Lurker > Tenlaar

ChocoboMogALT posted...

You still haven't said one bad thing about racists or racism. Not even, "I may disagree with their beliefs, but..." You're just strictly running defense. How stupid do you think we are?
Fuck off.

Expecting everybody to preface discussion of constitutional protection of shitty beliefs with now I dont agree with these shitty beliefs, but or you get to accuse them of having those shitty beliefs is ridiculous.

Torgo posted...

And if they don't "go back where they came from" - what is the next step that logically follows?

The spectrum ranges from nothing to actively working towards a genocide. To act as if there are not people who just think races are better off separate but arent going to take any discriminatory or violent action about it is not a position based in reality.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

If those beliefs involve wanting people treated as lesser(or worse) for immutable characterstics and are shared or encouraged its not. Simply spreading such filth is an act of aggresion. Words are an action. If you say "(slur for racial group) are lazy subhumans. The world would be better off without them" thats tantamount to a call for genocide even without directly saying it.. Merely spreading it is harmful to that group and society overall.

I dont agree that beliefs that can be extrapolated to an extreme conclusion should always be regarded as being that extreme conclusion.

I am not sending someone to prison for simply buying into a stereotype or something.

But there are racist acts or beliefs "lesser" then a straight up lynching or direct violence that if taught to children, shared in a conspiritorial manner or with intent(or gross negligence) to encourage harm or cause others to discriminate or harm should indeed result in legal consequences. And in some cases simply for sharing it at all.

So where do you, personally, draw that line for when discriminatory beliefs (again, Im talking about beliefs, not actions) reach a point of deserving legal punishment?

Like I said, calling swatting at somebodys phone attacking them is severely exaggerating.

No he didnt.

Hopefully my kids, well see what their interests are, but I dont think that Ill be acting that much longer at the pace I am now. Thats for sure, he continued. Because thats the most difficult thing.

https://youtu.be/SlAK5fl8F-8?si=CFPnsP9_zN16WOhG

The video is posted right above here. I just watched it. There was no attack and there is no need to invent one.

Punch her more. Yeah, youre just straight up making shit up.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Chasing someone is attacking them especially after they laid hands on them

No its not. Following somebody to yell at them is not an attack. You just want to make the situation seem even worse than it was.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

did you forget that she chased her around the store?

She did not lay a finger on the woman outside of trying to swat at her phone one time. Making up an attack where there was none is wrong.

cjsdowg posted...

The more I think about this , the more irked I get. Nothing about this changes what happened. A black lady was attacked and white lady cried, after attacking her. SO yeah fuck that guy.

Trying and failing to swat the phone out of somebodys hand one time is about the weakest shit possible to describe as an attack. The woman had a public meltdown but acting like she attacked anyone is severely blowing it out of proportion.

bfslick50 posted...

The topic at hand is when is it harmless speech versus a harmful threat. Drawing the line at genocidal intent is a bit late.

Are you of the opinion that racist beliefs are always a threat deserving of imprisonment?

ChocoboMogALT posted...

That's not a Constitutional defense, that's a defense of racism. Fuck off.
You have the Constitutional right to be racist. But we don't have to defend racists. Fuck off.

My only argument here has been that people should not be put in prison just for having racist beliefs. Ive literally been talking about the constitutional right to free speech, not that racists should be defended in any way beyond that. Youre talking to me like this about something you agree with me on.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Lol what's the nuanced position on white supremacists aren't inherintly violent?

The lack of nuance I was referring to is acting like every racist belief is both the same belief and also rises to a level of working towards a genocide.

ScazarMeltex posted...

It doesn't have to be Nazism either my dude.

Then why did you feel the need to immediately go straight to Nazis when nobody had been talking about them?

Believing that certain groups of people aren't human beings with the same rights as others is inherently violent towards them IE white supremacy. It always ends with the belief, at best, that they should be forced to live with less rights, privileges, and opportunities than the favored group. At worst they believe the lesser group should be subjugated, forced into servitude, or made extinct. It's a question of degrees.

When you go to bat for these people I'm not going to make any distinction between you and them.

You are arguing in favor of drastic authoritarian action with no regard for nuance or even reality. That is not a position that I am going to go along with.

bfslick50 posted...

The conversation has been about white supremacists. It is not unfair to lump them together with Nazis.

It is false to say that all white supremacists are literal Nazis with genocidal goals. Again, that is not reality.

ChocoboMogALT posted...

You know what else is legal to say, "Fuck off, Tenlaar. We don't want your bullshit here."
Just shut the fuck up, no one wants to hear your defense of racism.

The stance that people should not be put in prison for shit beliefs is not a defense of racism. If you are unable to have a conversation about constitutional rights and authoritarian desires without being this way then you don't need to jump in just to shitpost.

nocturnal_traveler posted...

That's a threat. And if they don't "go back where they came from", it's always followed by an intimidating action.

All racism is not a threat followed by intimidating action. That's nonsense.

The 1st Amendment. It only protects you from the government infringing on your speech.

What do you think people being put in prison for speech is?

ScazarMeltex posted...

FFS Tenlaar in here doing his "Nazism isn't inherently violent" schtick again then will complain "wHy DoEs EvRy1 ThInK I'M a ChUd".

We haven't been talking about Nazism. This is what I'm saying, some of you act like every single person with shit beliefs is a literal Nazi with actual genocidal goals. That is not reality.

nocturnal_traveler posted...

Do they ever, though? What white supremacists hate speech ever not end in threats and/or violence?

Surely you have heard, for example, "go back where they came from" kind of rhetoric.

Against the government only.

This doesn't make any sense.

Deutschenlied posted...

"They only said they plan on exterminating everyone guys! It's not violence and it shouldn't be illegal until they're actually committing the killings!"

How do you think that "planning on exterminating everyone" would not be violent intentions? Stop acting like everybody is the very worst that you can imagine. That's not how the world works.

Ricemills posted...

Love it that you don't deny it's a hate speech afterall, not just "free thought".

Why would I deny it? Some beliefs are hateful so expressing those beliefs can obviously be labeled hate speech. That doesn't change that neither having nor expressing hateful beliefs that aren't at the specific level of actual incitement of violence should be criminalized.

bfslick50 posted...

If were talking about white supremacy then we are.

No we aren't. Somebody can believe in racial separatism and/or supremacy without violent intentions.

Ricemills posted...

"it's not a hate speech, just a thought that i said out loud" - some loony alt righter.

Hate speech is constitutionally protected speech.

bfslick50 posted...

When speech turns into threats its no longer an actionless thought

We're not talking about threats.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

If you cant afford to tip, you cant afford the meal. Why punish the server for something they have no control over?

Forcing an employer to pay their employee is not "punishing" anybody but the employer.

Nirvanas_Nox posted...

If they look like regular cheetos who's gonna buy em?

Literally everybody who likes Flamin' Hot Cheetos.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Withholding a tip from people who need them to earn a living does nothing to subvert tipping culture and it punishes the people who arent responsible. Youre just virtue signaling.

If everybody did it it would force their employers to pay their wages, the results of which would ultimately force changes.

IdiotMachine posted...

Go on

Have you ever been to Florida in the summer? It is not "warm."

"Weather is always warm" is a pretty gross misrepresentation of Florida weather.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

If the views is stated publically its not a thought crime.

Wanting people imprisoned for their beliefs, not their actions, absolutely is thought crimes shit.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

"Thought crimes" is literally stuff from a fictional book, and thus not real, and also an unquantifiable value judgment that is not backed up with any reasoning.

I re-submit the notion that imprisoning white supremacists is an actual (not fictional) good idea that should be done, is an essential part of making the world better, and also cool to do.

Thought crimes is not fictional, you are proving it to be a very real thing right now by arguing that people should be imprisoned for beliefs rather than actions. You are an authoritarian extremist.

bigblu89 posted...

I was in 100% support of the laws that were already in place. The cutoff being 20-24 weeks (depending on state) and anything after that for medical emergencies only.

Otherwise known as "I'm okay with stripping women of bodily autonomy."

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

You're free to make an argument at any time you wish, but so far you ain't got shit.

Putting people in prison for thought crimes is insanely authoritarian shit. Argument made.

Arcanine2009 posted...

Nobody should be making less than minimum wage.

Nobody does, even if they don't get any tips.

KiwiTerraRizing posted...

No way that shit doesnt cause cancer

This seems to be California's stance on pretty much everything.

It depends entirely on the relationship and boundaries that have been set within it, though the "last night of freedom" aspect pretty clearly implies that their partner isn't going to be okay with what they plan on doing.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Bro thinks imprisoning white supremacists is "insane".

You left out the "just for their beliefs, not any actions" part of your sentence that makes you a crazy authoritarian supporter of imprisoning people for thought crimes.

viewmaster_pi posted...

it's like you wanted to prove them right as fast and as hard as you could

Wouldn't expect anything less from one of the most insanely authoritarian posters around.

Its better than something worse but still limits the bodily autonomy of women so is not good enough.

Spend about 100k, maybe 150k tricking out a sweet ass home on wheels situation and keep living life how I am now for the most part, just with less concern about income and more trips.

I heard about this on NPR yesterday, it really is some blatant old school corruption done in such a stupidly obvious way. Apparently he googled how much is a kilo of gold worth on his personal devices, and then the money stuffed in his monogrammed jacket. I dont see how the accusations could not be true with whats come out so far so hopefully he doesnt avoid justice.

Kradek posted...

The party pushed Al Franken, a white guy, out for a mere accusation or perception of wrongdoing

Franken was not pushed out for an accusation or perception. He did do something wrong.

Thats pretty much the definition of anti-social behavior.

Spending your time imagining pointless things that you think right wingers are going to be upset about is not healthy, well adjusted behavior.

bigblu89 posted...

Doesn't stop them from doing it.

Hannity did a 10 minute segment on how much a disgrace that Fetterman guy is becasue he wears sneakers on the Senate floor. So much so he spun it into a "Sneakers are made in China. Any chance he doing this as a paid advertisement for the Chinese Government?"

From TheHill.com:

And this was over a pair of SNEAKERS.

You cut out me saying that people would still try doing it just to say that people would still try doing it. Why?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Then you can stop because the days of that being any kind of actual problem are well behind us.

SayHeyyShohei posted...

Non profit news should be a thing

If people already dont want to pay a subscription for a news service what makes you think enough would choose to donate to support a variety of news networks?

Caracalla posted...

I just sad that to upset her simps. Getting dog piled by white knights is always annoying.

Nobody is white knighting, youre just wrong here.

Tobi011 posted...

I see CE is having it's annual Dating app statistic topic! Let's see how this topic goes....

Annual? More like weekly.

xsdarknesssx posted...

I will not take either side as it is 2 people richer then hell who will likely pawn their kids off on a staff of nannies and sitters because they will routinely have better things to do then be an actual parent. Only real loser of any of this is the children and that is unfortunate.

Are you this judgmental about people who put their kids in daycare five days a week while they work?

LiberalAgenda8 posted...

Talking to random people who don't know you is not a viable way to get a date.

Do you actually think that nobody got dates with people they didnt already know before Match.com hit the scene?

Caracalla posted...

Youre a simp.

My reaction would be the same if you replaced Turner with any other celebrity in your story. Youre doing a great job of continuing to make yourself look worse and clearly Turner uses good judgement when she didnt want anything to do with you.

Caracalla posted...

If you werent there you cant have an opinion really.

I absolutely can. You are entitled and come off looking like an ass in your story. See?

Caracalla posted...

I told you, it was just us, there was no one else around. For a C list actress whose X-men movie bombed at the box office, she sure came out as a diva.

Youre the one who comes off bad in your story.

Southernfatman posted...

You don't actually believe that.

"Look at (Democrat) signing a woman's breasts like they're a rockstar! (Democrat) has no respect for political office and is going around acting sexually inappropriate with women in public!"

I absolutely do believe that it would be a ridiculous thing to moralize about. That doesnt mean nobody would try and that obviously wouldnt be exclusive to right wingers because we have people trying to moralize about Trump doing it.

Caracalla posted...

I once met her at a bar in Paris. I asked for a pic and she denied, lol. You might say Im petty, but since that day Ive had weird vibes from her. Im not entitled, but it would have taken less than 20 seconds of her time and we were at a really private area, and I asked really nicely.

Saying Im not entitled doesnt make what you posted not come off as entitled as fuck. Its literally she didnt want to take a picture but she should have anyway because I wanted it.