Current Events > according to redhats, nazis should be allowed to preach death to minorties becau

(+) Yeah! (+)

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Admiral posted...

mario2000 posted...

:thinking:

Try harder, since literally no one is arguing against their right to protest.

oh no, just that hey should be fired for protesting.

you know, like how you were complaining about when they forced out the CEO of Mozilla for donating to anti-gay organizations?

Well, you supported that, so you support this?
---

The Admiral posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Admiral posted...

mario2000 posted...

:thinking:

Try harder, since literally no one is arguing against their right to protest.

oh no, just that hey should be fired for protesting.

you know, like how you were complaining about when they forced out the CEO of Mozilla for donating to anti-gay organizations?

Well, you supported that, so you support this?

Do you support both? If not, does that make you an anti-free speech hypocrite? He asked you first.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

oh no, just that hey should be fired for protesting.

you know, like how you were complaining about when they forced out the CEO of Mozilla for donating to anti-gay organizations?

So which is it: is it ok to fire people for their politics or not?

Because if you don't believe in firing people for them, then you can't support ousting tj e Mozilla CEO.

personally I think a business has every right to fire whomever they want.
---

The Admiral posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

The Admiral posted...

mario2000 posted...

:thinking:

Try harder, since literally no one is arguing against their right to protest.

oh no, just that hey should be fired for protesting.

you know, like how you were complaining about when they forced out the CEO of Mozilla for donating to anti-gay organizations?

Well, you supported that, so you support this?

I support shutting down the whole NFL so that is a bad question to ask me.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

oh no, just that hey should be fired for protesting.

you know, like how you were complaining about when they forced out the CEO of Mozilla for donating to anti-gay organizations?

So which is it: is it ok to fire people for their politics or not?

Because if you don't believe in firing people for them, then you can't support ousting tj e Mozilla CEO.

personally I think a business has every right to fire whomever they want.

We can have the cake and eat it too. You act as if you can't support free speech and exercise your free speech to disagree with certain uses of it. I support people being fired for being racist. I don't support people being for kneeling for the anthem. I don't want the government to legislate either of those things.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

personally I think a business has every right to fire whomever they want.

the NFL and professional sports have this annoying thing called a CBA, so you can't really "fire" them for whatever you want
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

oh no, just that hey should be fired for protesting.

you know, like how you were complaining about when they forced out the CEO of Mozilla for donating to anti-gay organizations?

So which is it: is it ok to fire people for their politics or not?

Because if you don't believe in firing people for them, then you can't support ousting tj e Mozilla CEO.

personally I think a business has every right to fire whomever they want.

I am in the camp of your latter statement.

I.E. you're free to fire people because they drove to work with an Obama/Biden bumper sticker, but everyone is free to tell your business to fuck off when the news that you did that makes the rounds.

Same deal for cakes. Don't bake a gay wedding cake if you want but don't cry crocodile tears to me when your bakery is a haunted house in 2 months.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

We can have the cake and eat it too. You act as if you can't support free speech and exercise your free speech to disagree with certain uses of it. I support people being fired for being racist. I don't support people being for kneeling for the anthem. I don't want the government to legislate either of those things.

Well too bad, because it does. And they tend to favor business' right to fire people in most cases.
---

You guys should stop wasting your first amendment rights by arguing with obvious hacks and trolls.
---

mortimerjames posted...

mel fat brought up being beaten to death, i wanted a story of a white guy getting beaten to death

Of course, BLM supporters like to forget the inconvenient whiteness of this homeless man beaten to death by two cops. Both cops were acquitted. His white privilege didn't save him or see the cops convicted at trial, one of whom was a brown minority.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict/index.html

Former officer Manuel Ramos was charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. A second former Fullerton officer, Jay Cicinelli, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

We can have the cake and eat it too. You act as if you can't support free speech and exercise your free speech to disagree with certain uses of it. I support people being fired for being racist. I don't support people being for kneeling for the anthem. I don't want the government to legislate either of those things.

Well too bad, because it does. And they tend to favor business' right to fire people in most cases.

And if there's an owner out there who would literally fire players or coaches for kneeling during the national anthem, I hope that team ALL kneels and calls the owner's bluff. Owner isn't gonna fire everybody, no chance in hell.
---

Ammonitida posted...

Of course, BLM supporters like to forget the inconvenient whiteness of this homeless man beaten to death by two cops. Both cops were acquitted. His white privilege didn't save him or see the cops convicted at trial, one of whom was a brown minority.

Whats your point here? Are you like Admiral? His point focuses on black people so you can't support it?

Shouldn't you be supporting Kaep?
---

mortimerjames posted...

His point focuses on black people so you can't support it?

Obviously.
---

mortimerjames posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Of course, BLM supporters like to forget the inconvenient whiteness of this homeless man beaten to death by two cops. Both cops were acquitted. His white privilege didn't save him or see the cops convicted at trial, one of whom was a brown minority.

Whats your point here? Are you like Admiral? His point focuses on black people so you can't support it?

What kind of argument is this? If BLM's message is "we don't give a shit if this happens to you, but we expect you to care that it happens to us!" it's no surprise the movement is a failure.

This literally should have just been an anti-police brutality movement from day one without the unsupported racial victimization propaganda.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

We can have the cake and eat it too. You act as if you can't support free speech and exercise your free speech to disagree with certain uses of it. I support people being fired for being racist. I don't support people being for kneeling for the anthem. I don't want the government to legislate either of those things.

Well too bad, because it does. And they tend to favor business' right to fire people in most cases.

Too bad what? I am saying I understand what free speech is. And people can disagree with uses of it while still supporting the concept. Someone can get fired for kneeling, or not kneeling, and other people can disagree with it. And if enough people have strong enough feelings, their free speech will result in consequences for that business owner exercising his free speech towards the employee's free speech. People like you and Admiral seem to think disagreeing is incompatible with being pro-free speech and that is a laughably incorrect view.
---

just silly, fighting for change isn't going to just affect one race

but whatevs
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

We can have the cake and eat it too. You act as if you can't support free speech and exercise your free speech to disagree with certain uses of it. I support people being fired for being racist. I don't support people being for kneeling for the anthem. I don't want the government to legislate either of those things.

Well too bad, because it does. And they tend to favor business' right to fire people in most cases.

Too bad what? I am saying I understand what free speech is. And people can disagree with uses of it while still supporting the concept. Someone can get fired for kneeling, or not kneeling, and other people can disagree with it. And if enough people have strong enough feelings, their free speech will result in consequences for that business owner exercising his free speech towards the employee's free speech. People like you and Admiral seem to think disagreeing is incompatible with being pro-free speech and that is a laughably incorrect view.

Completely wrong. TC is drawing a comparison between assaulting people who say offensive things and saying it would be great if people who kneeled at the anthem were fired. See, one of those things is an illegal and violent act, and the other is not. Therefore, one is an abridgement of the freedom of speech, and the other is not.

I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.
---

The Admiral posted...

What kind of argument is this? If BLM's message is "we don't give a s*** if this happens to you, but we expect you to care that it happens to us!" it's no surprise the movement is a failure.

This literally should have just been an anti-police brutality movement from day one without the unsupported racial victimization propaganda.

I don't remember that being BLM's message. No one brings up stories like the california homeless man, they bring up stats about blacks and crime and Chicago.

And if you really care about police brutality why isn't your response "we support you kaep, for ALL forms of police brutality." Instead of "Things aren't that bad! stop complaining!"
---

mortimerjames posted...

Ammonitida posted...

Of course, BLM supporters like to forget the inconvenient whiteness of this homeless man beaten to death by two cops. Both cops were acquitted. His white privilege didn't save him or see the cops convicted at trial, one of whom was a brown minority.

Whats your point here? Are you like Admiral? His point focuses on black people so you can't support it?

Shouldn't you be supporting Kaep?

I don't support BLM or any such movement that vilifies cops as "pigs"/'racists" and exaggerates the amount of police misconduct. Police brutality in particular is exceptionally rare, as the BJS survey posted up thread reveals. And the central talking point of BLM -- that there is systemic anti-black racism in policing -- is lacking in hard evidence, especially when it comes to police violence. In fact, using different benchmarks I can make the argument that white people and not black people suffer from systemic racism in policing.

i'm sure you can
---

Here in Murica lynchings are just fine but you kneel during a shitty song at a football game then you can GET THE FUCK OUT

mortimerjames posted...

The Admiral posted...

What kind of argument is this? If BLM's message is "we don't give a s*** if this happens to you, but we expect you to care that it happens to us!" it's no surprise the movement is a failure.

This literally should have just been an anti-police brutality movement from day one without the unsupported racial victimization propaganda.

I don't remember that being BLM's message. No one brings up stories like the california homeless man, they bring up stats about blacks and crime and Chicago.

And if you really care about police brutality why isn't your response "we support you kaep, for ALL forms of police brutality." Instead of "Things aren't that bad! stop complaining!"

There were BLM trolls literally saying "fuck Justine Damond". The Root wrote a sympathetic article about such people.

http://www.theroot.com/i-understand-why-some-black-people-couldn-t-care-less-a-1797189837

For many associated with BLM, her whiteness was very convenient as was the blackness of the cop that killed her.

mario2000 posted...

se "freedom of speech", but nfl players shouldn't be allowed to actually express their freedom of speech, and in as peaceful and inoffensive way as possible

:thinking:

"the hurt feelings so their lives should be destoryed and physical violence against these people are justified." - sjws
---

Ammonitida posted...

mortimerjames posted...

The Admiral posted...

What kind of argument is this? If BLM's message is "we don't give a s*** if this happens to you, but we expect you to care that it happens to us!" it's no surprise the movement is a failure.

This literally should have just been an anti-police brutality movement from day one without the unsupported racial victimization propaganda.

I don't remember that being BLM's message. No one brings up stories like the california homeless man, they bring up stats about blacks and crime and Chicago.

And if you really care about police brutality why isn't your response "we support you kaep, for ALL forms of police brutality." Instead of "Things aren't that bad! stop complaining!"

There were BLM trolls literally saying "fuck Justine Damond". The Root wrote a sympathetic article about such people.

http://www.theroot.com/i-understand-why-some-black-people-couldn-t-care-less-a-1797189837

For many associated with BLM, her whiteness was very convenient as was the blackness of the cop that killed her.

most likely because it was being pushed to BLM to stifle their points about police brutality, by people who don't actually care about police brutality
---

Still not sure why we were supposed to feel sorry for her, given what we're told in the reverse situation.
---

ModLogic posted...

"the hurt feelings so their lives should be destoryed and physical violence against these people are justified." - sjws

Sums it up sadly.
---