Civil Rights Act 1964: Repeal?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

 

[Discombobulated]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.

Yes, I can see the sacrifices you're prepared to make on the behalf of others in the pursuit of freedom.

 

[Discombobulated]

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about being a mindless ideologue. Had I known it would upset you so much I never would have mentioned it.

 

[dblack]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.

Yes, I can see the sacrifices you're prepared to make on the behalf of others in the pursuit of freedom.

Real tolerance requires it.

 

[Discombobulated]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.

Yes, I can see the sacrifices you're prepared to make on the behalf of others in the pursuit of freedom.

Real tolerance requires it.

Yes I see what you mean about tolerance. I'm exercising an amazing amount of tolerance with your pompous horse shit right now. Requires considerable restraint.

 

[dblack]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.

Yes, I can see the sacrifices you're prepared to make on the behalf of others in the pursuit of freedom.

Real tolerance requires it.

Yes I see what you mean about tolerance. I'm exercising an amazing amount of tolerance with your pompous horse shit right now. Requires considerable restraint.

I'm impressed. You'd probably love to have me arrested for my irreverence. Good for you for resisting your base instincts!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

My rights don't have to benefit society.

Again, see gay marriage......

 

[Bush92]

The reason to repeal it is that it is redundant (Amendments already cover these areas ) and to remove it as an obstacle to race relations. Government cannot legislate better relations between races. That has to come from individuals. Because I am conservative and do not believe in government being a repressive state, allowing people personal liberty to deal with race relations is the best approach. Also, the Act is discriminatory toward small business, and in my opinion violates the 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

[Bush92]

"My rights don't have to benefit society."

But they don't have to supersede the common law of the community or state. Your "rights" are really not "rights" when it comes to sexual proclivities. Baseline standard I'd heterosexuality. Now, Civil Rights Act violates 10th Amendment. Segregation by a business is personal choice of owner. Federal government should not go there. That's local. Now, no one should be prevented from participatory democracy and free speech or assembly.

 

[dblack]

"My rights don't have to benefit society."

But they don't have to supersede the common law of the community or state. Your "rights" are really not "rights" when it comes to sexual proclivities. Baseline standard I'd heterosexuality. Now, Civil Rights Act violates 10th Amendment. Segregation by a business is personal choice of owner. Federal government should not go there. That's local. Now, no one should be prevented from participatory democracy and free speech or assembly.

What??? WTF does the bolded sentence even mean??

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

"My rights don't have to benefit society."

But they don't have to supersede the common law of the community or state. Your "rights" are really not "rights" when it comes to sexual proclivities. Baseline standard I'd heterosexuality. Now, Civil Rights Act violates 10th Amendment. Segregation by a business is personal choice of owner. Federal government should not go there. That's local. Now, no one should be prevented from participatory democracy and free speech or assembly.

^ THIS is why I can't stand people.

Listen man, either you are for EVERYONE to have freedom, or you are for NO ONE having freedom.

It is exactly none of the government's business who I sell shit to

It is exactly none of their business who I sleep with or marry

any person who does not agree on BOTH of those issues simply isn't worth bothering with.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about being a mindless ideologue. Had I known it would upset you so much I never would have mentioned it.

Shut up, you silly ass. I see right through you. You're the sissy-ass hall monitor, the class snitch . . . teacher's pet. You're the informer, the conformist.

"Big Daddy Government, I got a boo boo."

"Big Daddy Government, make 'em stop discriminating."

LOL!

Of course, the problem with you vicious, moralizing little shrews of Neo-Fascism is your penchant for institutionalizing your jack-booted demagoguery. For all your bed wetting, you limp-wristed busy bodies truly are an existential threat to liberty.

 

[Discombobulated]

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about being a mindless ideologue. Had I known it would upset you so much I never would have mentioned it.

Shut up, you silly ass. I see right through you. You're the sissy-ass hall monitor, the class snitch . . . teacher's pet. You're the informer, the conformist.

"Big Daddy Government, I got a boo boo."

"Big Daddy Government, make 'em stop discriminating."

LOL!

Of course, the problem with you vicious, moralizing little shrews of Neo-Fascism is your penchant for institutionalizing your jack-booted demagoguery. For all your bed wetting, you limp-wristed busy bodies truly are an existential threat to liberty.

Not only are you a dull witted mindless ideologue, you're also just about as fucking stupid as you can possibly be. It must be very frustrating for you to be nearly smart enough to almost realize how ignorant you are.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about being a mindless ideologue. Had I known it would upset you so much I never would have mentioned it.

Shut up, you silly ass. I see right through you. You're the sissy-ass hall monitor, the class snitch . . . teacher's pet. You're the informer, the conformist.

"Big Daddy Government, I got a boo boo."

"Big Daddy Government, make 'em stop discriminating."

LOL!

Of course, the problem with you vicious, moralizing little shrews of Neo-Fascism is your penchant for institutionalizing your jack-booted demagoguery. For all your bed wetting, you limp-wristed busy bodies truly are an existential threat to liberty.

Not only are you a dull witted mindless ideologue, you're also just about as fucking stupid as you can possibly be. It must be very frustrating for you to be nearly smart enough to almost realize how ignorant you are.

Hey Discombobulated, tell us more about how you don't have any idiotology, err I mean ideology.

You are a fool

 

[Discombobulated]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

My rights don't have to benefit society.

Again, see gay marriage......

Your rights? Who said anything about your rights? We're talking about the rights of everyone, not just your narrow interests.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Let me reiterate that for you since you're having such a hard time understanding.

Any and all ideology is designed for the benefit of weak minded, easily manipulated fools who don't want to think for themselves. When in doubt dimwits like you can always fall back on your superficial ideology....spares you the effort required for actual thought.

Reiterate this up your ass, punk. You don't fly anywhere near the atltitude of my intellect and learning, and you're about as original as a cardboard box. We're still waiting for you to tell us how discrimination, in and of itself, is evil. But you don't have an answer, because you're just one-trick pony sloganeering your way through life.

Dimwit, liberety and tolerance presuppose ideoligcal discrimination and dissent. Only retards, the very worst kind of ideologues, by the way, those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, don't know that.

For example, only mindless thought cops and petty little pricks in soiled panties would write the following:

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford. --Discombobulated​

No, you relativist punk, you don't instruct me. I'll instruct you. This is you all day long, Mr. Neo-Fascist:

Yet the liberal obsession with 'academic freedom" seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has 'full freedom' in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever 'free' from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of "academic freedom"?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of 'academic justice. When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly...

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?... When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." The Doctrine of Academic Freedom Opinion The Harvard Crimson
​

Yeah. And you think that makes sense, don't you? YOU FRIGGIN' MORON, we know all about punks like you. You're nothing new. You're refried beans, a tune as old as time.

And this is you: Why liberals hate freedom of speech

I'm sorry you're so sensitive about being a mindless ideologue. Had I known it would upset you so much I never would have mentioned it.

Shut up, you silly ass. I see right through you. You're the sissy-ass hall monitor, the class snitch . . . teacher's pet. You're the informer, the conformist.

"Big Daddy Government, I got a boo boo."

"Big Daddy Government, make 'em stop discriminating."

LOL!

Of course, the problem with you vicious, moralizing little shrews of Neo-Fascism is your penchant for institutionalizing your jack-booted demagoguery. For all your bed wetting, you limp-wristed busy bodies truly are an existential threat to liberty.

Here's another thing I don't understand

Who exactly walks into a business and is told "I don't want your money"

and runs to a lawyer to FORCE them to take their money?

I walk into a store and they even ACT like they don't want to earn my money, I go somewhere that does. I guess when you don't EARN your money you just aren't careful about where you spend it.

 

[Discombobulated]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.

Yes, I can see the sacrifices you're prepared to make on the behalf of others in the pursuit of freedom.

Real tolerance requires it.

Yes I see what you mean about tolerance. I'm exercising an amazing amount of tolerance with your pompous horse shit right now. Requires considerable restraint.

I'm impressed. You'd probably love to have me arrested for my irreverence. Good for you for resisting your base instincts!

Why do all you racist assholes respond with the same knee jerk horse shit? Do you all read from the same script? Are you all equally fucking stupid?

 

[dblack]

If the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were repealed...does anyone REALLY think we would go back to segregation...or has society reached a point where it is now an unnecessary part of the past that only serves to divide people more? Example: Civil Rights Division of Justice Department that operates with complete disregard for the law.

So back to OP. What was the compelling reason again to repeal the civil rights act? I never did hear that part.

From my perspective, the compelling reason to repeal parts of it - namely the public accommodations nonsense and idea of 'protected classes' - is because they set dangerous precedent and violate fundamental principles of American government (equal protection and freedom of association). Racial discrimination was a real problem, and still is, but these provisions are a cure worse than the disease.

So then from your perspective having a society where it's legal for a business to discriminate against people based on their blackness sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with someone else against their will, no matter how inane their reasons.

What is the important principle at stake here? Please don't tell me it's about individual freedoms, because that's just a subterfuge for racist hatred and bigotry......personal luxuries our society can't afford.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it IS about individual freedom. Freedom is always attacked at its ugly edges. Freedom of speech is attacked via pornography, freedom of religion via unpopular 'cults', etc... Liberals used to get this. They used to understand that preserving freedom for everyone, meant preserving the freedom even of those with unsavory views and habits. But things have changed, and these days liberalism has a distinctly authoritarian vibe to it. It's more about forcing conformity than preserving individual freedom. And that sucks.

Yes I see, the personal freedom to hate and discriminate against black folks. Sounds like something that will have real benefits for our society and enhance personal freedom for all Americans.

Yeah. It goes hand in hand with the freedom to think for yourself, to choose who you live with, who you work with and who you choose to avoid. Some people won't use that freedom in ways you approve of, but a free and tolerant nation protects that kind of liberty, even when it's inconvenient.

Yes, I can see the sacrifices you're prepared to make on the behalf of others in the pursuit of freedom.

Real tolerance requires it.

Yes I see what you mean about tolerance. I'm exercising an amazing amount of tolerance with your pompous horse shit right now. Requires considerable restraint.

I'm impressed. You'd probably love to have me arrested for my irreverence. Good for you for resisting your base instincts!

Why do all you racist assholes respond with the same knee jerk horse shit? Do you all read from the same script? Are you all equally fucking stupid?

I'm not a racist. But you've made clear what you are.

 

[Discombobulated]

I would love to see one of these fucking retards elucidate the tangible benefits of repealing the Civil Rights Act with something besides the rhetorical dog shit I've heard so far.

 

[Discombobulated]

Of course I already know what the benefits are for people like that........de facto segregation. That's the goal.