It's obviously a thinly veiled threat that sjws use to go after your job, your reputation and even your life. Look at how acceptable people think it is to punch you, which is assault by the way and illegal, just because you say something that offends them.
The only consequence for saying something offensive should be somebody getting offended.
Generally I agree. Can’t just go physically attacking someone for having a different view.
That said, I think there are sometimes an asswhipping Is justified. For example one favorite game of narcissists, sociopaths, and bullies is the character assignation game. Another is “let me turn this locker room, cafeteria, or hall way into my personal stage where I will humiliate you in front of everyone.” In both cases, this is aggressive behavior using words to attack. In both cases the best way to deal with these bullies if you can is tell them to stop and either publicly set the record straight or you kick the crap out of them and make an ass of them like that. These types of things are often used to put you down so they can look good at work or to dehumanize you. People who do these things aren’t going to respond to “please stop” most of the time. You aren’t going to explain to them why it’s wrong and they’ll change. The only thing they understand is strength. That’s the only language they understand, so you must speak to them in a language they understand.
So, i think it’s outrageous to run around assaulting people because your political opinion hurts their feelings, but like wise I do understand that some people require ass kickings to learn respect for others.
Hope this doesn’t seem to contradictory.
The oligarchy that runs America has done an end-run around the Constitution by enforcing informal speech codes in every important public and corporate institution. Leftists and libertarians tend to reply that corporations should be free to enforce whatever speech restrictions they would like, but the line between the federal government and major employers is blurred. The central bank is by far the biggest investor of capital in America and the Fed’s investment is directed for the most part by Larry Fink of Blackrock. He is very woke, and if you want investment in the United States you cannot counter-signal woke doctrines. If you cannot express your opinions without losing employment, freedom of speech is only for the independently wealthy.
A lot of people on the right talk about America’s free market or capitalist system and act to protect the interests of global finance and large corporations. This is a mistake. We must drop the pretense that we have a free or fair market. In fact, our market (and society at large) is becoming increasingly controlled, sclerotic, and Soviet-like in nature.
Getting offended is a choice though, people decide in advance that if someone says or does (whatever) that will get offended. We all make choices in advance of something so when it happens, we act like we have no control over it.
I don't get offended over anything, I made that decision along time ago with the exception of people who defend rapists and down play it. As a rape victim I just can't not get offended or upset over when someone acts like that is not a big deal.
All our actions have consequences, for better or worse no matter what we do. So if someone says something and punches someone else, they might get shot or at the very least should serve some jail time for that punch.
u Not really. Words just like actions have consequences so if it means you said something egregious enough to be fired by your employer, you probably deserved it. Freedom of speech just guarantees the government can't do too much about it. There is nothing stopping someone from complaining or trying to act like a tough guy, like your answer on another comment, and pumping you full of lead either.
Play with fire and you'll get burned soon enough is all im saying. You aren't the only one out there with a gun. Same applies to saying offe side things. You never know what someone's reaction might be and it could be something like punching you, it could be deadly force, it could just be trying to get you canceled. You have a right to say what you want but it doesn't absolve you of consequence for it.
Offensive*
I am absolutely absolved of illegal actions against me and I am fully entitled to say whatever I want and expect full safety of my person. Even if they kill me I will have those that mourn me avenge me, I have already made such contingencies. I am perfectly willing to die to be able to say what is on my mind because only a bitch would prefer to live on their knees rather than die on their feet.
I admire your courage and yet pity your logic. Good luck out there. It sounds like you'll need it when reality settles in one day.
*patpat*
Ok. Hopefully it holds out for you
Opinion
17Opinion
It’s the law of sowing and reaping, my friend.
Does saying something offensive justify someone punch you as a result? No, but it happens. Just as it happens that many people say racist shit and Harris others and they still get away with it. You have to remember that speech influences thought which influences actions. Our actions, and even our words have consequences. Just because you can say it, does that mean it’s always a good idea?
@MzAsh
It’s the law of sowing and reaping until the ANTIFA coward gets shot in the face. Then it’s “guns are evil and should be banned.”
It’s the law of sowing and reaping until you’re Kyle Rittenhouse, then we’ll make a political target of you and attempt to use the power of the state to destroy you.
If in 2020 during the riots had one governor done the right thing and had the national guard and police open fire on the masses who decided to rape, burn, beat, kill, steal, and revolt at will, would you still call it the law of sowing and reaping? I would. You don’t get to have a real insurrection, a real Marxist revolt in the streets without consequences. You don’t get to be a literal threat to safety and property without consequences.
It’s the law of sowing and reaping until the McKluskies stand on their lawn with an AR. Then it’s just evil white people with evil guns isn’t it?
What’s your opinion about that I just said? Still the law of sewing and reaping?
Eh, yes & no. I think things were better when people didn't lose their job for what they said but people were always responsible for what they said in the sense that if you said the wrong thing you might get punched in the face. BUT back in the day people were also less sensitive! So it's not like you would get punched just for having opinions. Now everything is going down hill and people are becoming more and more sensitive. Eventually they will claim it's a crime because you looked someone in the eyes & they don't like you.
So I guess the statement is more/less right depending on the context and how sensitive the person saying it is.
I'd also say that way back when people did duels (swords/guns) if they offended somebody that made sense. People were 100% responsible for what they said or did yet they had the freedom to say whatever they wanted to also.
Leftists don't think that any rules or any consequences should apply to them. They'd never accept being let go from a job or anything else as a consequence of what they say or, as you point out, facing consequences to their violent reactions to speech they don't like.
Rather than speech being a real problem, in many instances it's used to get rid of someone who ran afoul of someone else, often for nothing to do with what they got "cancelled" for.
It’s true. Most people have a gross misunderstanding of the first amendment. Actually, most people are grossly ignorant of the US Constitution in full. The first amendment is meant to protect us from a tyrannical government. You can still be fired from your job, expelled from skool, banned on social media platforms, kicked out of a store or, yes, even jailed for doing something like calling in a fake bomb threat. The Constitution doesn’t protect you from the consequences of being an asshole.
Agreed. Nobody has a "right" to not get offended. Their feelings are their responsibility.
"The only consequence for saying something offensive should be somebody getting offended"
Agreed.
"The Second Amendment defends the first"
Yes it does, among others.
Dude, if you don't want to pay the costs for your words, shut up.
Alex Jones is going broke over all the lies he said. That's justice, like it or not.
Wrong, you can prove that the slander was negligent. But, we know Alex Jones deliberately lied. And he made money off of it.
As for this claim I guess this is in response to mytake on this.
You don't think a business can fire you or refuse to serve you because of your political views?
Well, you might be fooling yourself. I posted this four years ago, I think. Might be five actually.
Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Consequences ↗
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.
💩 people in America 🇺🇸 pay no consequences for killing people. Freedom of speech used to come with some consequences, but not anymore. People need to realize words are powerful - they can start a war.
First of all last time I checked murder is a pretty serious crime with serious consequences. The United States has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the entire world so for you to say we don't take crime seriously is strange.
Secondly, nothing I say will ever start a war, that's preposterous.
@Juxtapose I'd like to know when you last checked, because things have changed since then. Violent criminals, even murderers get out of jail sometimes the next day because their bail is so low, they don't do the time. As far as my state goes, they let out 74,000 out of jail and unleashed them onto the public, thus, high crime rates.
I wasn't speaking about you personally when I said words can start a war.
You need to watch the real news and keep up with what happens to violent criminals.
I’m pretty sure it’s just how reputation works in general. I mean you tweet some stuff, employers are going to look at that and use that as part of their decision. It’s not “sjw going after what I said”, people don’t want to associate with you if you express things they strongly disagree.
Freedom of speech stops the government from infringing your speech. It doesn’t stop you from getting kicked off a website or not hired for things.
Agree with your assessment. Their statement shows their bent away from Democracy and toward Totalitarianism.
The consequence of of offensive speech isn't being offended it's mass shootings. Behind every mass shooting there's a guy who's been influenced by hate speech to the point he feels the need to do something. Behind every racist attack there's a string of online comments dehumanising blacks. Behind every rape there's a collection of comments against women.
Your position discounts personal responsibility in a rather stark way. No sane person is going to act that way, only deranged psychos rape, commit mass shootings and assault people for no good reason.
I can read Neo-Nazi propaganda all day but that would never make me swallow that bullshit. I know it's bullshit because I'm not an idiot.
People who do the things you listed are psychotic idiots and restricting free speech is not the answer to psychotic idiots.
@purplepoppy. Right, so if we simply crush all speech with which we don't agree, the world will be "safe". This is a good Soviet approach.
@KrakenAttackin: That's how the leftists roll. And they think their propaganda isn't offensive.
@KrakenAttackin What is a "good reason" for someone to rape, commit mass shootings or assault people?
Republicans have literally passed laws making it legal to hit people with vehicles, or shoot people they've provoked because then they're "afraid".
@KrakenAttackin: They sure are, to the extent that any disagreement with them is a narcissistic injury
@Avicenna You are insane if you think that.
Republicans have literally passed laws making it legal to hit people with vehicles, or shoot people they've provoked because then they're "afraid".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
"Lawmakers in North Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Texas proposed bills that would make it legal for drivers to hit protesters if the driver did not do so willfully, according to Mick Bullock, a spokesman for the Lawmakers in North Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Texas proposed bills that would make it legal for drivers to hit protesters if the driver did not do so willfully, according to Mick Bullock, a spokesman for the National Conference of State Legislatures."National Conference of State Legislatures.
@goaded: You know about this case as well as I do:
www.jpost.com/.../german-court-calls-synagogue-torching-an-act-to-criticize-israel-478330
And you know very well what the word "justified" means
@goaded: You know very well that Stand Your Ground laws do not simply permit people to hit others with vehicles.
Here is a good explanation of these laws:
www.talksonlaw.com/.../what-are-stand-your-ground-laws
@Avicenna Two different things: stand your ground laws (shoot people you're scared of) and laws allowing you to "accidentally" run over protesters. Both Republican laws, though.
The arsonists in Germany were still convicted of arson, but it was a stupid decision. The Zimmermann aquittal for actually killing someone was worse.
Oh, and @Juxtapose @Avicenna @KrakenAttackin What is a "good reason" for someone to rape, commit mass shootings or assault people?
@goaded; They were convicted of ordinary arson, as if the synagogue was any other building. And given Germany's history of synagogue burning, you'd think that no judge would be insane enough to rule burning one protected expression". But the judges no doubt feared rioting if they had ruled that way. So it is legal to burn a synagogue there.
The Zimmerman case was actually a very good application of the Stand Your Ground law, as Martin had him on his back and was smashing his head into concrete. But I guess you think smashing someone's head into concrete is OK.
Can you please show us case law that says it's "OK to run over protestors"?
Incidentally, in 2020, these saintly protestors would commandeer entire streets and menacingly surrounding vehicles, intimidating drivers (one of whom was a colleague of mine). If she hit one while they were intentionally doing that, should she have been prosecuted while the menacing thugs set free and permitted to sue her?
@goaded; Rape, you mean like the mass rapes and sexual assaults committed by Middle Eastern men (who Merkel had let into Germany as fake asylum seekers) on New Year's Eve in 2015 in Cologne while local German police covered it all up with a false report of "a calm night"? You've never uttered a complaint about that. So do you think it's OK?
@Avicenna Nice attempt at distraction, but I want to know what you, @Juxtapose, and @KrakenAttackin think is a "good reason" for someone to rape, commit mass shootings or assault people?
@goaded: EVERYTHING you do is a distraction, including on this thread. And you continue to refuse to denounce the anti-Semitic synagogue burning and the mass sexual assaults in Cologne.
The weak response to the synagogue burning led to more attacks/planned attacks on a synagogues:
www.reuters.com/.../
www.reuters.com/.../german-synagogue-gunman-aimed-to-commit-massacre-prosecutor-says-idUSKBN1WP0Y6
www.reuters.com/.../
Goaded, why is it taking you so long to decry these attacks/planned attacks? And they're going on in your country, not one over 5000 kilometers away.
Maybe the politicians will finally let the courts give the perpetrators an appropriate sentence to discourage further attacks on synagogues.
@KrakenAttackin You were both agreeing with @Juxtapose's "only deranged psychos rape, commit mass shootings and assault people for no good reason", I simply asked what good reason would allow rape, mass shootings or assault.
@Avicenna Clearly you don't understand that there's a difference between anti-Israel and anti-Semitism.
Where, in all those links, do you see the government supporting any of that?
"“Stephan B., a man who was influenced by scary anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racism, was heavily armed,” Frank added. “He armed himself with many weapons, some possibly self-made, and had a large quantity of explosives.”"
I'm sure he was a leftist.
@goaded: That‘s an excuse for those who want to avoid dealing with anti-Semitism or to pretend they aren’t anti-Semitic.. The hatred for Jews and Israel is one and the same. I’m not surprised that you’re unwilling to condemn the obvious anti-Semitism inherent in burning or otherwise attacking a GERMAN synagogue.
They are correct, up until the point that they decided words were violence. When they made that leap of logic, they lost the argument.
One has freedom of speech, but said consequences should NEVER include physical assault, especially with guns. In fact, NO bodily contact is the rule.
Hate speech does NOT constitute freedom of speech and is a crime.
"In common language, “hate speech” loosely refer to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics - such as race, religion or gender - and that may threaten social peace.…“any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”
"Since 1968, when Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the first federal hate crimes statute, the Department of Justice has been enforcing federal hate crimes laws. The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because the person is participating in a federally protected activity, such as public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations, or helping another person to do so. In 1968, Congress also made it a crime to use, or threaten to use, force to interfere with housing rights because of the victim’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; in 1988, protections on the basis of familial status and disability were added. In 1996, Congress passed the Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U. S. C. § 247. Under this Act, it is a crime to deface, damage, or destroy religious real property, or interfere with a person’s religious practice, in situations affecting interstate commerce. The Act also bars defacing, damaging, or destroying religious property because of the race, color, or ethnicity of persons associated with the property.
In 2009, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanding the federal definition of hate crimes, enhancing the legal toolkit available to prosecutors, and increasing the ability of federal law enforcement to support our state and local partners. This law removed then existing jurisdictional obstacles to prosecutions of certain race- and religion-motivated violence, and added new federal protections against crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation."
The problem that remains is that it is difficult to prosecute hate crimes and sometimes difficult to classify hate speech.
I couldn't care less what liberals think. I worked in higher ed and I was a supporter of President Trump. Most of the time i could feel the hatred as people watched me walk around.
No, consequences are inevitable.
That just means your life is protected by law. You can speak your mind and not be silenced. Unlike in Communist countries where they make you dissappear.
It's the same even in China.
The problem is the pigheaded belief that it's only the US which gives there rights.
Freedom of speech is not to fear consequences for what is said, as long as it is not of a defamatory nature.
Almost nothing including speech is free of consequences, which are not limited to the left.
As with all things in life, it depends on the context.
If you were threatening to "bomb" something on an airport, you are going to receive a consequence. If you were threatening with slurs such as "deport Muslims" and/or "hang Black people", even jokingly, then you will be forced to face a consequence.
So that's why I voted A and not B
Yes I sure hope so
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions