Lurker > kangolcone

SunWuKung420 posted...

Nixon isn't suggesting that soda is better for you than water, like coca cola is. I know all about how HFCS became a thing and it points to the pursuit of profit instead of the pursuit of what's right. Coca-cola is evil, defending them makes you evil.

Only Sith deal in absolutes.

---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

The obesity epidemic has far more to do with Richard Nixons push to stave off a food price spike where he made American farmers plant more corn instead of other vegetables. This in turn led to over production of corn and the processing of said corn into HFCS which is now in everything.

But it would make sense for you to blame coke, because thats the easier target than trying to understand the root of the issue.

---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

I love that one of the main arguments from people in love with the second amendment is that it keeps things from turning into a police state.

Meanwhile, they support literally putting armed guards everywhere to stop gun violence and endorse this unnecessary invasion of privacy.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

papercup posted...

HornedLion posted...

Getting a vaccination? Oh no, youre good. These things have no adverse effects.

What? Obviously getting a vaccine has risks. If the nurse/doctor/whoever isn't careful yes they can injure you. Or maybe your body actually gets the flu from the vaccine. But these things aren't at all common. It's just it's been proven to not have the risk of causing autism, since autism develops before birth. There is 0 evidence of a link between autism and vaccination.

You cannot get the flu from the flu vaccine. Its a dead virus making what you are saying a physical impossibility.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

You would be a more effective troll if you didnt make it so lame and obvious.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

Usual suspects
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

HornedLion posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Muscles posted...

I thought liberals, like Jenny McCarthy, were the ones pushing the movement

I figured both sides had types of people among them that would be anti vaxx. Religious (anti science) on one side and big corporations are evil (big pharma being just that) on the other. Never cared to look into it to see if that was the case though.

What you need to know is that thousands of parents report having a baby with excellent eye contact, name response/recognition, and very social... then immediately after getting their vaccine for Measles/Mump/Rubella their kid loses eye contact, name response, etc.

That isnt being denied by the medical industry... instead they want us to believe that because autism causes regression, that coincidentally their first regression began after they received their shots but thats just a coincidence.

This has been repeatedly disproven but ok.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

HornedLion posted...

What he was accused of doing is sick! They ruined one of my beloved childhood TV dads.

I think Justice was served but... I also hear that this all came about because he was going to buy CBS. I dont know too much about it but Im sure someone in here does.

What are you talking about? Thats not even close to true. CBS makes more money in a year than Bill Cosby is worth.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

No because thats not really a thing. If you are looking for whiskey that cheap, you should find a mixer or a chaser that you are ok with.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

Alright guys. Thanks for helping me pass through a boring day. Im off work now, so I probably wont be looking at this topic again.

Take it easy.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

I honestly dont remember. I dont think I did anything. Pretty sure I was horribly sick.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

EvilMegas posted...

DrunkRoger posted...

kangolcone posted...

DrunkRoger posted...

@kangalcone

That's two different things - I'm not talking about "go back to your country". My initial post addressed just "illegal Alien".

And no, for illegal alien, I don't think it's offensive.
I already explained why.

(And sorry, there were too many quotes and gamefaqs told me to trim the message)

You said its not offensive because its a fact. What if its not a fact and you are calling a person born in the US an illegal alien because they are of Mexican origin?

Wait, what...?

So you're assuming that people that are against this legislation want the right to run around like crazy people pointing to all people that they presume have latin ancestry and yell "ILLEGAL ALIEN! ILLEGAL ALIEN!"...?

No, they totally made this bill up for no reason.

Dude, first of all, if a person call someone that they aren't (even more if it's something against the law), that's slander! It's like calling someone a thief when they aren't or if you don't know if they are. You can be sued. There's no need for new laws, laws already exist in that regard.

The bill exists because, supposedly, calling a KNOWN illegal alien an illegal alien is offensive. It's like, you see me going into your house, steal your stuff, and you can't call me a thief because it's going to... Hurt my feelings...? Seriously?

Ahh yes, those lawsuits which take absolutely no money or time.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Can we use this law to impeach trump?

No because its no fiscally responsible.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

OhhhJa posted...

kangolcone posted...

OhhhJa posted...

kangolcone posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Many words

If the boss is doing the harassment and there is no government oversight because its also not the governments job then what recourse should old saggy tits use?

I guess we outlaw the words saggy tits in the workplace. Is that really what you're getting at? Lmao. Freedom of speech is doomed

Im asking if the government has no place in the discussion what is the recourse?

Get some thick skin or get another job I guess. Not to mention, this law does nothing to stop that as the boss in question can just harass them in a similar, related manner that skirts the law. And if you're an illegal immigrant then you and the boss arent following the law anyway. If you arent illegal, then take it to social media where you will make a complete ass of them

Ok, so now the get another job argument.

At least you are honest in that you really dont believe the government should have any legislation on the subject and work place harassment should be legal.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

kangolcone posted...

DrunkRoger posted...

@kangalcone

That's two different things - I'm not talking about "go back to your country". My initial post addressed just "illegal Alien".

And no, for illegal alien, I don't think it's offensive.
I already explained why.

(And sorry, there were too many quotes and gamefaqs told me to trim the message)

You said its not offensive because its a fact. What if its not a fact and you are calling a person born in the US an illegal alien because they are of Mexican origin?

Wait, what...?

So you're assuming that people that are against this legislation want the right to run around like crazy people pointing to all people that they presume have latin ancestry and yell "ILLEGAL ALIEN! ILLEGAL ALIEN!"...?

I make no such assumption but thats literally all the law says. Says you cant use that language to harass a coworker Im New York City.

Ive said other people have made valid points about the legislation. But the law itself only provides for prohibition of these terms when used to harass a coworker or tenant in public housing.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

OhhhJa posted...

kangolcone posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Many words

If the boss is doing the harassment and there is no government oversight because its also not the governments job then what recourse should old saggy tits use?

I guess we outlaw the words saggy tits in the workplace. Is that really what you're getting at? Lmao. Freedom of speech is doomed

Im asking if the government has no place in the discussion what is the recourse?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

@kangalcone

That's two different things - I'm not talking about "go back to your country". My initial post addressed just "illegal Alien".

And no, for illegal alien, I don't think it's offensive.
I already explained why.

(And sorry, there were too many quotes and gamefaqs told me to trim the message)

You said its not offensive because its a fact. What if its not a fact and you are calling a person born in the US an illegal alien because they are of Mexican origin?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

OhhhJa posted...

Many words

If the boss is doing the harassment and there is no government oversight because its also not the governments job then what recourse should old saggy tits use?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

kangolcone posted...

DrunkRoger posted...

kangolcone posted...

DrunkRoger posted...

EvilMegas posted...

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.

I swear I'm being honest. I'm not "being obtuse on purpose".

Also, I'm from South America. If you come to my country illegally, I'll still call you a illegal alien, because, quite simply, that's what you would be.

I really fail to understand what's wrong with that.

How many times in your life have you called somebody that to their face? Or even in the presence of a person you thought was illegal?

Well, I called a guy who stole something a thief to their face, and someone who killed someone a murderer to their face. It's just noun and adjective?

I mean, I called a man who makes food a cook, too.

I - REALLY - don't understand what's offensive. I mean it from my heart. I met an illegal alien once, from Bolivia, and we actually had a laugh when we talked about his legal status.

You dont understand how calling somebody who is a legal immigrant an illegal immigrant and telling them to go back to their country, would be offensive?

"Illegal immigrant", no, I don't. That's just a fact. A quality. A situation. Like green, or hungry, or wet.

"Go back to their country" might be unpleasant and rude, and I would never say that to someone, but offensive? No, I don't think so.

Respectfully, I think you guys aren't quite sure of the meaning of the word "offensive" here.

Lmao. Im going to give you one more chance at this one. You are really telling me you dont think calling a person who is here legally an illegal alien and telling them to go back to their country wouldnt hurt anybodys feelings?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

kangolcone posted...

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?

If I was interested in it, I'd ask him or find out somehow. Why?

Are you frequently wondering about the immigration status of your coworkers?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

OhhhJa posted...

kangolcone posted...

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.

It's also not the government's job to tell you that you cant say certain words in the workplace. Or anywhere for that matter. That would be the company's job. Death threats, libel, etc are a different story

Here we go again. So lets say the person who owns the company starts calling a female employee saggy tits. Thats ok with you?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

kangolcone posted...

DrunkRoger posted...

EvilMegas posted...

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.

I swear I'm being honest. I'm not "being obtuse on purpose".

Also, I'm from South America. If you come to my country illegally, I'll still call you a illegal alien, because, quite simply, that's what you would be.

I really fail to understand what's wrong with that.

How many times in your life have you called somebody that to their face? Or even in the presence of a person you thought was illegal?

Well, I called a guy who stole something a thief to their face, and someone who killed someone a murderer to their face. It's just noun and adjective?

I mean, I called a man who makes food a cook, too.

I - REALLY - don't understand what's offensive. I mean it from my heart. I met an illegal alien once, from Bolivia, and we actually had a laugh when we talked about his legal status.

You dont understand how calling somebody who is a legal immigrant an illegal immigrant and telling them to go back to their country, would be offensive?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

DrunkRoger posted...

EvilMegas posted...

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.

I swear I'm being honest. I'm not "being obtuse on purpose".

Also, I'm from South America. If you come to my country illegally, I'll still call you a illegal alien, because, quite simply, that's what you would be.

I really fail to understand what's wrong with that.

How many times in your life have you called somebody that to their face? Or even in the presence of a person you thought was illegal?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

EvilMegas posted...

Yeah, cause they did that with the N-word.

Right? I mean, you totally get arrested for saying that.

Gay slurs too. If you use them one time in your thoughts, police show up and arrest you.

The Illuminati uses the vaccines to read your thoughts. And the fluoride in your water makes you more compliant.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OhhhJa posted...

kangolcone posted...

OhhhJa posted...

You can probably count on one finger how many people in New York follow mexicans around the workplace berating them by calling them illegal. It's basically legislation intending to combat a strawman. That's how you know this is more about normalizing illegal immigration and painting anyone speaking out against it as racist. This legislation is quite obviously purely politically motivated and you'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise

Now here is somebody who finally found a reasonable objection. New York City is probably more racist than you think though and for such a reasonable point you lose credibility by stating this has only happened once.

Also, the fact that you associate Mexican with illegal validates the points I was making earlier about it being a racial comment. Not that you are being racist, but there is clearly a standard image most people get when they think illegal immigrant.

I work at a tex mex restaurant two nights a week so I'm definitely aware that not all hispanic immigrants are mexican

Right, like I said, I didnt think you were being racist but you specifically said follow a Mexican.

As much as its silly to pretend the new guidelines arent politically motivated, its also silly to think those terms and phrases are generally used to target a certain group. You seem honest, so Im sure youll understand what Im saying.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

OhhhJa posted...

Noop_Noop posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Is kangolcone Erik p? Because they act very much the same

More like adjl than anything, but at least he doesn't write 3 page responses that nobody reads and occasionally he reads the posts he is responding to.

Yeah, he just has the unbridled triggered rage of erik

Please show me which post expressed unbridled triggered rage? Im honestly curious. Im mostly just bored at work so Im interested to see which of these many posts communicates rage. You can just cite the post number instead of copy/paste or quoting.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

SunWuKung420 posted...

kangolcone posted...

What you said is that people should be able to commit work place harassment without fear of receiving punishment from the government because its more fiscally responsible.

Nope, I never said that. People shouldn't need government legislation to know that they shouldn't harass others. But common sense isn't yours or many others forte hence why you and others rely on government oversight to dictate what comes out of their mouths.

Lmao. Its literally why they wrote down early laws because people are rude and mean and ruthless when allowed to be. Im glad you think most people are inherently nice and believe harassment is wrong, but reality is very different.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

OhhhJa posted...

You can probably count on one finger how many people in New York follow mexicans around the workplace berating them by calling them illegal. It's basically legislation intending to combat a strawman. That's how you know this is more about normalizing illegal immigration and painting anyone speaking out against it as racist. This legislation is quite obviously purely politically motivated and you'd have to be stupid to believe otherwise

Now here is somebody who finally found a reasonable objection. New York City is probably more racist than you think though and for such a reasonable point you lose credibility by stating this has only happened once.

Also, the fact that you associate Mexican with illegal validates the points I was making earlier about it being a racial comment. Not that you are being racist, but there is clearly a standard image most people get when they think illegal immigrant.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

aDirtyShisno posted...

adjl 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.

This really shouldn't be particularly objectionable. It's just spelling out something that most would already know to be true. You could already make a workplace harassment case off of such comments even without them being explicitly spelled out, this is simply a matter of making it clear to the dickwads who consider this acceptable conduct that it's not.

If Im at work and I see a news report about Trump finally building his wall and I say something like Yeah, no more illegal aliens coming in that way I should not be guilty of a crime just because my coworker broke the law when entering the country.

Well if you think the wall will stop illegal aliens, then you arent really knowledgeable on the situation.

62% of people in the US without proper documentation are people who had documentation and then it expired.

Secondly, you would be subject to a fine relative to the perceived level of injury. If you said this comment one time and didnt direct it at anybody, it would be small, but likely nothing because it wasnt used to harass or demean that colleague.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

adjl 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.

This really shouldn't be particularly objectionable. It's just spelling out something that most would already know to be true. You could already make a workplace harassment case off of such comments even without them being explicitly spelled out, this is simply a matter of making it clear to the dickwads who consider this acceptable conduct that it's not.

Ive been at it all morning. Lots of people are really worried that they can no longer harass their coworkers at their jobs in NYC because of perceived immigration status.

Its very controversial that you shouldnt say go back to your country, to a coworker.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

SunWuKung420 posted...

kangolcone posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Thats actually my original point to Sunnys ridiculous legislation shouldnt be about how you treat people, statement.

I don't think it's fiscally responsible of government to spend tax dollars telling people to don't demean each other.

Ok, so Sunny is pro-sexual harassment in the work place. Thats the type of quality take I enjoy.

Nice job of completely misconstruing in order to slander. On top of that, when did I even mention sexual harassment. Ffs sake man, get a grip of yourself.

If I walked up to a woman in the work place and said, You look gross with your saggy tits. Thats both demeaning and work place harassment which you stated was not fiscally responsible.

Ok, so you are right, you didnt say that. What you said is that people should be able to commit work place harassment without fear of receiving punishment from the government because its more fiscally responsible.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

Noop_Noop 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.

Similar in that they will never effect anyone here, and your argument was "it doesn't effect you, so why do you care"

if that's not what you meant then you should have said what you meant. If that is what you meant then your logic is just plain dumb. You dont gotta get mad at me. I didn't make you say that.

I just dont understand how you think those two are equivalent at all. Especially since the specific post I was replying to stated they were going to start committing work place harassment. My statement was directed at him and was in direct reference that this law would only impact him if he worked in NYC.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

SunWuKung420 posted...

kangolcone posted...

Thats actually my original point to Sunnys ridiculous legislation shouldnt be about how you treat people, statement.

I don't think it's fiscally responsible of government to spend tax dollars telling people to don't demean each other.

Ok, so Sunny is pro-sexual harassment in the work place. Thats the type of quality take I enjoy.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

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.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

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?
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.

PyroBlade1985 posted...

kangolcone posted...

PyroBlade1985 posted...

kangolcone posted...

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Mead posted...

Boo fucking hoo

Just call them undocumented

No. They're here illegally. So call them what they are. Illegal Aliens. And if Illegal Aliens pisses you off just call them Illegals. And if Illegals still pisses you off then just call them Illegal Aliens.

So you think the federal government should protect your targeted harassment of coworkers?

Harassment? I just hate being PC.

The article, which you didnt read, states you can use the term all you want as long as you arent in a workplace using it to harass or demean somebody.

So, are you for or against work place harassment?

Against. Now it's my turn. Are you for or against ANTIFA harassing and assaulting everyone from journalists to the elderly?

Your question is false at its premise because they dont assault everyone.

Moreover, it has literally no connection to the topic of work place harassment.

If you would like my opinions on that matter, please start a new topic to address it, tag me, and I will gladly discuss it with you.

As far as work place harassment, Im glad you agree its not ok.
---

Annoy a Conservative, punch a Nazi.