Poll of the Day > So Apparently It's Now Illegal To Say "Illegal Alien" In New York

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
OhhhJa 10/01/19 1:46:15 PM #102:	Noop_Noop posted... OhhhJa posted... Mead posted... I cant call immigrants aliens at work, look how oppressed I am! It's not about that. You just lack the critical thinking to see what this is actually about Mead also doesn't work, so like everything else his opinion on this has 0 value Especially in regard to work related legislation <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928192192] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Mead posted...</cite> <quote>I cant call immigrants aliens at work, look how oppressed I am!</quote> It's not about that. You just lack the critical thinking to see what this is actually about</quote> Mead also doesn't work, so like everything else his opinion on this has 0 value</quote> Especially in regard to work related legislation</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 1:47:10 PM #103:	My coworkers keep showing me memes making fun of white people. I feel harrassed. Make legislation please. I cant go to HR. I need legislation <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928192245] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>My coworkers keep showing me memes making fun of white people. I feel harrassed. Make legislation please. I cant go to HR. I need legislation</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/01/19 1:50:40 PM #104:	darkknight109 posted... The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. You can in fact say words that would be considered libel, slanderous, harassing or threatening when put in a different context. There are no banned words as they're merely a vehicle, just banned actions like defamation and threatening and harassing behaviour. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:928192379] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. </quote> You can in fact say words that would be considered libel, slanderous, harassing or threatening when put in a different context. There are no banned words as they're merely a vehicle, just banned actions like defamation and threatening and harassing behaviour.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 1:57:45 PM #105:	Damn snowflakes made it a little harder to be racist! --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928192683] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Damn snowflakes made it a little harder to be racist!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:04:03 PM #106:	Kyuubi4269 posted... kangolcone posted... Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is Are you employed in the city of New York? By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right? Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out. Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient? So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928192940] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is</quote> Are you employed in the city of New York?</quote> By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right?</quote> Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out.</quote> Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient?</quote> So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 10/01/19 2:06:21 PM #107:	kangolcone posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... kangolcone posted... Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is Are you employed in the city of New York? By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right? Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out. Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient? So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense. You should care about a precedence being set that other nutters can reference to gain legitimacy for their madness. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:928193043] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is</quote> Are you employed in the city of New York?</quote> By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right?</quote> Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out.</quote> Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient?</quote> So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense.</quote> You should care about a precedence being set that other nutters can reference to gain legitimacy for their madness.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 10/01/19 2:06:33 PM #108:	aDirtyShisno posted... darkknight109 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Fun times living without the First Amendment. The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card. But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully. This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:928193051] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Fun times living without the First Amendment.</quote> The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card.</quote> But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully.</quote> This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:12:07 PM #109:	Kyuubi4269 posted... kangolcone posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... kangolcone posted... Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is Are you employed in the city of New York? By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right? Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out. Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient? So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense. You should care about a precedence being set that other nutters can reference to gain legitimacy for their madness. Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193262] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is</quote> Are you employed in the city of New York?</quote> By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right?</quote> Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out.</quote> Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient?</quote> So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense.</quote> You should care about a precedence being set that other nutters can reference to gain legitimacy for their madness.</quote> Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:12:44 PM #110:	adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928193286] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/01/19 2:13:01 PM #111:	kangolcone posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... kangolcone posted... Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is Are you employed in the city of New York? By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right? Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out. Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient? So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense. except nobody said that either what YOU said was that people shouldnt care about this because it wont effect them, which is just a fundamentally stupid way to look at the world. what IM saying is that you use an inconsistent scale to grade whether or not you or anyone else should care about things happening in the world. youve displayed as much multiple times in this topic. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:928193300] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is</quote> Are you employed in the city of New York?</quote> By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right?</quote> Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out.</quote> Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient?</quote> So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense.</quote> except nobody said that either what YOU said was that people shouldnt care about this because it wont effect them, which is just a fundamentally stupid way to look at the world. what IM saying is that you use an inconsistent scale to grade whether or not you or anyone else should care about things happening in the world. youve displayed as much multiple times in this topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:13:31 PM #112:	Again, I don't know why any of you speak to kyuubi. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928193322] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Again, I don't know why any of you speak to kyuubi.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:14:28 PM #113:	OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928193361] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/01/19 2:14:39 PM #114:	adjl posted... thanks to a bunch of racists why would you thank a bunch of racists though adjl? i mean, i never had a high opinion of you, but i never knew you were a racist. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:928193367] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>thanks to a bunch of racists</quote> why would you thank a bunch of racists though adjl? i mean, i never had a high opinion of you, but i never knew you were a racist.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:15:06 PM #115:	Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928193379] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 10/01/19 2:16:20 PM #116:	adjl posted... aDirtyShisno posted... darkknight109 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Fun times living without the First Amendment. The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card. But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully. This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:928193432] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Fun times living without the First Amendment.</quote> The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card.</quote> But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully.</quote> This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/01/19 2:16:50 PM #117:	OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" didnt you know? adjl doesnt apply logic to his own statements because fallacies only apply to people who disagree with him --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:928193456] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> didnt you know? adjl doesnt apply logic to his own statements because fallacies only apply to people who disagree with him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:16:59 PM #118:	EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong. I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928193462] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong.</quote> I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:17:33 PM #119:	Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... Kyuubi4269 posted... kangolcone posted... Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is Are you employed in the city of New York? By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right? Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out. Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient? So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense. except nobody said that either what YOU said was that people shouldnt care about this because it wont effect them, which is just a fundamentally stupid way to look at the world. what IM saying is that you use an inconsistent scale to grade whether or not you or anyone else should care about things happening in the world. youve displayed as much multiple times in this topic. Yes, here is my inconsistent scale. Massive protests in the worlds largest country are more important than newly passed guidelines for a work place in 1 city that havent even been challenged in court yet. Wildly inconsistent. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193482] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Kyuubi4269 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>So I'm still free to harass them by calling them undocumented? Sweet. Now, do we see how stupid this legislation is</quote> Are you employed in the city of New York?</quote> By your logic we shouldn't care about the Hong Kong protests either. I mean, none of us live in China or Hong Kong and it's not gonna effect any of us, so who cares about a few thousand human rights violations, right?</quote> Right, because those two things are very much equivalent. Massive large scale protests about an authoritarian and totalitarian government is the exact same situation as dont call your coworkers illegal aliens or tell them to go back to their country. Those two are so incredibly similar Im glad you pointed that out.</quote> Same concept, different scale. Why do you guys have so much trouble with understanding basic information when it's inconvenient?</quote> So what you are saying is that I should care about literally every piece of minor legislation passed by any locality at any time? Because that makes perfect sense.</quote> except nobody said that either what YOU said was that people shouldnt care about this because it wont effect them, which is just a fundamentally stupid way to look at the world. what IM saying is that you use an inconsistent scale to grade whether or not you or anyone else should care about things happening in the world. youve displayed as much multiple times in this topic.</quote> Yes, here is my inconsistent scale. Massive protests in the worlds largest country are more important than newly passed guidelines for a work place in 1 city that havent even been challenged in court yet. Wildly inconsistent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:18:28 PM #120:	OhhhJa posted... EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong. I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928193520] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong.</quote> I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish</quote> Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/01/19 2:18:31 PM #121:	aDirtyShisno posted... adjl posted... aDirtyShisno posted... darkknight109 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Fun times living without the First Amendment. The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card. But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully. This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... gasp you mean to tell me that adjl picked out a specific part of a post (which has little to do with the overall discussion) and just focused on that as opposed to the numerous times you pointed out his flawed argument? no fucking way. its almost as if thats standard operating procedure for that pedantic little nugget. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:928193523] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Fun times living without the First Amendment.</quote> The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card.</quote> But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully.</quote> This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... </quote> gasp you mean to tell me that adjl picked out a specific part of a post (which has little to do with the overall discussion) and just focused on that as opposed to the numerous times you pointed out his flawed argument? no fucking way. its almost as if thats standard operating procedure for that pedantic little nugget.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:19:05 PM #122:	aDirtyShisno posted... adjl posted... aDirtyShisno posted... darkknight109 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Fun times living without the First Amendment. The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card. But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully. This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... Completely ignoring the article that YOU posted. Just because you choose to misrepresent what is true, doesnt mean everybody has to play along. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193542] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Fun times living without the First Amendment.</quote> The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card.</quote> But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully.</quote> This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... </quote> Completely ignoring the article that YOU posted. Just because you choose to misrepresent what is true, doesnt mean everybody has to play along.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
aDirtyShisno 10/01/19 2:19:49 PM #123:	Noop_Noop posted... aDirtyShisno posted... adjl posted... aDirtyShisno posted... darkknight109 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Fun times living without the First Amendment. The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card. But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully. This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... gasp you mean to tell me that adjl picked out a specific part of a post (which has little to do with the overall discussion) and just focused on that as opposed to the numerous times you pointed out his flawed argument? no fucking way. its almost as if thats standard operating procedure for that pedantic little nugget. Ill admit it, I chuckled. --- Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens. ...and he was never heard from again. <cite>aDirtyShisno posted [p:928193573] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Fun times living without the First Amendment.</quote> The first amendment has never protected harassment, libel, slander, threats, or other such forms of harmful speech. It's not a "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want, with zero consequences" get-out-of-jail-free card.</quote> But it did protect from banning words. Until now, at least in New York City it doesnt. Intent is required for harassment. Using a word you dont like doesnt itself prove intent, especially when that word is the definition of an object. That object being an immigrant who has entered the country unlawfully.</quote> This is literally just saying "for those of you who haven't figured it out yet, telling coworkers to go back to their own country is generally going to constitute harassment." It has always been harassment, it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Completely ignoring that my entire point was about illegal alien and not go back to your country I see... </quote> gasp you mean to tell me that adjl picked out a specific part of a post (which has little to do with the overall discussion) and just focused on that as opposed to the numerous times you pointed out his flawed argument? no fucking way. its almost as if thats standard operating procedure for that pedantic little nugget.</quote> Ill admit it, I chuckled.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:19:52 PM #124:	EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong. I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south. Or more importantly, in NYC, where the legislation was passed. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193576] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong.</quote> I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish</quote> Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south.</quote> Or more importantly, in NYC, where the legislation was passed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:21:05 PM #125:	OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193631] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 10/01/19 2:21:07 PM #126:	kangolcone posted... Yes, here is my inconsistent scale. Massive protests in the worlds largest country are more important than newly passed guidelines for a work place in 1 city that havent even been challenged in court yet. Wildly inconsistent. yeah, but youre just ignoring the part thats inconsistent. the part that involved YOUR OWN WORDS homie. the part where you said it this wouldnt effect someone, so they shouldnt care about it. do you live in hong kong? do you live in china? have your personally been a victim of chinese authoritarianism? then why do you care? it doesnt effect you. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:928193632] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, here is my inconsistent scale. Massive protests in the worlds largest country are more important than newly passed guidelines for a work place in 1 city that havent even been challenged in court yet. Wildly inconsistent.</quote> yeah, but youre just ignoring the part thats inconsistent. the part that involved YOUR OWN WORDS homie. the part where you said it this wouldnt effect someone, so they shouldnt care about it. do you live in hong kong? do you live in china? have your personally been a victim of chinese authoritarianism? then why do you care? it doesnt effect you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:21:12 PM #127:	EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong. I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south. Yeah I'm glad you do as well with your assumption that white guys all over the country wont leave their hispanic coworkers alone. Anyone who isnt a raging sjw can see right through transparent politically motivated garbage like this <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928193638] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong.</quote> I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish</quote> Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south.</quote> Yeah I'm glad you do as well with your assumption that white guys all over the country wont leave their hispanic coworkers alone. Anyone who isnt a raging sjw can see right through transparent politically motivated garbage like this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:21:48 PM #128:	kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. What are you asking for now? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928193668] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> What are you asking for now?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:22:55 PM #129:	OhhhJa posted... EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... EvilMegas posted... OhhhJa posted... adjl posted... it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump. Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!" I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong. I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south. Yeah I'm glad you do as well with your assumption that white guys all over the country wont leave their hispanic coworkers alone. Anyone who isnt a raging sjw can see right through transparent politically motivated garbage like this Lol you made a over exaggeration(shocking). Then you defect and say I'm doing the same? Wot? --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928193712] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>it's just become necessary to spell it out thanks to a bunch of racists that have been emboldened by Trump.</quote> Thank you for accidentally highlighting why this legislation has been pushed through. Its anti conservative strawman propaganda. "Trump has made the workplace more racist!" Now no hispanic people can work in peace without constant harrassment! Dont vote for him! Orange man bad! Need legislation to make people no vote for orange man!"</quote> I mean you're doing a bit, but it's not wrong.</quote> I've worked around hispanic and white people at the same time at multiple jobs... in the fucking south (which is apparently hyper racist). This doesnt happen. At all. Ever. If a white guy even said something like that, he'd probably just get laughed at and they would ridicule him behind his back in spanish</quote> Glad you can speak for every workplace in the south.</quote> Yeah I'm glad you do as well with your assumption that white guys all over the country wont leave their hispanic coworkers alone. Anyone who isnt a raging sjw can see right through transparent politically motivated garbage like this</quote> Lol you made a over exaggeration(shocking). Then you defect and say I'm doing the same? Wot?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:23:03 PM #130:	Noop_Noop posted... kangolcone posted... Yes, here is my inconsistent scale. Massive protests in the worlds largest country are more important than newly passed guidelines for a work place in 1 city that havent even been challenged in court yet. Wildly inconsistent. yeah, but youre just ignoring the part thats inconsistent. the part that involved YOUR OWN WORDS homie. the part where you said it this wouldnt effect someone, so they shouldnt care about it. do you live in hong kong? do you live in china? have your personally been a victim of chinese authoritarianism? then why do you care? it doesnt effect you. Can you find me the exact quote you are referencing? Im sure its in there but if you are going to state YOUR OWN WORDS I would like the specific words you are referencing. Very late edit: I would also argue that since China plays such a large role in the US economy, what transpires over there very much effects me. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193719] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, here is my inconsistent scale. Massive protests in the worlds largest country are more important than newly passed guidelines for a work place in 1 city that havent even been challenged in court yet. Wildly inconsistent.</quote> yeah, but youre just ignoring the part thats inconsistent. the part that involved YOUR OWN WORDS homie. the part where you said it this wouldnt effect someone, so they shouldnt care about it. do you live in hong kong? do you live in china? have your personally been a victim of chinese authoritarianism? then why do you care? it doesnt effect you.</quote> Can you find me the exact quote you are referencing? Im sure its in there but if you are going to state YOUR OWN WORDS I would like the specific words you are referencing. Very late edit: I would also argue that since China plays such a large role in the US economy, what transpires over there very much effects me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:23:58 PM #131:	How does this affect anyone other than someone randomly being racist? --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928193744] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>How does this affect anyone other than someone randomly being racist?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:24:36 PM #132:	OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. What are you asking for now? Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928193771] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> What are you asking for now?</quote> Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JallerSVR 10/01/19 2:25:52 PM #133:	Nothing more annoying than a preachy leftist who thinks he is more intelligent than he actually is like some people ITT. As for the article, this is New York. How can anyone seriously be surprised by this? --- The more things change, the more they stay the same. <cite>JallerSVR posted [p:928193813] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Nothing more annoying than a preachy leftist who thinks he is more intelligent than he actually is like some people ITT. As for the article, this is New York. How can anyone seriously be surprised by this?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:30:31 PM #134:	kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. What are you asking for now? Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift. What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928194013] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> What are you asking for now?</quote> Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift.</quote> What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:34:56 PM #135:	OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. What are you asking for now? Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift. What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation But this whole topic is about 1 particular piece of legislation in New York City. Im saying using this one piece to argue a slippery slope fallacy is incorrect. I need actual legislation that has been passed which has led to confiscation of guns. Otherwise its just furthering the logical Fallacy. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928194220] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> What are you asking for now?</quote> Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift.</quote> What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation</quote> But this whole topic is about 1 particular piece of legislation in New York City. Im saying using this one piece to argue a slippery slope fallacy is incorrect. I need actual legislation that has been passed which has led to confiscation of guns. Otherwise its just furthering the logical Fallacy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:42:01 PM #136:	kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. What are you asking for now? Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift. What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation But this whole topic is about 1 particular piece of legislation in New York City. Im saying using this one piece to argue a slippery slope fallacy is incorrect. I need actual legislation that has been passed which has led to confiscation of guns. Otherwise its just furthering the logical Fallacy. So are you arguing that a slippery slope is impossible in regard to legislation but not in regard to rhetoric? You could argue in general that progress is a slippery slope. Take the gay rights movement or women rights as an example. Those are positive examples but those are indeed examples of a "slippery slope." Consider it sliding uphill in those cases <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928194510] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote><quote>Ahh that old slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.</quote> But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> What are you asking for now?</quote> Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift.</quote> What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation</quote> But this whole topic is about 1 particular piece of legislation in New York City. Im saying using this one piece to argue a slippery slope fallacy is incorrect. I need actual legislation that has been passed which has led to confiscation of guns. Otherwise its just furthering the logical Fallacy.</quote> So are you arguing that a slippery slope is impossible in regard to legislation but not in regard to rhetoric? You could argue in general that progress is a slippery slope. Take the gay rights movement or women rights as an example. Those are positive examples but those are indeed examples of a "slippery slope." Consider it sliding uphill in those cases</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 10/01/19 2:43:54 PM #137:	aDirtyShisno posted... Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/ You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:928194600] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/</quote> You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DrunkRoger 10/01/19 2:46:38 PM #138:	If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal. <cite>DrunkRoger posted [p:928194707] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:49:06 PM #139:	OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... kangolcone posted... OhhhJa posted... But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!" Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait. What are you asking for now? Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift. What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation But this whole topic is about 1 particular piece of legislation in New York City. Im saying using this one piece to argue a slippery slope fallacy is incorrect. I need actual legislation that has been passed which has led to confiscation of guns. Otherwise its just furthering the logical Fallacy. So are you arguing that a slippery slope is impossible in regard to legislation but not in regard to rhetoric? You could argue in general that progress is a slippery slope. Take the gay rights movement or women rights as an example. Those are positive examples but those are indeed examples of a "slippery slope." Consider it sliding uphill in those cases So basically take a completely different situation and apply it to this situation as though its exactly the same? --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928194826] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>But also, some slopes are slippery. Eight years ago, you had Democrats saying, "you're crazy, nobody wants your guns." Fast forward eight years later, "damn right we're coming for your guns!"</quote> Name the piece of legislation that triggered that change. Ill wait.</quote> What are you asking for now?</quote> Youre saying this piece of legislation will lead to a slippery slope of other legislation. You point to this gun argument as an example. Im wondering in your mind which piece of legislation triggered the shift.</quote> What piece of gun legislation? Who said I was talking about legislation? I just said some slopes are slippery and that's democrats are upping their rhetoric on gun confiscation</quote> But this whole topic is about 1 particular piece of legislation in New York City. Im saying using this one piece to argue a slippery slope fallacy is incorrect. I need actual legislation that has been passed which has led to confiscation of guns. Otherwise its just furthering the logical Fallacy.</quote> So are you arguing that a slippery slope is impossible in regard to legislation but not in regard to rhetoric? You could argue in general that progress is a slippery slope. Take the gay rights movement or women rights as an example. Those are positive examples but those are indeed examples of a "slippery slope." Consider it sliding uphill in those cases</quote> So basically take a completely different situation and apply it to this situation as though its exactly the same?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:50:20 PM #140:	BlackScythe0 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/ You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment. Its not though, as workplace harassment isnt covered under your first amendment rights. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928194870] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/</quote> You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment.</quote> Its not though, as workplace harassment isnt covered under your first amendment rights.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:50:50 PM #141:	DrunkRoger posted... If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal. You're being obtuse on purpose. There is no reason a normal citizen should ever have to use the term "illegal alien". I think the bill is stupid, but I love to see people spin webs about how this is going to ruin america because they think they can't still randomly assume some Hispanic guy is an illegal immigrant. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928194886] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>DrunkRoger posted...</cite> <quote>If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal.</quote> You're being obtuse on purpose. There is no reason a normal citizen should ever have to use the term "illegal alien". I think the bill is stupid, but I love to see people spin webs about how this is going to ruin america because they think they can't still randomly assume some Hispanic guy is an illegal immigrant.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 2:50:51 PM #142:	DrunkRoger posted... If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal. How do you know the persons immigration status? --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928194888] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>DrunkRoger posted...</cite> <quote>If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal.</quote> How do you know the persons immigration status?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:52:37 PM #143:	I also like that ohhja is claiming this will somehow lead to like a total censorship lead by Steven Richards or some shit. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928194959] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>I also like that ohhja is claiming this will somehow lead to like a total censorship lead by Steven Richards or some shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:55:49 PM #144:	DrunkRoger posted... If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal. People dont realize that the government rolls out stuff like this as a beta test to see how the public will react. After they realize people are ok with restricting some of their freedom of speech, they'll move forward with more... stuff like, "it's no longer legal to call someone an sjw in a public space." And then you'll of course have the same people defending it with the, "waaaahhh you cant be mean to people, you're so oppressed!" <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928195089] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>DrunkRoger posted...</cite> <quote>If you're from a different country, you're an alien. If you came in illegally, you're illegal. Can't understand what's insulting or offensive about facts. It's just proper nomenclature. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with race. An illegal norwegian is still illegal.</quote> People dont realize that the government rolls out stuff like this as a beta test to see how the public will react. After they realize people are ok with restricting some of their freedom of speech, they'll move forward with more... stuff like, "it's no longer legal to call someone an sjw in a public space." And then you'll of course have the same people defending it with the, "waaaahhh you cant be mean to people, you're so oppressed!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:57:04 PM #145:	Yeah, cause they did that with the N-word. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928195134] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, cause they did that with the N-word.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 10/01/19 2:57:31 PM #146:	EvilMegas posted... I also like that ohhja is claiming this will somehow lead to like a total censorship lead by Steven Richards or some shit. You mean like how the tech giants started with just Alex Jones and then eventually moved on to banning pretty much everyone that speaks out against the establishment or talks about any popular conspiracy theories? <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:928195154] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>I also like that ohhja is claiming this will somehow lead to like a total censorship lead by Steven Richards or some shit.</quote> You mean like how the tech giants started with just Alex Jones and then eventually moved on to banning pretty much everyone that speaks out against the establishment or talks about any popular conspiracy theories?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EvilMegas 10/01/19 2:58:41 PM #147:	Yup that's why Alex Jones is off air. --- Official King of Black People https://imgur.com/Zk3VS3o http://imgur.com/a/UeQiE https://imgur.com/aSnCUuI <cite>EvilMegas posted [p:928195198] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>Yup that's why Alex Jones is off air.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 10/01/19 3:00:14 PM #148:	kangolcone posted... BlackScythe0 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/ You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment. Its not though, as workplace harassment isnt covered under your first amendment rights. Well yea... but first amendment only applies to government penalties. TC kept talking about workplace so it sounded like it was just someone getting fired and then losing when he sued his workplace. But no, it's actually the government making an unconstitutional law. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:928195275] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/</quote> You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment.</quote> Its not though, as workplace harassment isnt covered under your first amendment rights.</quote> Well yea... but first amendment only applies to government penalties. TC kept talking about workplace so it sounded like it was just someone getting fired and then losing when he sued his workplace. But no, it's actually the government making an unconstitutional law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 3:01:31 PM #149:	OhhhJa posted... EvilMegas posted... I also like that ohhja is claiming this will somehow lead to like a total censorship lead by Steven Richards or some shit. You mean like how the tech giants started with just Alex Jones and then eventually moved on to banning pretty much everyone that speaks out against the establishment or talks about any popular conspiracy theories? Alex Jones propagated a conspiracy theory that lead to death threats toward the parents of murdered children. Please provide the list of other banned entities and we can discuss those too. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928195315] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>EvilMegas posted...</cite> <quote>I also like that ohhja is claiming this will somehow lead to like a total censorship lead by Steven Richards or some shit.</quote> You mean like how the tech giants started with just Alex Jones and then eventually moved on to banning pretty much everyone that speaks out against the establishment or talks about any popular conspiracy theories?</quote> Alex Jones propagated a conspiracy theory that lead to death threats toward the parents of murdered children. Please provide the list of other banned entities and we can discuss those too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Cacciato 10/01/19 3:02:00 PM #150:	OhhhJa posted... My coworkers keep showing me memes making fun of white people. I feel harrassed. Make legislation please. I cant go to HR. I need legislation This is literally one of the things HR is for <cite>Cacciato posted [p:928195334] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>My coworkers keep showing me memes making fun of white people. I feel harrassed. Make legislation please. I cant go to HR. I need legislation</quote> This is literally one of the things HR is for</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
kangolcone 10/01/19 3:02:20 PM #151:	BlackScythe0 posted... kangolcone posted... BlackScythe0 posted... aDirtyShisno posted... Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/ You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment. Its not though, as workplace harassment isnt covered under your first amendment rights. Well yea... but first amendment only applies to government penalties. TC kept talking about workplace so it sounded like it was just someone getting fired and then losing when he sued his workplace. But no, it's actually the government making an unconstitutional law. Its not unconstitutional. Harassing somebody in the work place is not covered under Free Speech. --- Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi. <cite>kangolcone posted [p:928195348] in So Apparen... [t:78054767]...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>kangolcone posted...</cite> <quote>BlackScythe0 posted...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Specifically in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations. New York City has declared using the phrase illegal alien can be considered workplace harassment even if talking about illegal immigrants in general and not referring to any particular employees, if an employee becomes afraid from possible discrimination. Go back to your country, threatening to call ICE, and other similar phrases could also constitute harassment even if the immigration status of an unlawful immigrant is not in dispute. Fun times living without the First Amendment. https://reason.com/2019/09/30/new-york-city-illegal-aliens-fine-free-speech/</quote> You know your description isn't very good. I thought this was just a "You can get fired for this" but no this is actually new york blatantly violating the first amendment.</quote> Its not though, as workplace harassment isnt covered under your first amendment rights.</quote> Well yea... but first amendment only applies to government penalties. TC kept talking about workplace so it sounded like it was just someone getting fired and then losing when he sued his workplace. But no, it's actually the government making an unconstitutional law.</quote> Its not unconstitutional. Harassing somebody in the work place is not covered under Free Speech.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Poll of the Day > So Apparently It's Now Illegal To Say "Illegal Alien" In New York (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > So Apparently It's Now Illegal To Say "Illegal Alien" In New York