then I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "speak" in this context.

"And if you serious about banning this type of revisionist history, advocacy data and unscrutinized research you'd be taking a veritable chainsaw to the fields of sociology, and basically any major ending with the word "studies" as they are taught in today's universities."
- That depends. There's a crucial difference between teaching things that are proven to be factually untrue, and things that are inherently dependend on interpretation. There's no room for interpretation when it comes to the question whether the Earth is a sphere or flat, or whether it's billions of years old or just a couple of thousand years old.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina The premise of this thread. Universities host guest speakers. Someone stated that certain people shouldn't have access to this platform. I asked on what grounds a public institution could refuse them.

No. That's the problem with postmodern teaching. Everything is open to interpretation. You can't "disprove" that ghosts/aliens exist, or that NASA is part of global conspiracy to conceal the true shape of the Earth anymore than I can disprove the ridiculous claims of these professors. This is all by design of course. All you can do is present conflicting evidence and leave it "open it to interpretation". It is within this vacuum that these sorts of radical theories have been allowed to masquerade as scholarship.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs I don't think we'll come to an agrreement if you seriously believe everything is equally up for interpretation, including things like the shape or age of the Earth.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina I think you just completely missed my point.

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs I don't think you are representing the law properly. From what I understand, students definitely have the right to free speech. But guests have to be invited by the university. So I don't think a guy off the street can just come in and talk about the sky being green.

[lucidmemoirs]

Well, they are usually invited by student or faculty groups to speak as guests. University Administrators can really only disinvite them citing public safety concerns, which has happened a lot in recent years.

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs But you did not give that impression at the beginning. You made it seem as though public universities have to allow anyone who wants to come into speak.

[lucidmemoirs]

I said that is usually how it is done. People can and do rent University space to use as their venue. That was the whole controversy when the National Policy Institute came to the University of Florida. A state of emergency was declared in anticipation of riots, but the University ceded that they couldn't legally deny them a platform.

[lucidmemoirs]

So, in other words, a cult leader who thinks the sky is green absolutely DOES have the right to speak at a public university. At least in the United States.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs Apparently. Personally I believe that when it can be clearly proven that the contents of the speech are based on outright falsehoods (like in the case of Flat Earthers), Universities shouldn't only have a right but actually a duty to deny them a platform.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina So, why not just invite a panel of renowned astronomers to come in and debunk the Flat Earthers? That way people get to hear all of the information and you're not limiting anyone's speech. That is by far the smartest, least restrictive and best way to handle that situation.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs Because it has already been debunked over and over again. There's nothing left to debate. Giving these liars a platform legitimizes their lies. This is exactly what is happening in media coverage of scientific topics and it's very dangerous:

"An example of false balance is the debate on global warming: although the scientific community almost unanimously attributes global warming to the effects of the industrial revolution, there is a very small number, a few dozen scientists out of tens of thousands of scientists, who dispute the conclusion. Giving equal voice to scientists on both sides makes it seem like there is a serious disagreement within the scientific community, when in fact there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Pamina]

By giving both sides equal platforms, you're basically telling the public that both sides are equally legitimate and that it's merely up to the public to "decide" which side "won" the debate. What if the majority of people decide that Flat Earthers are right? Should we go back to being a Flat Earth society and start teaching that in science classes instead?

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina When you rip a man's tongue out, you're not proving him a liar. You're only proving you fear what he has to say. We live in an age of social media. When enough Flat Earthers keep getting the shit kicked out of them on the University circuit, they'll stop. Deny them a platform and you relegate them to internet echo chambers, where they could well metastasize into a political movement.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs "When you rip a man's tongue out, you're not proving him a liar."
- That's not what's happening. They have been proven a liar already, plenty of times. And they're still free to spread their lies elsewhere. I just don't think they should be allowed to spread them on institutions of education. I'd be okay with universities letting these people speak if they'd officially label and announce these speeches as falsehoods that they actively intend to publicly expose as such. But not if they treat them as equally legitimate.

"When enough Flat Earthers keep getting the shit kicked out of them on the University circuit, they'll stop."
- I wish that was true. But it has been and is being shown over and over again that often people can be fooled, if done eloquently enough and by appealing to the right emotions. Otherwise propaganda wouldn't work so well.

[Pamina]

"Deny them a platform and you relegate them to internet echo chambers, where they could well metastasize into a political movement."
- Nobody has a right to a platform. Nobody has a right to be on the News. The news channel decide who's on. If they're publicly funded, they should be obliged to make these decisions accordingly. The same goes for public schools.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina If a bunch of internet Flat Earthers keep BTFOing panels of PHDs from MIT or Embry Riddle? Then, yeah. Its probably time to reexamine the discipline. Its sounds like the free exchange of information frightens you. I don't know why. Most news networks are private companies which report information in accordance with very selective social and political interests. Their ability to monopolize the conversation and flow of information brought us such joys as the Iraq war and the surveillance state. Let people throw their ideas in the arena and let the best arguments win. Also, what specifically do you mean by a platform?

[Pamina]

"Its sounds like the free exchange of information frightens you. I don't know why."
- That's your misunderstanding of me right there. I'm 100% for free exchange of information. It's exchange of *misinformation* I that I have a problem with. Lies and falsehoods are not information.

"Most news networks are private companies which report information in accordance with very selective social and political interests."
- That's why I explicitly said publicly funded media. But you guys in the US don't seem to have that.

"Their ability to monopolize the conversation and flow of information brought us such joys as the Iraq war and the surveillance state."
- Exactly. That's a perfect example of why I think false balance / false equivalence is so dangerous.

"Let people throw their ideas in the arena and let the best arguments win."
- Again, this is not how it works, unfortunately. The best arguments often lose. You're acting as if propaganda wasn't a thing.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina
And 600 years ago, it was lies/falsehoods/blasphemy to say that the Earth wasn't flat. I would like to think we have evolved with respect to how we handle misinformation. And its not just the exchange of information that we're talking about here. Its also the exchange of ideas.

Even publically funded media tends to be pretty one sided. You can't rely on any singular source to give a complete picture.

Finally, propaganda only thrives when opposing ideas are stifled and presented as "dangerous". If that's honestly what you fear, then no-platforming is the last thing for which you should be advocating. Trust and believe, there will come a day when your ideas are "dangerous" to someone who'd like to shut you up. Come that day, the free exchange of ideas could well be the only standing between you and their ability to do so.

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs Okay, so why did you make it appear to be otherwise? It looks like Richard Spencer will get his day. And he did it the right way. He made a request. At this point, I don't understand the point you are making.

[Pamina]

"And 600 years ago, it was lies/falsehoods/blasphemy to say that the Earth wasn't flat."
- Exactly. Which is a perfect example of how the general public can believe factually false.

"Even publically funded media tends to be pretty one sided."
- That's true, and I'm saying that's a problem.

[Pamina]

"You can't rely on any singular source to give a complete picture."
- I actually think it's very crucial to provide more than one source. But the sourced need to be based on reality. Former b-movie star Jenny McCarthy and her insane "vaccines cause autism" beliefs are not a legitmate source next to an actual medical doctor and the medical community with all their research and evidence based data.

"Finally, propaganda only thrives when opposing ideas are stifled and presented as "dangerous"."
- No, not opposing ideas are dangerous. Dangerous ideas are dangerous. The idea that people should not vaccinate their kids, is literally dangerous in of itself. That's not a matter of opinion. That is dangerous, without quotation marks.

[RolandCuthbert]

@lucidmemoirs You talk as though you don't understand where Pamina is coming from. I would agree that we can't block out opinions that we dislike. At the same time, she has a concern that we will return to the days of ethnic cleansing, genocide and worse. I don't see how you can dismiss her concerns. You may not feel threatened because you don't think you are among one of the groups that could be grossly effected. I guess I can understand that.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina They believed false information because anyone who presented opposing information or ideas was tied to a stake and incinerated. This only proves my point about the dangers of no platforming.

[Pamina]

"Trust and believe, there will come a day when your ideas are "dangerous" to someone who'd like to shut you up. Come that day, the free exchange of ideas could well be the only standing between you and their ability to do so."
- You're either misunderstanding me or misrepresenting me. You try to make it seem like I want to deplatform ideas I personally disagree with. That's you being dishonest about my words, or you not understanding me. For instance, I disagree with many things that Jordan Peterson spreads, yet I do think he should have the right to spread them. I am explictly talking about ideas that have been PROVEN to be factually false. Like that vaccines cause autism.

[Pamina]

"They believed false information because anyone who presented opposing information or ideas was tied to a stake and incinerated."
- Then you're simply being extremely naive. Because people believe in plenty blatant flasehoods today, that have not been deplatformed. Are you living in a cave?

[lucidmemoirs]

What do you mean? How did I make it appear otherwise? OP was saying some loony cultist has no right to use a public university as a forum. You seemed to think it was a good illustration. I just pointed out how that'd be incorrect, at least in the US. I don't know about Canada.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Pamina Hmmm. . . I never thought of it that way. Pamina, are you an atheist? And would you consider religion to be non-factual?

[Pamina]

That really depends. The deistic claims of religions are non-scientific and are neither provable nor unprovable, so in that sense I would consider them a matter of personal opinion, not of science. The problem is rather when a religion makes claims that have been scientifically proven to be false, like Young-Earth-Creationism and the denial of Evolution.

[lucidmemoirs]

Actually I would appear to belong to the one group it is socially permissible to denigrate, make generalizations about and even and call for the genocide of within the halls academia and still keep your job.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina And I am saying, you reach a greater understanding by allowing discourse. Flat Earthers aren't still using arguments from 1600. They have evolved their arguments since then. So, let the scientists of today debunk their new theories. When you allow an institution (like a public university) to de platform people you set a dangerous precedent. Facts change, with our understanding of the world around us. That is my entire point, which you seem intent on missing. You don't foster a greater understanding by shutting people up.

[Pamina]

"So, let the scientists of today debunk their new theories."
- They have debunked them over and over in recent years and still do so.

"When you allow an institution (like a public university) to de platform people you set a dangerous precedent."
- That's why I only think scientific falsehoods should have no place in universities. That's all.

"Facts change, with our understanding of the world around us."
- So, by your logic we might someday find out that the Earth is in fact flat? Because that's what I'm getting from that statement. Sounds overly postmodernist, if you ask me.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina Today's scientific falsehood could be tomorrow's scientific breakthrough. No, I don't believe that we will one day find out the Earth is flat. But they may raise an important point or question that ultimately leads to something worthwhile. Anyway you are fixating on the Flat Earth example. This obviously has much broader implications.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs I am fixated on the Flat Earth example because those are the type of ideas I am referring to. Blatant falsehoods, not things that are up for interpretation and debate. The better example though is the one about vaccines, because that one literally puts people in danger.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina Like I said. Things that were blatantly false 300 years ago are common knowledge today. The process by which we arrive at these conclusions isn't pretty. It involves continuously engaging stupid, dangerous and miscellaneously bad ideas. That principle is the reason we developed vaccines in the first place.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs And I'm not disagreeing with that part of what you've been saying, even if you think so. You keep misunderstanding my point unfortunately. Bad and false ideas like the ones of anit-vaxxers need to be made public - but they only if they are not treated as an equally legitimate side to the topic of vaccination, but to raise awareness and to educate people on why these ideas are bad and false.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina Well then, I think we've found our ideological impasse. I don't believe that allowing equal opportunity to speak at public forums ensures that all messages will be equally received. I also think it typically ends in disaster for the unqualified person, especially when presented before a critically thinking audience. I would not be opposed to having a more exclusive forum, reserved for those whose arguments and ideas had endured the initial rounds of vetting. Although I do think there has to be an entry level that is essentially open to and accessible by the public.

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs "I don't believe that allowing equal opportunity to speak at public forums ensures that all messages will be equally received."

I don't believe that either and that wasn't my point.

[lucidmemoirs]

@Pamina I can only try this one more time, because I have to go to work now. Your concern was that allowing advocates of discredited theories to speak alongside legitimate scientists would create an underlying implication of equal standing between the two? Y/N?

[Pamina]

@lucidmemoirs Close. We can leave it at that for now.

[Waffles731]

I wrote a take with this exact same title
Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences ↗
I want to say two years ago, it was my first one featured

[RolandCuthbert]

Very good take Waffles. I am sorry I didn't see it. But I just thought with the plethora of threads talking about freedom of speech from a decidedly Anti-PC bent, I wanted to correct the record.

Thanks man!

[jellyroo]

Let's separate free speech from genuine hate speech. Many people seem to be confused about the difference, or ignorant to it.

Exercising free speech shouldn't mean fearing for your life, in my opinion.
Exercising hate speech - yes, at that point you should be prepared of the level of backlash you might get, not to mention that in some countries it's illegal.

But again, people tend to mix up these different types of speech.

Free speech that isn't actively trying to harm people or incite violence towards them, should NOT lead to physical violence and complete silencing from opposing voices. That's just barbaric, and so counter-productive. It increases the divide, instead of decreasing it.

[RolandCuthbert]

But we all have different opinions on what is hate speech. That's why in America there isn't any legislation. It is left up to individual organizations, companies, people etc. to decide that for themselves. And we do not even have to go that far. If you work for a firm in America that firm can set guidelines for appropriate conduct for their employees.

[jellyroo]

Yeah, I didn't really put America into the equation - I wasn't aware they don't have any legislation on speech at all.

That said, I don't think expressing an opinion that doesn't incite harm towards other makes it okay to threaten, physically assault, or take away someone's job. Of course it can happen, but I don't think it should be seen as an acceptable consequence.

I believe in the notion that disproving someone should be done logically, not with violence or other harm towards a person.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, we have legislation. We simply do not legislate hate speech.

As for expressing an opinion, again, in America it is against the law to threaten or physically assault someone. So logically, that is not an acceptable consequence.

As for a person being reprimanded or losing their job, we are a capitalistic society. That is why those decisions are left up to the organization. If I work for a firm and I express views that my company deems harmful to their image, I can lose my job. If I conduct myself outside of work in a way that draws unwanted negative attention, I could be fired. The government cannot protect a person from poor decision making.

[DinaM]

Like I've said before... it seems like these days "free speech" seems to be a term that douchebags hide behind in order to not have to face the fact that they are being douchebags.

[RolandCuthbert]

Agreed!

[Gray-Wisp]

This is all true but I do find one thing odd. (I should also state I believe any business should be able to fire you for any reason.) I find it odd how some people are ok with firing people based on their beliefs but not ok with firing people based on other things that are out of their control.

[RolandCuthbert]

But it is not about your beliefs. No one knows what you believe until you tell them. If you are a holocaust denier. If you believe in racial supremacy. If you believe homosexuals are brain-damaged, no one knows that, until you voice that opinion. And these are all choices. You are choosing to believe in something then you are choosing to voice that belief.

So since these are within your control, why would a company keep you in employment if they felt you were damaging their brand?

As for things out of your control, well, I think that is just basic common sense. They are not making a choice to represent something you do not want associated with your company.

[Gray-Wisp]

I don't know anyone that believes the holocaust never happened, in racial supremacy, or something about homosexuals with brain damage. When people get fired for things that half of the U. S. agrees with I personally find it quite insane though.

Beliefs depending on how dear they are to us manifest themselves in many ways. Not just directly by stating them. Keep in mind this is also an age where accusations tend be thrown around with very little evidence.

For example I used to read books at work. It was usually either by rich capitalists or about war/military. One could assume that I was a conservative or at least right wing based off of the books I was reading. Would that be enough to fire me if they wanted to?

I was also at a table with some co workers once. The topic turned to homosexuality/gay marriage. Imagine if the other co workers all supported it and then they asked me what I thought. Am I to lie? I could remain silent but still... is refusing to answer enough to be fired?

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know what to say to posts like these. Are you claiming someone was fired for reading Ben Shapiro's latest work? Are you saying that a person could be fired for having a political opinion?

That is a strawman argument that has no place in reality. I didn't create this take to debate hypotheticals. I created it because people keep claiming their freedom of speech is being violated, where there is no such law against their freedom to speak out. They just want people to be comfortable with their offensive views.

It is similar to me claiming my freedom of speech is violated because 60 or 70 people here at GaG have me on their block list. My freedoms have not been violated. And I can't claim that just because I can't force OlderandWiser to read my opinions, my freedoms were taken away.

The whole idea is absurd.

cont'd

[RolandCuthbert]

As for the question about homosexuality, I am pretty certain I either employ or have employed guys who dislike gay marriage or even worse gay adoptions. I never sat around and quizzed them on it. But I guess this could be a legitimate point.

The thing that is interesting is you seem to have a breaking point when it comes to homosexual issues. As though you know there is a point at which you should not go beyond. Where is the line for you with respect to gay rights?

I would like to hear about that before we continue.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I don't know what to say to posts like these. Are you claiming someone was fired for reading Ben Shapiro's latest work? Are you saying that a person could be fired for having a political opinion?"

I'm trying to ask where is the line drawn? Is their assumption of your opinions based on your actions enough to label you as an undesirable to the company?

"That is a strawman argument that has no place in reality. I didn't create this take to debate hypotheticals."

I think this is a good place to debate when you should/shouldn't be fired for something related to political speech. After googling more on it I found that some states protect your speech/activism etc. while some don't. I would say discussing the conditions required for termination from work for speech or lack of speech is on topic.

[Gray-Wisp]

"It is similar to me claiming my freedom of speech is violated because 60 or 70 people here at GaG have me on their block list."

It'd be more like if GAG banned you because they didn't like *Insert Belief*. Also, those 60 people are cucks.

"I never sat around and quizzed them on it. But I guess this could be a legitimate point."

Could you legally quiz them on it and then fire them if they gave you a wrong answer? That's a very scary thought to think about. I see it as no different from a Christian business asking me if I believe that Jesus is the son of God. If someone truly doesn't believe something it can't be forced even if the person wants to believe. Then to legally be allowed to punish them for it?

"Where is the line for you with respect to gay rights?"

If I refused to answer would you assume I'm homophobic and fire me if I were your employee?

[Gray-Wisp]

Yes, these situations are hypothetical but it really comes down to it being legal for a boss of *political side* to have the ability to seek out and fire *opposite political side* like some sort of inquisitor. I think it'd be best for this to not be allowed to happen unless they can fire anyone for any reason... which they cannot.

[RolandCuthbert]

I feel that it is a different topic. It is oranges and apples. But I am still willing to engage in discussion. I don't think there is a federal law regarding employee termination and political speech.

I wouldn't terminate an employee over "so-called political speech". But I would fire them if it jeopardized my a relationship with a client.

I don't feel that views regarding homosexuality should be protected if they jeopardize a client engagement. If I am trying obtain business from a wealthy homosexual business owner, a guy who is going to be vocal about gay marriage in a meet will definitely be looking for another job.

[RolandCuthbert]

But people have been banned. Threads have been deleted. And I don't care that people block me. I am perfectly fine with people who don't want to hear what I have to say. The point is my freedom of speech was not violated. I can't even say that if GaG banned me.

Wait. How is that scary? Do you have a job? Sir, I have seen people get fired for simply addressing an executive by the wrong title. I have seen people get fired for buying the wrong flavor of milk shake. I have seen a guy who is nearly a billionaire fire a person for buying a television that didn't display one of his business channels properly.

I am sure I can think of many more situations where people's very livelihood depended upon someone's mood, or was subject to a whim.

I find it striking that you think political beliefs should be exempt from employment decisions.

[RolandCuthbert]

I think you are just jumping ahead two steps. No one is forcing you to believe in something. That's what I don't understand. We seem to understand that Christians can refuse to provide services to gays, right? Why would you have a problem with a business owned by a gay man refusing to employ a man who does not support gay marriage?

And do you think that a Christian owned business should be forced to employ people who are not Christian? Should a non-profit Christian organization that counsels abused women be forced to hire a non-Christian person who believes that women should be subservient to men?

I just think you are taking things too far and your views do not reflect the reality of the workplace.

And I don't understand why you cannot answer my question?

Where is the line for you with respect to gay rights? What do you think their rights should be under the law?

[RolandCuthbert]

But you know already what workplace discrimination laws say. And you know. . . or at least you should know just how tenuous your employment with any company is.

They don't owe you a job.

Your goal should be that it becomes a very difficult decision to get rid of you. That's why my clients use my services.

Because without me their business would suffer.

It is called Capitalism.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I don't feel that views regarding homosexuality should be protected if they jeopardize a client engagement. If I am trying obtain business from a wealthy homosexual business owner, a guy who is going to be vocal about gay marriage in a meet will definitely be looking for another job."

Oh yes, that's an extremely direct example that no one would question.

"I can't even say that if GaG banned me."

This reminds me of the debate of whether or not to treat social media as a public utility in some aspects. I didn't look too much into that stuff but I know it was related to the mass censorship of mainstream opinions.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Sir, I have seen people get fired for simply addressing an executive by the wrong title. I have seen people get fired for buying the wrong flavor of milk shake. I have seen a guy who is nearly a billionaire fire a person for buying a television that didn't display one of his business channels properly."

Yet you can't fire someone based on something just as silly, their race or sex. I find that odd how race and sex are protected but your political opinions aren't.

"I find it striking that you think political beliefs should be exempt from employment decisions."

As I said I think it's ok to fire for any reason but it's weird how some things you can't change are protected while others aren't. It's that inconsistency in logic that I find annoying.

[Gray-Wisp]

"We seem to understand that Christians can refuse to provide services to gays, right? "

No they can't legally. They can only refuse something that would go towards a gay wedding since that is against Christianity (And some other religions). If two homosexuals walked into a bakery and wanted to buy cookies if they specifically said 'This is not for a gay wedding.' then the bakery is legally obligated to serve them IIRC.

"Why would you have a problem with a business owned by a gay man refusing to employ a man who does not support gay marriage? And do you think that a Christian owned business should be forced to employ people who are not Christian? Should a non-profit Christian organization that counsels abused women be forced to hire a non-Christian person who believes that women should be subservient to men?"

If all businesses had the ability to hire literally whoever for any reason I would have no problem. Again, it's the logical inconsistency of the law that bugs me.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Where is the line for you with respect to gay rights? What do you think their rights should be under the law?"

I would say you can't kill/hurt them like most people would say.

"Your goal should be that it becomes a very difficult decision to get rid of you. That's why my clients use my services.
Because without me their business would suffer.
It is called Capitalism."

So, if it were up to you would you abolish all of the laws regarding discrimination? I'd say that when someone starts out no one is good enough at something for it to be a "very difficult" decision to fire them unless they're specially gifted. After one is more experienced I would agree with this.

[RolandCuthbert]

"Oh yes, that's an extremely direct example that no one would question."

So why would you question examples that are indirect?

Why should it be treated as a public utility? It isn't funded by the public. If you wanted the government to create something from public tax dollars that would be different. But if I create a social platform that becomes popular, your freedom of speech is not violated if I deem you have broken the rules and no longer deserve access.

[RolandCuthbert]

I misspoke. No one can fire you for what you believe. You have to express those beliefs. And expressing a position on gay marriage can get you fired. Why would you want to stop a company from the freedom to make such a decision?

[RolandCuthbert]

I am quite certain there is no inconsistency. I think your problem is that your view is not as popular as you wish and that is unsatisfactory. Our government is not a remedy for you.

You should work on making a more compelling argument for your views. If you dislike gay marriage, find a way to "overcome". There is a roadmap already out there.

cdn.history.com/.../...lma-montgomery-march-P.jpeg

[RolandCuthbert]

"I would say you can't kill/hurt them like most people would say."

Again, what are their rights? You and I have rights under the Constitution. Do those rights extend to them or not?

"So, if it were up to you would you abolish all of the laws regarding discrimination? I'd say that when someone starts out no one is good enough at something for it to be a "very difficult" decision to fire them unless they're specially gifted. After one is more experienced I would agree with this. "

I am not arguing for a change in discrimination laws. I do think we will get to a point where they will no longer be needed. But not because of people will stop discriminating. It will be because discrimination will be proven to be detrimental to overall company performance.

I will submit there have been "Black" leaders who argued against discrimination laws. But they were ignored and ostracized also.

[Gray-Wisp]

"So why would you question examples that are indirect?"
"And expressing a position on gay marriage can get you fired. Why would you want to stop a company from the freedom to make such a decision?"

Well like before I said I wondered where the line was drawn. This ties into how you mentioned you can't be fired for beliefs. Well what is an expression of that belief? *Insert the gay marriage example from before.* Sometimes silence is louder than words, is this enough to fire them? Also, when I was looking up information on this stuff I found some interesting info. Depending on the state you live in you can be fired for (legal) political activism. That is concerning too as it means people may not be able to ever publically voice their concerns if their occupation is dominated by the opposing political party.

"Why should it be treated as a public utility?"

You'd have to ask the people who are contemplating pushing laws labeling it as such.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I am quite certain there is no inconsistency. I think your problem is that your view is not as popular as you wish and that is unsatisfactory. Our government is not a remedy for you."

The right is dominating all branches of the government so I'd have to disagree and say my views are fairly popular and things are going how I want right now. Still, depending on how flexible the courts allow the term "expression of belief" to be concerns me.

[Gray-Wisp]

"You should work on making a more compelling argument for your views. If you dislike gay marriage, find a way to "overcome". There is a roadmap already out there."

There's plenty of rational arguments against things like gay marriage. It's the fact that roughly half of the population is more emotion based hence things like #LoveWins instead of #FactsWin. You can have the most rational argument in the world but if someones compass is their heart then you will not be able to move them an inch. It is unfortunate but there is nothing that I believe I can do about that.

"Again, what are their rights? You and I have rights under the Constitution. Do those rights extend to them or not?"

Yes, all Americans have rights.

"It will be because discrimination will be proven to be detrimental to overall company performance."

It is but somehow there's no push for egalitarianism. You're more optimistic than myself.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I will submit there have been "Black" leaders who argued against discrimination laws. But they were ignored and ostracized also."

I remember reading about the left hating Clarence Thomas for that.

[RolandCuthbert]

And there must be a line because? And I said you can't be fired for your beliefs, right. Because no one knows what you believe until you express those beliefs.

Yes, I have to agree that a company should wield the right to fire people who are politically active, if they deem it necessary.

Oh, I don't debate hypotheticals Grey. If you have evidence that we are looking at that legislation, you need to submit it.

[RolandCuthbert]

"The right is dominating all branches of the government so I'd have to disagree and say my views are fairly popular and things are going how I want right now. Still, depending on how flexible the courts allow the term "expression of belief" to be concerns me. "

Then what is the problem? I don't have any issue with how freedom of speech is defined. In fact, that's what this "take" is about. That people simply understand what their rights are. Your freedom of speech does not mean you are free from consequences.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

What are those rational arguments? I am an open-minded person. Convince me that I should support candidates who want to end gay marriage. By the way I am not gay. I am not in love with a gay man. So that whole love thing doesn't have much affect on me.

Oh by the way, you don't strike me as a person who has much respect for logic-based rational thinking.

Again, tell me which rights gays should not have and please provide your reasoning.

Well all of that is neither here nor there. I am quite sure your definition of egalitarianism is much different than mine.

[RolandCuthbert]

"I remember reading about the left hating Clarence Thomas for that. "

I don't think most "Black" people would consider him to be a "Black" leader.

[Gray-Wisp]

"And there must be a line because? And I said you can't be fired for your beliefs, right. Because no one knows what you believe until you express those beliefs"

Yes and I'm questioning the definition of "expressing those beliefs". There should be a line far enough out to not create a logical inconsistency. That's been my point. If the "goal post" for "expression of beliefs" was your example where it directly screwed your business over I'd be 100% in agreement with you.

"Oh, I don't debate hypotheticals Grey."

You're no fun. :P

"Your freedom of speech does not mean you are free from consequences."

Never argued for this.

[Gray-Wisp]

"What are those rational arguments? I am an open-minded person. Convince me that I should support candidates who want to end gay marriage. By the way I am not gay. I am not in love with a gay man. So that whole love thing doesn't have much affect on me. "

When you said "I am an open-minded person" I internally loled. When you said "You don't strike me as a person who has much respect for logic-based rational thinking." I actually loled. Especially after the last time we spoke I still remain skeptical of you, even though you seem to be relatively rational on this topic.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Again, tell me which rights gays should not have and please provide your reasoning."

Marriage for sure. Whether a child is truly in better homosexual hands than none at all is debatable. The mentally ill ones also favor things like genital mutilitation which is troubling. I would say that mentally ill people definitely should not have the added responsibility of a child.
I could go into this but this really is another topic. I have not refrained from MyTakes concerning these topics. I'll have to start just linking my opinions like others have been doing so I don't have to keep typing it all out again. Even with all of that said when you last disagreed with me on another topic you did not seem rational at all. You strawmanned harder than anyone I've ever seen and contradicted yourself multiple times. I'm not eager to repeat that cancer fest.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I don't think most "Black" people would consider him to be a "Black" leader."

You just explained the joke. He's a black guy, has a powerful position as a leader of this country, and is educated. But, he's not a revered "black leader" because he's right wing and not left wing, so they under rate him for his different opinions.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, you can question it. I would think most of that would lie in the realm of common sense. There is no law governing this by the way. I think your request is similar to asking a company what is their policy on people reporting late for work. Or having them define what is proper conduct. I had to lay off one of my guys because he was at work at the bar with clients. He screamed out, "We need some Amaretto in this b! tch".

Guess what? The client was not mad about using the b-word. They were mad because Amaretto was a competitor.

It is just weird and useless to try to get a company to articulate exactly what their policies are when it is subject to the whim or moods of their most senior people.

And if you are not debating being free from consequences, what are we talking about?

[RolandCuthbert]

"When you said "I am an open-minded person" I internally loled. When you said "You don't strike me as a person who has much respect for logic-based rational thinking." I actually loled. Especially after the last time we spoke I still remain skeptical of you, even though you seem to be relatively rational on this topic."

So actually you don't have an argument against gay marriage that is based upon logic or fact.

I get it.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, if you have created takes on this topic, they are not very popular. You might want to work on that. You say I make strawmen and I am contradictory. . . yet you still think a company needs to articulate to you the exact conditions for your termination.

Hilarious.

[RolandCuthbert]

Really?

Haha!

What about Colin Powell?

You are simply hilarious.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh and since we are talking about "leaders".

Is Tim Wise a "White" leader?

Lena Kagan?

Al Gore?

Haha!!!

[Gray-Wisp]

"I would think most of that would lie in the realm of common sense. "

If people had common sense we wouldn't need 1/4 of the laws/regulations we have.

"It is just weird and useless to try to get a company to articulate exactly what their policies are when it is subject to the whim or moods of their most senior people."

Oh? I don't see how determining what is "expressing a belief" is any different than companies that fill race quotas. There's technicalities in that as well. What constitutes as hispanic enough? Black enough? What's counted as white? If your DNA test comes back and it's 50% European and 50% African do they count as both? How do they judge people for racial quotas? There are just as many details in these calculations as there are in "expressing a belief". It's not a black and white issue, it's not hard to see political targeting existing, and it's not rocket science to understand those two things.

[Gray-Wisp]

"And if you are not debating being free from consequences, what are we talking about?"

You said "freedom of speech". I mentioned in an example it involved lack of speech that was not expressing a belief. The only reason to refuse to acknowledge this is because then you will have to acknowledge that businesses can potentially abuse the hell out of this.

"So actually you don't have an argument against gay marriage that is based upon logic or fact.
I get it."

I like how you claim to be open minded then assume that without checking my other posts or creating another thing specifically for that. You also must not frequent those and read the comments and you would have surely run across mine.. As I said, you're not rational and IME you operate more on emotion. There is not a high probability of you reaching the same conclusions as me for that very reason.

[Gray-Wisp]

"yet you still think a company needs to articulate to you the exact conditions for your termination."

When the law restricts businesses from discriminating based on some unchangeable factors but not all, especially when it has no bearing on their efficiency at work, the law is no longer logically consistent. That annoys me greatly.

"What about Colin Powell?"

So, you consider him a black leader but not Clarence Thomas?

[RolandCuthbert]

No one is going to propose legislation to prevent a company from firing and hiring. You are just going to have to figure out how to deal with that.

Oh, I would agree there should not be any race quotas. There are no "race" quotas for the private sector. As for DNA tests, those should be thrown out. I don't know of a single racist who conducts DNA tests. I don't know why we are talking about something in the private sector. If you are mad about political targetting, then you are just mad. This is a weird conversation. You claim to be satisfied with how things are working with regards to freedom of speech and the consequences that result, yet you are hopping mad that someone can fire you because you don't believe in gay marriage.

Get over it.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh my goodness. Dude, business have been abusing employees since the beginning of the industrial age. And here you are worried about your politics. This is America. If you want these protections move to Europe. European socialist democracies do not let employers abuse their employees. I should know, I worked over there for months at a time.

Gee Whiz!!!

Oh, I am open-minded. But you have not offered an argument, so my assumption is you don't have one.

It is that simple.

[RolandCuthbert]

Then be annoyed. Why do you think your annoyance should matter to anyone else? You keep talking about factors that are not logically consistent. Your boss's mood is not logically consistent. Someone's whim is not logically consistent. That's the workplace we have fought to keep in place for decades.

As for "Black" people and their leaders, again, are those leaders. . ."White" leaders?

[Gray-Wisp]

"No one is going to propose legislation to prevent a company from firing and hiring. You are just going to have to figure out how to deal with that."

Incorrect, we already have legislation that does that and have even modified that legislation in the past. This could very well happen again.

[Gray-Wisp]

"You claim to be satisfied with how things are working with regards to freedom of speech and the consequences that result, yet you are hopping mad that someone can fire you because you don't believe in gay marriage. Get over it."

It's like you haven't read anything I've typed.
1. Freedom of speech is nearly perfect, yes.
2. I'm "hopping mad" you're not able to comprehend it or are playing stupid.
3. I've stated that I am discontent because of the logical inconsistency. Personally, I would prefer to just repeal all of the other protections than add any new ones.
4. I will "get over it" when people of all races, colors, sexes, religions, national origins, ages, and disabilities "get over" their special protection. You can tell them that, don't worry I'll be in line behind them.

"Dude, business have been abusing employees since the beginning of the industrial age."

Excuse. ^

[Gray-Wisp]

"If you want these protections move to Europe. European socialist democracies do not let employers abuse their employees."

You mean the ones who literally do not have free speech? The ones who got raped by migrants? The ones where their government often steals more from them than the U. S. government does us? As a capitalist for you to act as if capitalism and abuse is the same is revolting. That too is another topic like the homosexual thing.

"Oh, I am open-minded. But you have not offered an argument, so my assumption is you don't have one. It is that simple."

I told you where to find them and I've made them multiple times. From gay marriage to trannies to gay culture. You're too lazy to find it, it's that simple.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Then be annoyed. Why do you think your annoyance should matter to anyone else?"

That attitude that is a major reason why Trump got elected.
This is a fairly common opinion so ok ignore it. Don't worry I'll find someone who will listen. (Ready for 2nd term.)

"You keep talking about factors that are not logically consistent. Your boss's mood is not logically consistent. Someone's whim is not logically consistent. That's the workplace we have fought to keep in place for decades."

Ah, but your boss can't fire you because you're black. Your boss cannot fire you because you are a woman. Your boss cannot fire you because you lack faith in Jesus. But, oh I suspect that you lack faith in the gender spectrum? Fired. Perhaps they even want to believe in the gender spectrum? This is no different than religion. The law is inconsistent. As I said my solution would be to eliminate all of the protections. How can you not understand how it is literally the exact same thing? This is VERY simple.

[Gray-Wisp]

"As for "Black" people and their leaders, again, are those leaders. . ."White" leaders?"

Clarence Thomas is black, and that's what we talked about. Black people not being liked for not being left wing. From what I've heard from numerous people it's like all black people have to be lefties or they're considered a traitor for some reason. Clarence Thomas described it as the left being racist. He said they were nice to you until they found out you were right wing and then let their racism show by trying destroy you every way they could. I guess if they lost the black vote they'd never win an election so they're very touchy about that. He said any right wing people that were racist were very direct about it and did not hide it like the left, so he preferred right wing racists to left wing racists.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are just a small child. So what? Then elect Trump again. Elect Putin if you must. I won't change my mind about right and wrong. It is wrong to interfere with how people choose to run their companies.

No he can't. But he can make up another reason and fire me. And I can't do anything about it. And I don't have a boss. I have bosses. I also hire and fire employees. And those employees are "Black", "White", Asian, Latin, etc.

There is no "law", you are imagining things.

[RolandCuthbert]

Yep and Tim Wise said;

So now we know: White nationalists have been working more on their wardrobe than tightening up the rhetoric and logic with which they defend and present their worldview.

Case in point, Richard Spencer, the Nazi flavor-of-the-month and white nationalist leader whom the media has deemed the movement’s bright and shining star. Although for a while they seemed fixated on Matt Heimbach as the “new David Duke,” frankly Spencer fits that bill better, and for reasons entirely aesthetic. Given a choice between a guy who resembles nothing so much as an unemployed lumberjack or a dandy who dresses in stylish pea-coats and natty vests, I think we all know what happens next. This is the same national media who thought David Duke was the fresh face of racism in the 1970s, just because he had all his teeth, generally avoided the use of racial slurs and was capable of producing multi-syllabic utterances from his mouth hole.

[Gray-Wisp]

"You are just a small child."

Actually I'm an adult and fairly tall.

"Then elect Trump again."

Probably will.

"Elect Putin if you must."

Is this a reference to those conspiracy theories?

"I won't change my mind about right and wrong. It is wrong to interfere with how people choose to run their companies."

It is, but it is even more wrong to interfere to protect some unchangeable things but not all. Not only did they interfere but did a half assed job at it. You talked about right or wrong, that's favoritism by the law. It is immoral.

[Gray-Wisp]

"No he can't. But he can make up another reason and fire me. And I can't do anything about it. And I don't have a boss. I have bosses. I also hire and fire employees. And those employees are "Black", "White", Asian, Latin, etc. There is no "law", you are imagining things."

I literally listed the types protected by the law so there is law pretaining to this topic. Yes, whoever your boss is could potentially lie about the reason you're fired. You could do something about it though if you suspect it was racially motivated or because your religion or age for example. Are you telling me that no employer has ever discriminated and been charged with breaking anti-discrimination laws?

[RolandCuthbert]

No, you are totally immature. Here you are threatening to vote for trump, like you are a small child. Haha!

That is hilarious!

If favoritism was immoral by law why did we need to create a law to stop people from practicing it?

[RolandCuthbert]

I am sure there have been. But in my case, it isn't even worth my time to investigate whether or not some racist freak stopped me from getting a consulting contract. It is silly to pretend I have time to gather evidence and litigate. I simply move on to the next client.

What other folks do, is up to them. But I know I have terminated people who's conduct jeopardized my standing with a client. That's just the way things work. If you don't like it. . . like I said move to Europe. Most European nations extend considerable protections to employees.

[Gray-Wisp]

"No, you are totally immature. Here you are threatening to vote for trump,"

I simply mentioned that your attitude is the same as the left's (whether you're left or not) on half of the country. IME they dismiss half of the country and call them deplorables. It's your apathy of fellow Americans I question. You're the one who told me to elect Trump again, which will probably happen unless some people become much less elitist.

"If favoritism was immoral by law why did we need to create a law to stop people from practicing it?"

Your question makes zero sense but I'll try to indulge you. The government protects some unchangeable aspects but not others. This is inconsistent. Favoritism in law is immoral. The extremely simple thing I've stated at least several times.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I am sure there have been. But in my case, it isn't even worth my time to investigate whether or not some racist freak stopped me from getting a consulting contract. It is silly to pretend I have time to gather evidence and litigate. I simply move on to the next client."

I think I'm starting to understand your way of thinking. You only care about it if you think it impacts you negatively, not others. That would explain a lot. It would also explain how you can say "This doesn't hurt me." and easily ignore others that it may hurt. As a nationalist I cannot operate in that line of thinking. I believe I am obligated to attempt to aid other Americans in obtaining freedom, fairness, and justice.

"Most European nations extend considerable protections to employees."

I completely disagree. They don't even have freedom of speech as I've said. If you're right wing and express right wing views then you're lucky if the government doesn't lock you up themselves.

[RolandCuthbert]

And I don't care what you label me or what offense you take. You pretend like you are a person who is interested in understanding other viewpoints. You are not. You label me, you label yourself, and you create the wall. It is not my job to tear it down. I am not MLK, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, elect Trump again. Make Putin his vp!

Haha!

Oh, I am sorry I incorrectly stated my point. Favoritism was already present in the law before anti-discrimination laws were passed.

Look it up.

[RolandCuthbert]

Are you saying you care about what impacts others negatively? Dude, tell that garbage lie to somebody else. I am not a nationalist and neither are you. You are a trump supporter. You are nationalistic only when it is convenient to be. Not that nationalism is a desirable belief system mind, you. It is insane and idiotic and has only lead to the deaths and misery of hundreds of millions. Your belief system is not dependent upon principles or ideals. It is dependent upon trump.

You have deluded yourself into thinking you aid other Americans. And that is hilarious.

As for Europe, you don't even understand how they define liberal and conservative.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I don't care what you label me or what offense you take."

I'm not offended nor have a labeled you as anything, if you don't count mentally labeling you that is.

"You pretend like you are a person who is interested in understanding other viewpoints."

As I said before I only am open to view points that use reason. I am not open to view points that rely on emotions to support it. I doubt I could find very much common ground with emotional people. For this reason you use "viewpoints" more loosely than I.

[Gray-Wisp]

"You label me, you label yourself, and you create the wall."

Unless you can read minds you don't know what I've labeled you as. I do (politically) label myself and only an idiot would say "I don't believe in labels so instead of doing the smart thing and saying two words that give you a good idea of my beliefs instead I'll be spending the next two hours giving you every detail because I hate labels that much." That's a serious case of pittakionophobia. As for the wall, the only wall I would partake in creating is one on the southern border of the U. S.

"Yes, elect Trump again. Make Putin his vp!"

It's funny how you criticize Alex Jones and claim he believes conspiracies when you believe them yourself. Next you'll be telling me that Bush secretly did 9/11 or that the holocaust was a ruse.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Favoritism was already present in the law before anti-discrimination laws were passed."

So? Because it's been there that means it's ok? If we never changed laws to make them more fair then society would look VERY different from today. You probably wouldn't even be typing this if we didn't at least try to make things fair.

"Are you saying you care about what impacts others negatively? Dude, tell that garbage lie to somebody else. I am not a nationalist and neither are you. You are a trump supporter. You are nationalistic only when it is convenient to be."

Actually I was a nationalist even before I was aware of Trump running so I'll have to stop you right there. I'm a nationalist because I truly believe that the U. S. is the best country and that her people should be prosperous and free.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Not that nationalism is a desirable belief system mind, you. It is insane and idiotic and has only lead to the deaths and misery of hundreds of millions."

You're thinking of communism/socialism. Again though, that is another topic. (I've written stuff on those too if you ever decide to actually find them.)

"Your belief system is not dependent upon principles or ideals. It is dependent upon trump."

Still incorrect, my beliefs before Trump are actually almost exactly the same as after Trump. Both socially and fiscally.

"You have deluded yourself into thinking you aid other Americans."

Not myself much, as money is the 1# way to help people and I am certainly not rich.

[Gray-Wisp]

"As for Europe, you don't even understand how they define liberal and conservative."

Yeah I do, as they would depend on which specific country you're talking about. Anyway, it doesn't matter how they define it, you know good and well when I say right/left or conservative/liberal I mean it the American way. Don't try to ignore the fact that Europeans are known for oppressing right wingers. Unless you get in a country like Switzerland or Poland.. maybe Sweden and Italy are safe now too.

[RolandCuthbert]

You labeled me a "leftist" because I am not a follower of trump. I will never be. So label me whatever you wish. But I will bow to no man. . . even one I respect. No matter what I will keep my critical mind.

Alex Jones believes in lizard human hybrids. So compare me to that crazy fruitcake if you have to. This is the new state of our public discourse. Where we have to ignore objective fact and debate insane fruitcake nuttiness.

Haha!

Talk about false equivalance.

As for the Putin/Trump conspiracy, it does not exist. It is verifiable fact. Trump and his administration are confederates.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well evidently, we as a society thought it wasn't okay. Hence anti-discrimination laws. I know I would not be in this forum, if not for civil rights workers who marched, were beaten and killed. That's why I honor their sacrifices. All of them.

You can believe you are a nationalist if you wish. There are many conservatives who are not nationalists. Who actually believe in principles and ideals. And who hold their government accountable when it does not live up to those ideals. Nationalists are not capable of doing that.

But again you are not a nationalist. You are only nationalistic when it is convenient. Because you can only criticize your government at certain times. That isn't nationalistic. That is being a trump supporter.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, you don't know anything about Europe and the debates they have there. You don't even understand why they have them. And Europeans are known for suppressing fascists. In Germany, it is anti-semitism is illegal. That is not suppressing the right wing. That is suppressing Nazis.

You probably don't know why.

That's how uninformed you are.

[Gray-Wisp]

"You labeled me a "leftist" because I am not a follower of trump."

You may want to reread that. I said your attitude was like theirs whether you're left wing yourself or not. Also, I know many people who are not leftists and don't like Trump sooo.

"No matter what I will keep my critical mind."

Uh huh.

"Alex Jones believes in lizard human hybrids. So compare me to that crazy fruitcake if you have to."

I will, you're almost to that level but not quite. You need only to try slightly harder though.

"This is the new state of our public discourse. Where we have to ignore objective fact and debate insane fruitcake nuttiness."

You literally brought up the Russian conspiracy theory.

"As for the Putin/Trump conspiracy, it does not exist. It is verifiable fact. Trump and his administration are confederates."

Statement to prove my previous points. ^

[Gray-Wisp]

"Well evidently, we as a society thought it wasn't okay. Hence anti-discrimination laws. I know I would not be in this forum, if not for civil rights workers who marched, were beaten and killed. That's why I honor their sacrifices. All of them."

It almost seems like you're on the right track.

"You can believe you are a nationalist if you wish. There are many conservatives who are not nationalists. Who actually believe in principles and ideals. And who hold their government accountable when it does not live up to those ideals. Nationalists are not capable of doing that."

Correct, I am a nationalist. Correct, not all conservatives are nationalists. Correct we believe in principles and ideals. Correct, we criticize our government when it doesn't act in the nations best interests. Incorrect, I am literally proof as I am a nationalist who does that.

[Gray-Wisp]

"Because you can only criticize your government at certain times. That isn't nationalistic. "

I'm a lot of things and no I promise you I can criticize the government at all times and do. (Proof of that in my posting history.)

"Again, you don't know anything about Europe and the debates they have there. You don't even understand why they have them. And Europeans are known for suppressing fascists."

Damn that's a lot of assuming and wrong at that. Europeans are known for calling everything they don't like hate speech or the person a Nazi. Literal free speech advocates who agree with you and I on what free speech is are called Nazis and jailed. I've seen their speeches and they say what you say. I've then seen them jailed for it. Your assumptions on what I know or don't know seem far off.

(I've also given you so many topics at this point you'd never run out of them if you utilized them.)

[RolandCuthbert]

Look I am sure you think you know people who are not "left-wing" never-trumpers. Trump has redefined what is conservatism to his followers.

Oh, don't pretend you are not a follower of Alex Jones also. :D I know you are.

So what is the name of that planet all those lizard people come from?

Prove what? Dude, Putin and Trump are in bed together. We have indictments for Manafort, Gates, Papadapolous, Page, Flynn, etc. And all of them have ties to Russia. There are two dozen Russians implicated. A russian agent sitting in jail as we speak. We have an ongoing investigation for over a year. And when Mueller presents his information it will be you who will be talking about a "conspiracy". When the facts are right there in front of you.

[RolandCuthbert]

Your posting history. Haha! I am sure.

Maybe you don't know but Europe had a little nazi problem over 70 years ago. It only cost them 80 million lives, the near genocide of an entire race of people. Destruction of the peninsula into the untold trillions, hundreds of millions homeless and displaced. So yeah, when nazis rear their heads, they kind of put that stuff down.

You can't define what free speech means in Europe. You live in America.

And you have not paid attention to what I say. I don't support their model. I defined what free speech is and should be. You pretend like I didn't say anything if you wish.

That seems to be the way you debate.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, please understand, I don't post my beliefs for your approval. I am certain you are intellectually dishonest. So I don't care if you like or approve of my beliefs. In fact, I am quite certain I do not care whether I care or not.

Correct?

I just explained that you are not a nationalist. You can only support your government when you think it aligns to your views. A nationalist supports his government whether he thinks it is right or wrong. That is something you certainly do not do.

You are not a nationalist.

You are not a patriot.

You are a trump supporter.

rationallythinkingoutloud.com/.../...nalism-is.jpg

[Gray-Wisp]

"Look I am sure you think you know people who are not "left-wing" never-trumpers. Trump has redefined what is conservatism to his followers."

:D Are you calling people like Ben Shapiro left wing? Talk about hilarious. Trump has only changed several things. The main one being he made it more about the average joe by attempting to reclaim jobs via tariffs.

"Oh, don't pretend you are not a follower of Alex Jones also."

I've actually never watched info wars but I have heard others talk about Alex Jones, for example Joe Rogan.

"So what is the name of that planet all those lizard people come from?"

I also don't believe in alien life inside of this galaxy. There is no proof.

[Gray-Wisp]

"And when Mueller presents his information it will be you who will be talking about a "conspiracy". When the facts are right there in front of you."

Do it. If all of this 'evidence' is so undeniable then attempt to impeach him. If Obama didn't get impeached I have a hard time believing Trump will. You and Alex Jones can go off into your dark little corners and try to muster 'facts' to try to keep your world views in order. Have fun with the mental gymnastics.

"When nazis rear their heads, they kind of put that stuff down. You can't define what free speech means in Europe. You live in America."

Like me living in Europe will stop them from having actual free speech or not, hint: it isn't what it isn't. You do have a point though. Those people in Europe are generally idiots. If they're stupid enough to destroy their own countries from migration they're potentially stupid enough to destroy other countries by becoming Nazis again.

[Gray-Wisp]

"I am certain you are intellectually dishonest."

Like I said before, your attitude is that of the left even if you are not left wing. You cannot tolerate or acknowledge anything that variates from your view slightly. This will be your down fall for whatever views you represent.

"A nationalist supports his government whether he thinks it is right or wrong. That is something you certainly do not do."

Actually, nationalism is 'identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.'. So, by this definition I am indeed a nationalist. We seem to use different definitions for it.

"You are not a nationalist. You are not a patriot. You are a trump supporter. "

Actually, I am all three. The lefts divisive rhetoric would make you (or has) think otherwise. It seems to me that you have contempt for half of the country by implying we cannot love our country.

[RolandCuthbert]

Haha! Who did Ben Shapiro vote for? Hillary Clinton? We all know who he voted for. That is hilarious. And he hasn't reclaimed squat. All he did was make it worse for the people who actually voted for him. Tariff haven't even kicked in yet. All those folks who make cars and those who work in agriculture are screwed. And it will only get worse. Not that it will change their vote mind you. Just sayin'.

Yeah tell me anything. I don't know why you refuse to tell me about the theory on lizard human hybrids. You could at least share some info.

:D

Oh, so you have "proof" of alien life from outside the galaxy. So which galaxy is the lizard human people from?

[RolandCuthbert]

Get real. Trump supporters will not believe if there is a tape, with the entire supreme court, half of congress, all of the republican governors, and Jesus Christ sitting watch while Trump recites the entire account of his treachery in front of that stunned audience. It is just the way it is. In order to impeach trump, dems have to take the House next election. There seems to be enough common sense in the senate to understand that there still is a such a thing as objective fact.

You keep accusing of being Alex Jones. Mueller has returned 31 indictments in his witchhunt. That is a lot of witches.

I have not seen Alex produce on lizard human hybrid, but believe what you will.

Well, if you think Europe is full of idiots, stay in America. Problem solved. I am pretty sure they think very little of your intellect. And I am quite certain they lose very little sleep over what you think. But you sure are worried about them.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, I am not a trump supporter that is the only thing that I have voiced as my view. You have no idea what my view is. And there is a lot of room in the political world outside of the trump kingdom. Out here we have our own beliefs, ideals, principles, etc. We even argue a lot.

But trump supporters do one thing. Follow trump.

That's it.

That's what I just said. Nationalists stick to the company line whether or not their company is wrong. A patriot could never do such a thing.

But no, you are not a nationalist. You are a trump supporter. There is a difference.

No, you are not a patriot. A patriot has ideals and principles that he feels his nation must live up to. And he calls his nation out when it fails to live up those those ideals.

You don't have any ideals outside of what trump tells you.

[Gray-Wisp]

Well here we are, the point at which your post is so absurd replying to it would be an insult to my intelligence. This is exactly what I wanted though or I should say when I realized you saw this as a war instead of a mutual exploration of ideas. I wanted you to display some of your true beliefs. It started from your inability to accept a slightly different opinion that agreed with you, to you labeling anyone who voted for Trump as *insert load of untrue insults*, and last but not least the hypocrisy with Alex Jones. I rest my case. I doubt very many people will read through all of this but at least if they do they'll see how irrational you are. That last few segments definitely erased any doubt of your I. Q. not being able break 80. I bet my bottom dollar anyone still reading at this point would agree.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, let me explain something to you. I have forwarded ideas. This is mytake, believe it or not. Your idea is for me to follow trump. I will not follow trump. If you wished to talk about some policy or political ideology you like or believes have merit, you could have done that ages ago.

You did not.

You did not offer any opinion other than trump. You insulted me and then whined about being insulted. That's why I call you intellectually dishonest.

And you are resting your case?

Son, you didn't have a case. I created a take on the responsibilities that go with freedom of speech. And you came to whine and complain because you cannot take the heat that comes with standing by your words and your views.

That takes conviction. You have none.

[Gray-Wisp]

Go on keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. Keep losing. Post more of your baseless accusations, assumptions, and lies. :D

If only there was a way to magnify the things you've said here, similar to sharing a MyTake.
You don't say many of these opinions in MyTakes because you'd be the laughing stock of GAG.

[RolandCuthbert]

I only post truth and objective facts little one. Perhaps your guarded upbringing kept all these realities from entering you life. But when you step out into the real world, you will need courage of conviction. Otherwise stay in your ivory tower.

And little one, I have created dozens of takes. I don't hide my views even in public. I have lead discussion groups on politics, race, and culture. I am not afraid like you. And I don't whine when I have to deal with the consequences for having a strong mind.

I deal with it.

And if you ever wish to leave the comforting anonymity of the internet, you will find me more than capable of explaining my views using common sense, logic, and facts.

[Gray-Wisp]

You've consistently lied. Thankfully you cannot delete posts.
You've never included the majority of your ignorant opinions on these topics within the last 6 months at least within a MyTake. That or you did and got such little support it quickly fell before I could even see it. Not surprising if so, add it your list of lies if not.
The only thing you have been strong in this conversation is idiocy.
I don't believe that, yes you do lack the ability to reason on the internet but I doubt your ability to reason would be improved with a real life debate. I consider the internet baby steps first. You should learn to walk before you try to run.

As I've said before, I'm posting for those reading it if any. You post to attempt to insult me or stir me emotionally but I post with the goal of showing them your ignorant beliefs. Which you did a very good job of putting on full display.

[RolandCuthbert]

No I have not lied. I just produce objective fact. You can't deal with it. Hence your issues.

I mean from the very beginning, the disagreement of freedom of speech indicates that you want freedom from consequences. If you believe in some radical theory or some new viewpoint, you should have have courage that objective fact and logic support you.

You do not have that courage. You don't want to be challenged. And you want someone to protect you from scrutiny or the consequences come with provocative statements.

And that is where the debate began. You wanted the ability to say something about gays that was unfavorable. But you want some protection from people who would disagree with you. If you happen to work for people who have different views or are in a situation where the image of those around you become sullied with your nonsense.

And told you then, as I tell you now.

It take courage to have beliefs.

There is a template for having that kind of courage.

[Gray-Wisp]

Making up lies about me personally is not "objective fact". In fact it could be considered slander.

Actually if you learned how to read you'd know my opinion is to have no special protections. And then you go on about drivel related to your failure to be able to read basic English. This is why I said no reasonable person reading this could believe your I. Q. could be above 80.

You talk about courage. Courage is nothing without intelligence and you seemingly lack it. Please reply with more of your stupidity, if you give me enough content I will consider doing a MyTake on it. Not naming you of course. The mere public disgust of your immorality is sufficient.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, your feelings are hurting over me insulting you? Little one, this is the way the world works. If you do not like being insulted, refrain from throwing insults. Your parents may not have informed you, but people in the real world are not your servants or friends. They are free and they exercise these freedoms in whichever way they see fit.

Yes, I know you claim to want no special protection except the ones that protect you from consequences. You claimed this dozens of times.

Yes, I talk about courage. Because it is no one's fault that you lack courage. Take ownership of your cowardice. You talk about intelligence, well that alone should win the argument for you, right. Put up an intelligent argument about gay marriage and overcome your foes.

But intellect is not responsible for me being able to post here at GaG.

assets.pewresearch.org/.../...lmaMontgomeryMLK.jpg

[Gray-Wisp]

Nope, I only care about peoples opinions if I respect them. When you've made direct unquestionable lies about me don't be surprised when I literally call you mentally retarded for resorting to such fabrications in an argument. Just because you lost doesn't mean you have to be butt hurt.

You can't learn how to read English within several days so you of course still think that.

You've proven time and time again that you lack the cognitive capacity to understand a simple argument. If you are truly stupid enough to not be able to grasp a concept then how can you claim to have courage? You can't even understand principals let alone have enough belief in them to have courage. You. Specifically you. I'm not blaming a whole group like you are akin to doing. Only you are a complete imbecile on a high horse.

[Gray-Wisp]

principles*

[RolandCuthbert]

That statement sums up your position perfectly. You only care about people's opinions that you can respect. You tie the two together. As though your assessment of their opinion is some objective standard. The problem is that you are biased. But what is worse is that you are dishonest. You want people to "care" about your opinions which are not grounded in fact or logic. And you think whining about rejection should be entered into the debate as evidence.

You don't care about other people's opinions. You just said it. So by the same logic no one should care about your opinions.

My view is different. People can have their own opinions. But everyone should be able to agree on objective facts. Everyone should be able to come together in a framework and using a foundation that makes sense to us all. And then once that is agreed to, they can have different interpretations of those facts.

So all you have done over the last few post is try to insult me.

I pity you.

:D

[Gray-Wisp]

I don't respect someone who operates based on emotions. However hard you try to gain my respect you will not get it when you base your opinions on your emotions and then when they're destroyed resort to assumptions and name calling like a child. If you stopped feeling/assuming and started thinking/reading then I wouldn't assert that you're mentally retarded.

I don't care about your feelings when they go against facts, correct.

Of course everyone can have their own opinion, this is a free country. You making generalizations about over 100 million people isn't an "objective fact". That is an emotional argument and is baseless.

Your last several posts were nothing but generalizations, blatant straw manning, and assuming. If you remember our last conversation you did the exact same things. In fact there's a video of how our conversation went. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui9OcT2_v70

I was hoping you were just going through a rough spot but it turns out you're just really stupid.

[RolandCuthbert]

So you have no respect for you own. Because it is illogical to think you can violate other people's right to own a company or voice an opinion just because you are a coward. If you are too afraid to leave the anonymity of the internet and too afraid to stand up for what you know to be right and good, then own that fear. Own that cowardice. But you are not very mature. That's why I call you "little one".

Oh, you don't care about facts. I have pointed that out numerous times. You care about your widdle feelings getting hurt. Because you have no courage nor conviction. Like your the turd in the white house, you want to silence dissent. You attack those who have nothing but conscientious opinions about public policy and political issues.

Because you can't take logical rational debate. You shun it. You fear it. Just like you fear being exposed along with your absurd views.

I don't lie in hiding. I don't have to hide my views in public. I am honest that way.

[Gray-Wisp]

My own? That sounds very collectivist and I as an individualist would probably disagree. You're speaking to one of the most capitalistic people you will probably ever meet. This is what I meant by assumptions, you assume I want to violate rights or something? Someones right to be stupid? You fail to even form a cohesive argument. I've publically protested against both gay marriage and abortion thank you very much. believe that you call me "little one" because you fear me. You lack the capability to comprehend my basic concepts. It may be natural to fear what you can't understand but that's really no excuse.

Repeating the same line without any evidence is not a good way to point things out. You attack those who do align with your beliefs perfectly. There's no room for any dissent in your world, especially when backed up by logic.

[Gray-Wisp]

As I said I may do a MyTake on this, you've given me enough foolishness to put together, we'll see if they agree with you. You could not handle statistical facts in the past. You cannot handle an almost identical opinion now.

So you don't only hide your less popular views from your MyTakes you almost lie to yourself. Ok.

[Gray-Wisp]

also lie to yourself*

[RolandCuthbert]

My apologies. My statement should have said, "your" own. You should have no respect for your own opinions, since they are devoid of fact, rationale, and logic.

You are not individualist at all. In fact, your individualism is subverted by the very fact you identify as a trump supporter. Nothing is individualist about following a political leader. Individuality comes from defining your own political ideology without the help of Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos. Because if you cannot articulate why you believe what you believe, then you essentially have no beliefs. You simply have faith in the people who lead you around by the nose.

That's why I don't support political figures. I support a set of ideals and principles. Differing political figures pay fidelity to those ideals according their ability.

That's why you are "little". You have not matured sufficiently yet. And based upon this conversation, I am not overly optimistic that you ever will.

[RolandCuthbert]

And I am quite certain you have not protested anything publicly. Otherwise you would take me up on my offer to settle this publicly. You might still have your views. But that question of courage and cowardice will be settled once and for all.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't base my views off who I think agrees with me little one. I base them off my Christian faith, my cultural upbringing and the common sense instilled into me by my parents about right and wrong. I have traveled the world, sampling as many different peoples and cultures as possible. I learned through such journeys that people are beautiful wherever you go. That every culture is worthy of your time because of its own special uniqueness.

But those words fall flat on someone who cannot bear to think of the human experience beyond two political extremes.

So create your take if you must. I don't fear anyone or anybody. And I will not shrink from what I know to be right simply because I am outnumbered. My forebears would turn over in their grave if I did.

[Gray-Wisp]

That makes much more sense when it comes to your sentence. But, when it comes to facts it does not.

Does acknowledging I am Human make me less individualistic? Does acknowledging I am an American make me less individualistic? No, these are just basic information about myself. It is you who seems hell bent on categorizing myself as some group of clones that you hate. Considering I've never found anyone I 100% agree with you're very mistaken. I unlike some do not reject everyone who is not exactly like me. There's something called intellectual diversity. You should look into it.

I support whoever represents more accurately. Other factors are irrelevant.

[Gray-Wisp]

Oh yes Roland, I'm sure anyone who reads this would believe you know more about my life and political activism than myself. Then again you easily buy conspiracy theories so you'd believe anything. Besides the protestings I've also debated slightly in public spaces before but not to a great extent. I've expressed the desire to make these comments more public. Out of everything you've assumed, assuming I'm ok with a public debate would be safe one yet you did not assume it, almost like you're 100% biased or something. I have no objection at all to making a debate with you "public" but how could this be done?

I've certainly met many Christians and none of them who take their faith seriously act anything like you. We definitely disagree on that, I firmly believe in American exceptionalism.

*Self projection of Roland.*

[Gray-Wisp]

Oh yeah I'm sure they'd theoretically disown you if you didn't vehemently hate half of the country for your assumptions about all of their beliefs without ever asking them or polling them. It's almost like you'd have to actually think for once.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, facts are facts.

You wish to mix terms? People who claim individualism, rarely are. In fact, they usually are the ones most susceptible groupthink. Mind you, I do not care either way. But logic clearly dictates things behave in a manner consistent with their character. The claim of being a trump supporter can be thought of as a lot of different things, being individualistic is not one of them. Because to be a trump supporter, you have to pay fidelity to trump. And not to ideals.

I told you I reject trump beyond that, you have no idea who I hate or who I reject.

And intellectual diversity is not found in being a supporter of trump. He is diametrically opposed to diversity. That is another one of those objective facts you keep disputing.

thehill.com/.../398407-sanders-trump-considering-removing-obama-era-officials-security

[RolandCuthbert]

I know you from your words. You claim to be an individualist, yet you do not profess any belief in individualism. You claim to have a belief in objective fact and logic. Yet none of your arguments are dependent upon fact or logic.

So I look at the words you type and that is how I determine your beliefs.

I am quite certain you have not done much in the public realm. And again, if you ever want to leave the anonymity of the internet, I invite you. I can show you my meet up groups. I can show you notes from my discussion groups photos, you can meet my friends and they can attest to who I am.

So if you lack courage, own that. And in the future, you should refrain from making statements that you cannot backup. I am seriously considering restarting my racial/cultural understanding group meetup and integrating GaG for face to face discussions.

That will not be for the "faint of heart".

[RolandCuthbert]

"Oh yeah I'm sure they'd theoretically disown you if you didn't vehemently hate half of the country for your assumptions about all of their beliefs without ever asking them or polling them. It's almost like you'd have to actually think for once."

I don't even hate trump. I just think he is the worst president ever elected. And if I am making assumptions you sure have not helped your case.

You have had plenty of time to articulate ideals and principles. But you haven't been able to in a way that resembles a coherent viewpoint yet.

There are a group of natives in Alaska who support trump wholeheartedly. Because they want to see drilling in the artic circle. They feel that the monies from drilling will help them to build better lives.

That is what is meant by a coherent argument.

You have provided none.

And that is your choice.

[Gray-Wisp]

Yes, and you lack them.

First thing you type, another generalization. Voting for Trump is the only thing that is required to be a Trump supporter. The same way having citizenship is the only thing you have to do to be an American citizen. Just because you have done something or are something that others have/done doesn't make you a collectivist. This is the logic a 2nd grader could follow and why I continue to insult your lack of intelligence.

Really? Claiming that I cannot be a nationalist or patriot because I voted for Trump is a pretty far fetched claim that you made. That doesn't sound like rejecting Trump. You rejected everyone who voted for him when you said that.

Again, you're classifying tens of millions of people on what you think they are instead of actually using a poll. Oh wah wah I don't like Trump so everyone who voted for him must be stuff I don't like. Childish and/or retarded logic.

[Gray-Wisp]

Literally all of mine are backed up by facts and you instead decide to make giant generalizations about *topic* then call it an "objective fact". In our last debate you said you didn't care about facts so what changed?

Oh, I've done a decent bit but even if I've done more I wouldn't expect someone as politically out of it as yourself to be aware. Just saying "I invite you to leave the anonymity of the internet." again does not give a plan of how that would happen. I specifically asked. As I said before just repeating what you said before isn't an argument or an answer. What I say never seems to get through to you.

I'm not taking advice on what courage or facts are from intellectually inferior person who have in the past stated they don't care about facts. But this integrating of GAG sounds very interesting. I look forward for an opportunity to publicly destroy you if it is presented.

[Gray-Wisp]

*Refer to your previous implication of how a Trump voter cannot support their country.*

I'll give your criticism weight when you make an argument for your own beliefs that isn't a direct contradiction or vast generalization. Go on, I'll wait...

[RolandCuthbert]

I have done nothing but post facts since the beginning.

No, voting for Trump is one thing. Supporting him is quite another. I have voted for plenty of people whom I did not support. I considered them the best of a bad situation. That is something that happens often in presidential races.

You may think you can insult my intellect. But I am not insulted. It is actually hilarious that you think I should be.

No, I didn’t take your vote for trump as the reason why you are neither a nationalist nor a patriot. Your inability to think for yourself is an example of your sheeple mindset.

I don’t know what tens of millions of people believe. I posted about a group of people who voted for trump. I can understand their reasoning as they are able to articulate a stance that makes sense.

It is funny that you call me childish, when you whine over being challenged for your views. Remember, that is why you posted here.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, you have no facts. Actually, I don’t think you have posted on factual thing. You can’t even articulate why you support trump, much less post anything that could be said to objectively resemble truth.

Oh, the plan is easy. I could email you. We can speak over the phone and arrange a meet up. I tried to meet another trump supporter earlier who called me a coward. Then he disappeared once, I explained we could meet, videotape our exchange and post it to youtube for the GaG forum.

Because face to face meet ups get rid of a lot of the lies and misrepresentation of these anonymous exchanges. I ought to know, since I have lead discussion groups. And if you are able to be a man of your word, I have no issues with granting you access to all my materials from previous racial/cultural/political meet ups that I have had.

As for facts again, I am the only one in this conversation posting facts. You are posting about your emotions and about your cowardice.

[RolandCuthbert]

You can't even state what your beliefs are and why you have them. So I care little about your exaggeration of my position.

You call absolute facts about your leader conspiracy theories. 31 Indictments are not conspiracy. You think that is a fact that a company employing you owes you a job. You claim to have some logical compelling argument against gay marriage, but you are scared to share it. Because truthfully it only makes sense in your delusions.

You accused “Black” people of not liking Clarence Thomas because he is “right-wing”. Your definition of “right-wing” is the first problem. Just because someone agrees with your or with traditional positions held by “White” people who think they are conservative does not make them conservative. It makes them lemmings. A true belief in conservative principles would not acknowledge race or even culture. Multiculturalism and conservative ideals are not at odds. But you pretend they are.

[Gray-Wisp]

This will be a summary for your claims to be posting facts and concerning your intellect. The absolute hypocrisy is why I question your intelligence. The only way someone could have so many assumptions and bizarre definitions is if they are stupid or are playing stupid. Either way stupid remains an appropriate title. It is not to insult you. I say it to give justification to any readers as to why I ignored an estimated 300 words of pure stupidity.

No, supporting someone doesn't mean you support everything they say and do. In the political sense the most basic form of supporting them is voting for them as it is free, requires very little time, and they literally can't win without it. Support = Vote in the most fundamental sense.

[Gray-Wisp]

You very clearly implied that a Trump supporter could not be a patriot or nationalist. As that is one of the very few things you know about me. You have no idea what I agree or disagree with when it comes to Trump. To top it off you then try to tell me what I do or do not believe. Your comment about Trump voters was even worse than Hillary's deplorable comment. Don't try to weasel out of it now, just because you said something nice about some of them earlier.

You strawman so badly you label and fight something that doesn't exist. Then start accusing me of doing exactly the same thing when I'm not. The level of stupidity you display by doing this is through the roof.

Sure I can. But, you were unable to grasp a basic concept so figuratively speaking why should I go into multiplication when you've failed addition and subtraction? You can't keep up.

[Gray-Wisp]

I don't know how easy a meet up would be. I'm poor and I don't have a car. I do of course have a microphone/phone though. There is also the fact I am moving soon. Moving could potentially make it easier depending on your location. Where I live there is a long-ish bus system. I hope there is one where I will be moving as well.

If Donald Trump truly has done something wrong then he'd be impeached with no problem. Most Republicans IME would prefer Mike Pence to be the President and Democrats certainly don't like Donald Trump. Why isn't he impeached if he has done something worthy of it?

I stated one but you resorted to generalizations when you got butt hurt over them. If you can't handle a single one God knows what you'll act like if I red pilled you. For anyone reading this they can tell you exaggerate on your own without my help.

[Gray-Wisp]

*Russian B. S. conspiracy believer. I literally said the opposite so more blatant lying. Too afraid to actually look it up, instead decides to call me scared in attempt to not seem scared themselves. *

I was repeating what Clarence Thomas has written himself so if you're going to call anyone a liar you can talk to Clarence Thomas. Incorrect, someone who is right does not have to pretend that something that exists is non-existant. Also, American culture and American exceptionalism are very important. That depends on your idea of "multiculturalism". You have really bizarre definitions so I can't wait to here what this one is. You end with an assumption instead of starting with one this time, I like how you're switching your assumption placement up.

[Gray-Wisp]

hear*

[RolandCuthbert]

Really? Like a typical trump supporter, you cannot articulate what you agree with or what you disagree with. You are follower of trump. You even threatened me saying, my opposition is why trump will be re-elected, like I am supposed give a damn about what you think of my opposition. I don't have a respect for a person who has no idea of what they believe or why they believe. So I cannot have any respect for a person who follows a man. . . instead of a set of principles or ideals.

It is funny that you call me stupid. Trump supporters are not known for their intellectual prowess. Neither is trump for that matter.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't know every trump supporter. But I know that you are neither. There maybe a trump supporter who can actually articulate what they believe in and why they believe in it. I have met people who have voted for trump who certainly can. But I would not call them followers or supporters.

I don't care what you think about my comments of trump supporters. You are a liar and a hypocrite so it isn't like you debate in honesty anyway.

Yes, you build a strawman. You attach yourself to every trump voter when of course there are some who actually have an idea of what they stand for and why the voted for him. I talked about a couple such groups. But you are neither. You blindly follow and you are blindly lead.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, I am not poor. I will travel to wherever you are. I will meet you on your turf. I have courage. I have conviction. So that isn't a problem for me.

You can continue to make up excuses. Internet warriors are usually cowards, I understand completely.

And no, he would not be impeached with no problem. Look at yourself. 31 indictments and you think there is a conspiracy. There are five trump officials indicted, two more who were affiliated with trump officials and 25 russian nationals and military officials. But the investigation into trump's campaign is a witchhunt to trump supporters. Why?

Because of the overwhelming evidence of trump's voice vs the Mr. Everest of evidence against him and his.

That is not a generalization. That is the terrifying truth and objective fact.

[RolandCuthbert]

You deny what you stated here in this thread in plain English. Not that I am surprised. The foundation of your life's philosophy is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is in everything you say, in everything you do. You are totally unaware of it. Just like the narcissist in the white house.

I don't care what Thomas has written himself. I would not trust him to write instructions on tying his shoes. He is rejected not because of his embrace of conservative ideals. "Black" people are mostly conservative in terms of pure principles and views. For instance, the "Black" community does not embrace homosexuality. "Blacks" on the whole frown upon illegal immigration, we are deeply religious and share traditional conservative view on morality.

Thomas is rejected because of his critiques of the "Black" community.

Do you embrace Tim Wise, with his stunning critiques on the "White" community. Tell me. . . how can you critique "Black" folks when you will not stand for critiques of your own community?

[RolandCuthbert]

What else could be the definition of multiculturalism? Do you have a dictionary? Do you believe that Webster's defines word usage?

This what I mean, you are the very embodiment of the new dark ages. You believe in superstition, magic, and mythology instead of simple pure objective fact.

The dictionary definition of multiculturalism;

of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures

Now, try to claim the English dictionary is "bizarre" and strange.

You are simply hilarious.

Haha!

And I do pity you.

[Gray-Wisp]

Ok, I'm not going to bother reading that or this is going to continue on forever. We've already exchanged enough to fill up an entire book. I am assuming I must follow you to message you.

[Gray-Wisp]

And following being reciprocated.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why are you following me?

[Gray-Wisp]

Well in order to message each other you have follow or so it says. I'd rather not have contact info in public.

[Gray-Wisp]

have to*

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh, my bad.

Okay good deal.

[Kiran04]

"Consequences" is how bigots justify their petty actions. You are responsible for how you handle someone else's words. If you turn violent or bigoted because you don't like what someone else says, that is not "consequences". That is you being a violent bigot. You are always responsible for your own actions. If someone says something people don't like and those people riot, those people are all assholes that deserve to be in jail. They chose to commit a crime. Words are not justification. 100% incorrect.

[RolandCuthbert]

Bigoted? What does that even mean? If I am "bigoted" then I deserve whatever consequence comes from that. I won't whine about it. As for being violent, I know how to follow the law here in America. And I have never been thrown in jail.

This the whole strawman argument that someone mentioned earlier. Nothing you posted here has anything to do with my take.

You build a strawman about violence "consequences" something that I absolutely abhor. And you deliberate mutate my point into something you can rebut favorably.

Come back when you the courage to address my points directly regarding your freedom of speech. You are not free from consequences of racist, sexist, homophobic, threatening statements.

And that is as it should be.

[Kiran04]

There is no "deserving". Who gets to determine who "deserves" anything? You? You are the one with the strawman here, because you infer that people deserve something based on what they say. Well, that's untrue. There's a reason we live by rule of law instead of rule of the mob. What you call "consequences" is a lame copout for mob justice. If someone has committed a crime, they only thing they "deserve" is what is written in law. If they have not committed a crime they don't deserve anything one way or the other. Stop justifying people's need to be vindictive. Our first instinct at hearing words we don't like should not be "I want to hurt that person somehow".

[RolandCuthbert]

No, you built the strawman. You want to avoid criticism for having offensive views. And this is an absolute fact. You don't have to hold offensive views to offend people. People get upset over all manner of statements or deeds. Kathy Griffin DESERVED the scrutiny she got when she posed with a severed head. Alex Jones DESERVED the lawsuit for claiming Sandy Hook was a fake.

To defend these people from lawsuits and investigations defies basic logic.

No one is saying people should get violent with them.

Again, you made that up. That is a strawman.

[Kiran04]

No, you built the strawman. You want a free pass to hurt the livelihood of people you don't agree with. You call it "consequences" and "deserving", but it's all mob justice. There is no deserving. That's a feel good word we use on children to get them to behave, but it's applicable to absolutely nothing in real life. Tons of bad people get good things, tons of good people get bad things. None of them deserved it.

The other issue is that it's a standard that it will never, and can never, be evenly applied. Sure, Kathy Griffin got axed, but the entirety of Hollywood is just as bad and said and done things just as vile as she has and nothing happens to them. They're all of the same hive mind so that makes it AOK. Rian Johnson can dog shit on Star Wars fans all day long and pick fights with them to the point that his company loses money, yet he's still cashing million dollar paychecks. There is no deserving. Your rules don't apply to us peons. Better off not having them at all.

[RolandCuthbert]

What? I want to hurt people's livelihoods?

LOLx10!!!

Maybe, just maybe you have overestimated my "powers". I can't hurt someone's livelihood. You are deflecting by trying to move the conversation to other situations. Kathy DESERVED what happened to her. Alex Jones DESERVED what happened to him. And much worse in my opinion.

Also, the folks at the Red Hen DESERVED to be protested. Because I don't think it is right to toss people out because of their politics.

I WOULD NEVER PASS A LAW TO PREVENT THAT.

I just wanted to capitalize that because you don't seem to be able to stay on task when it comes to debate.

And if Rian Johnson is being mean to Star Wars fans. . . I want you to know that personally, I shed a tear. Poor widdle Star Wars fans.

womp. . . womp. . .

Haha!!!

media1.tenor.com/.../tenor.gif

[RationalMale]

The problem is freedom of speech is dead, if it ever was there. Officially freedom of speech means the government can't punish you for speech--but in reality social media mobs can just as easily deprive you of your freedom of speech.

Look at that CEO of Mozilla who, it was found out, had donated to Proposition 8 in California. (which passed a democratic vote by the people.) He was basically scalped by the Social Justice Warriors.

Social media mobs being able to ruin your career for an unpopular opinion is literally no different than the KKK beating up blacks who voted in elections.

[RolandCuthbert]

That is a weird statement. The government cannot control a free and open society. That's the whole point. The only time the government can get involved is when your rights are being violated. And it surely cannot violate someone else's rights in that process.

It is weird that you are complaining about the CEO of Mozilla being scalped. Shouldnt' he had consulted marketing data to check on the politics of the people who use his browser?

He had it right in front of him.

And don't be obtuse. The KKK lynched "Black" people, Mary Turner was burned alive with her unborn baby. Do not compare these two. People can get another job. They can't get another life.

[RolandCuthbert]

Wooooah!!! Dude, you had me blocked. Why unblock me?

[RationalMale]

Lynching? Okay.
https://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/
"From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States. Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black. "

ucr.fbi.gov/.../...ce_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

According to the FBI, in 2013 alone, 2245 blacks were murdered by other blacks. Similar for 2014. ucr.fbi.gov/.../...ce_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls

Meaning, the number of blacks who were lynched in the USA during that 86 years is lower than the amount of blacks murdered by other blacks in 2013-2014.

[RationalMale]

Fact remains--there are indeed powers outside the government who can and will stifle your freedom of speech. Whether it's a twitter mob sending death threats and trying to get you fired for making a political donation, or a mob of people in white hoodies threatening to torch your farm or get you fired for voting or such--the fact remains. Today, your political opinion can easily cost you your livelihood--meaning, there is no freedom of speech.

[RolandCuthbert]

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? You claimed that social condemnation was the same as being lynched. Kathy Griffin wasn't lynched, she got what was coming to her. The people at the Red Hen were not lynched. It was stupid to ask government officials to leave their restaurant. And again, I AM NOT SAYING THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

Because you don't strike me as an honest debater.

[RolandCuthbert]

And if a twitter mob sends me death threats, I will either shut up. . . or I will dig down deep inside of me and find courage from those who came before me. They deal with much, much worse.

But people trying to get me fired? Dude, get real. I can find more work. I am good at what I do.

[RationalMale]

Maybe you're working a job where you can easily find a replacement. Flip side is maybe someone is not. Getting fired dampens career prospects.

[RolandCuthbert]

You do not strike me as the type of person who feels pity or compassion, least of all for those you don't think you share a group identity with. So your statement of concern about those who could not find another job, rings a bit hollow.

[RationalMale]

Interesting to see you move the goalpost from true or not, to "do you really care or not."

The point stands. When you can easily be fired from you job for your political opinion, you don't really have freedom of speech.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course you have freedom of speech. You simply do not have freedom from consequence.

We are a capitalistic society. So if I am going to try to obtain a contract from a gay business owner. . and you are busy on facebook posting opposition to gay marriage, you will lose your job. Because I will not lose my contract.

And I have see this happen several times over my career. It is basic common sense.

[RationalMale]

That's akin to saying I have the freedom to shoplift, I just don't have freedom from consequence.

I can, in reality, do almost anything I want. I can literally put a ski mask on and go burglarize a house right now. I could literally go speed at 90 mph in my mustang, or maybe run someone over. But I don't have the freedom to burglarize houses. I don't have the freedom to break the law or attack people.

If something carries consequences, such as losing your livelihood, you don't really have the freedom to do it. That's reality. For instance, in Atlanta I have the freedom to own a gun. Nothing bad will happen to me if I go to Adventure Outdoors and buy a glock, I won't lose my job. I don't have the freedom to brandish it or threaten people without good cause--that will result in me getting arrested and losing my job.

You can try to play the semantics game all you like--but the reality remains. Freedom of speech with punishment is no freedom at all.

[RolandCuthbert]

haha! Did you know shoplifting is against the law? So you could be thrown in jail. You can do whatever you want? You contradict yourself without effort. You don't even strain in your hypocritical exercises. You don't have the freedom to go 90 mph in your mustang. You don't have the right to commit burglary. Because if you did, you would have broken the law.

And it is not semantics.

It is called capitalism. Just because it has negative effects for you, isn't my problem. Because surely, you do not care when it inconveniences someone else.

Get over it.

You have every freedom that everyone else has. But you can't take away someone else's freedom to employ you or not, simply because you want to disregard common sense or workplace guidelines.

[RationalMale]

It's same as blacks who faced harsh consequences for voting. They were free to vote, they were not free from consequences.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course that is just racist nonsense.

Why did you unblock me? Why are you posting me now?

:D

[RationalMale]

If nonsense explain it. Blacks who faced losing their livelihoods to vote did not actually have the freedom to vote.
People who risk losing their livelihoods bc they made a political statement don't actually have freedom of speech.

[RolandCuthbert]

Rational. . . why did you unblock me? Why are you talking to me now? Answer that, or I won't respond to your posts.

[Anonymous]

While I dislike and don't care for Donald Trump, I definitely think Kathy Griffin is an idiot who comes off as a psychopath with that realistic-looking severed Donald Trump mannequin head or mask and needs to realize a fine line between free speech and death threats.

She's should be glad that she did this here in the US because if she did something like this in 3rd world countries, particularly the Middle East, her ass would have been immediately publicly executed or hacked to pieces as capital punishment for threatening a public official in those countries.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why is it so important to mention the Middle East?

What does that have to do with my point about freedom of speech vs freedom from consequences?

[Opinion Owner]

Just giving out an example of a country or region that gives far harsher consequences for something like this (threatening a president or government official of a country) than the US and how she would never pull this crap over there.

[RolandCuthbert]

But there are many other nations outside the middle east where threatening an official would land you in jail. Or worse. In fact, if you just try to arrange a political campaign that could possibly threaten leadership, you could disappear.

But you knew that already. So why not fess up as to why you mentioned the middle east? Do you see many people criticizing Putin or the leadership in Russia without repercussions?

www.abc.net.au/news/image/4828960-3x2-940x627.jpg

[NineBreaker]

I agree! Very well-said. Many confuse freedom of speech with the consequence thereof.

I'm going to use this as an example:
Let's say, you have the right to lick every doorknob or door handle you come across (at least as long as you disinfect it afterwards). You are free to do so. You're not free of the consequences of doing so. You will get sick, and if your immune system is shot, then you may likely die.

[BrittBratt2416]

That was so freaking stupid of cathy, when you're hardly relevant in industry or media you can't just pull some shit like that.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't think it had much to do with her standing. That was basically a death threat. And she knew it.

[StrawberryMan]

All speech should be free. Why? Because once you start to ban certain speech under the smoke screen of "hate speech," you open up a big can of worms, because "hate speech" can be very broad and is open to different interpretations. Over here in the UK you can be fined up to £5,000 or face jail time just for saying something offensive on facebook or twitter. Hate speech is basically, "You can say what you like, as long as you don't say anything that offends ME." And besides, I believe we were created by God. Who the fuck has the right to tell me what I can and can't say? Why do people give their rights away so easily? I'll say whatever the fuck I want.

[RolandCuthbert]

Uhm. . . hate speech is not banned in America. Can't do anything about Europe dude. I encourage you to lead a free speech movement over there.
Good luck.

My take is about consequences of speaking freely. Some people in America actually think everyone should like what they have to say.

[counterpoint]

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction.

When the consequences is retaliation or sanction, then it's freedom of speech.

[RolandCuthbert]

I think you are conflating sanction or retaliation with consequence. Read the statements from the founding fathers. You cannot censor criticism of your statements. That in itself is restricting freedom of speech. The issue the founding fathers were addressing had to do with the government. The government can't restrict freedom of speech by trying to silence the citizens right to voice displeasure at a policy or law. That is a "sanction". Because a citizen cannot do anything against the awesome power of the federal government.

That is our constitutional right. And it is our constitutional right to criticize each other. Or to not patronize each other's businesses or to fire people we think reflect poorly on our companies.

[counterpoint]

Freedom of speech is universally defined term, not restricted by your constitution. Other counties have different constitution with slightly different rules regarding restricting the freedom of speech.

Naturally anything we say can have consequences, and freedom of speech does not prevent negative consequences. But if restricted, it's not free speech at all.

"Free speech with restrictions is not free speech at all" - Bill Maher and I for one agree with him.

But yes constitutions usually only guarantees freedom from government interference. However, true freedom of speech can only be insured if it's without restrictions.

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh sorry. Didn't know you were Scandinavian. I don't know what it is like in Denmark. But we don't have any hate speech legislation here in America. If you are facing that in Denmark, I really can't do much about it.

But here in America, you can't slander someone. You can't threaten someone. Those are all accepted as "restrictions". I don't understand why that is so confusing to so many people.

[counterpoint]

Fortunately Denmark have had constitutionally guaranteed free speech since 1848, where all restriction where abolished.

Unlike Sweden we don't have hate speech legislation here either, since the our constitution prohibits restrictions. This is way the Muhammad crisis was so fun, Muslims demanding the prime minister to intervene and stop the cartoons, however he was prevented to do so by our constitutional rights. Something some parts of would find incomprehensible, how can a government have no power to do anything... well that is what freedom of speech, freedom from restrictions.

In Denmark you can slander, whoever civil lawsuits may be filed and if the slander is unproven and in public you may face financial compensation for slander.
You can't threaten someone either since it's a crime, but speech are not threats it's not really the same.

Those are the only "restrictions" we have, so very similar to the US in a way.

[RolandCuthbert]

So I guess I misunderstood, you were simply posting agreement with my "take"?

[counterpoint]

wow my English is so bad, I am impressed you can read it.

So many errors, I am happy I was not graded :D