Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think that PC has been politically weaponized over the last 20, 30 years. Our culture is so hyper-sensitive to being "offended" or "offending" at this point, and so ready to attack and issue "consequences" for speech we don't like, that it is simply not comparable to the way things used to be.I'm just pointing out the behavior.Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.
PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.
That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.
You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.
And you think this is a new thing? Galileo spoke out against the teachings of the Medici and died a broken man….the Vatican apologized quickly; in 1992. Somehow blaming American liberals in the 2000 for something that dates back 500+ years (at least) is pretty lame.
.
Okay...but at what point does "behavior" become human nature? I mean, the stuff in Italy was 500 years ago. Doesn't make it right--I see your point-- but I can't help but think that after 5 centuries (and I could probably search and find examples still older of those imprisoned for their beliefs) we can chalk it up to not exactly being a new phenomenon.
He quit, even though the board of directors stood up for him. He is now the CEO of another company. The entire thing was probably his BS way of getting out of Mozilla as his business methods weren't approved of. Sucks to be you!That's on him. He obviously can't handle criticism.What are the consequences of having those opinions? Many do, none are in danger of getting fired, jailed, etc. So what are the consequences? Someone thinks you're a dweeb?Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?
Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
Suck it, Trebek.
Bullshit.
"Ever" and "never" in the same post.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?
This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.
You choose to issue consequences.
.
Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.
Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?
You have the right to say anything.Well, that's an odd view.Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.
PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.
That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.
You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.
If we have the right to free speech then are punished by some social code or another person's definition of what is not free speech, then there is no free speech.
I am well aware that the right to free speech is not absolute. However when those with a political agenda use the threat of sanctions either via employer action or force of government to quash the rights of those with which they do not agree or more accurately, those that refuse to agree with them, we have no free speech.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that has decided to take it upon itself to intimidate you from saying something they don't like, using anything from personal to professional destruction.
That doesn't mean your right has been taken away. It simply means that they have weaponized their own freedom of speech.
.
Thanks captain pretentious.In regards to you it is.Pretentiousness is a classic sign of a less than average IQ.Thinks!?
As I said to others, my IQ vs. yours, any day of the week, any hour of the day, any minute of an hour.
You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.
Again, not when you are the one bringing it up by questioning my intelligence. If I just brought it up out of the blue, you may have had a point, but considering you are the one bringing it into question, any retort is justified and should even be expected.
My problem is with the way people choose to behave. They choose to issue consequences, they don't have to.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
I will agree with you Mac (this one time) that "Political correctness" is not a constitutional issue. The government isn't stifling speech so there is no Constitutional issue and that it is a cultural issue, if any.
However, being "Politically correct" is an exercise of their 1st amendment rights as well. However, people want to silence their speech as well. So, it's not like your side is benevolent in all of this.
Your frustration is the power that these "PC/SJW" actually have. Is it formal powers? Nope. But power is just the ability to coerce someone to do something that they would not normally do. Let's use an example of purchasing/economic power.
If people boycott Kohl's because of their relationship of Trump, Kohl's loses money and customers. These people are using their economic power to not shop at Kohl's. No one is forced to shop at Kohl's but people can voice their concerns to Kohl's. The idea is to get Kohl's to not endorse someone that group believes is a bad person.
However, it doesn't always work (Chick Fil-a) for example but if the economic power of boycotting outweighs the economic power of people supporting, companies will end their relationship. Chick Fil-A didn't work because it is in the South mostly and they are in agreement that Gay marriage is horrible.
Ah, and you're in charge of determining what is "offensive".You have the right to say anything.Well, that's an odd view.Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.
PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.
That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.
You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.
If we have the right to free speech then are punished by some social code or another person's definition of what is not free speech, then there is no free speech.
I am well aware that the right to free speech is not absolute. However when those with a political agenda use the threat of sanctions either via employer action or force of government to quash the rights of those with which they do not agree or more accurately, those that refuse to agree with them, we have no free speech.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that has decided to take it upon itself to intimidate you from saying something they don't like, using anything from personal to professional destruction.
That doesn't mean your right has been taken away. It simply means that they have weaponized their own freedom of speech.
.
Not sure what your point is. Do you think speech should have consequences or not? If you don't like being told that you are offensive, then quit being offensive. Problem solved.
In regards to you it is.Pretentiousness is a classic sign of a less than average IQ.
You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.
Again, not when you are the one bringing it up by questioning my intelligence. If I just brought it up out of the blue, you may have had a point, but considering you are the one bringing it into question, any retort is justified and should even be expected.
Can you say "reduced to nitpicking" ?
Can you say bite me?
When I see the hardcore Left here and elsewhere exhibiting good manners, I'll think about taking that silliness REMOTELY seriously.Bravo.The loudest supporters of free speech tend to be the people who want to shout down any opinion that they dont agree with.
PC is just good manners and a bit of sensitivity. As such it is a bit of a problem for some.
"Ever" and "never" in the same post.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?
This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.
You choose to issue consequences.
.
Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.
Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?
So you don't believe in a private businesses right to run it as they see fit?
Rape? Talk about non sequitur...
Thanks captain pretentious.In regards to you it is.Pretentiousness is a classic sign of a less than average IQ.As I said to others, my IQ vs. yours, any day of the week, any hour of the day, any minute of an hour.
You are the one who questioned my ability to think, and I answered. A Retort is not pretentiousness.
Constantly pointing out how smart you believe you are is the definition of pretentious.
Again, not when you are the one bringing it up by questioning my intelligence. If I just brought it up out of the blue, you may have had a point, but considering you are the one bringing it into question, any retort is justified and should even be expected.
Only if it's truly a private business."Ever" and "never" in the same post.Political Correctness is not a constitutional issue, it's a cultural issue.
The PC Police aren't robbing you of your right to speak freely. What they have done instead is create a culture of intimidation and "consequences" for anyone who says anything they don't like. Does that work against the spirit of freedom of speech? Yes. But it's not about the Constitution.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" is not on their minds. They want to shut you up, and they'll find a way to do it.
.
Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?
This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.
You choose to issue consequences.
.
Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.
Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?
So you don't believe in a private businesses right to run it as they see fit?
Rape? Talk about non sequitur...
Ah, and you're in charge of determining what is "offensive".You have the right to say anything.Well, that's an odd view.Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.Aren't you citing a distinction without a difference? "Intimidation" can be as potent a weapon against free speech as a loaded gun is during a robbery. Do you think that "protesters" who disrupt or prevent those with opposing views from speaking is merely a cultural issue? That argument itself is a demonstration of how PC is robbing us of our First Amendment rights.
PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.
That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.
You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.
If we have the right to free speech then are punished by some social code or another person's definition of what is not free speech, then there is no free speech.
I am well aware that the right to free speech is not absolute. However when those with a political agenda use the threat of sanctions either via employer action or force of government to quash the rights of those with which they do not agree or more accurately, those that refuse to agree with them, we have no free speech.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that has decided to take it upon itself to intimidate you from saying something they don't like, using anything from personal to professional destruction.
That doesn't mean your right has been taken away. It simply means that they have weaponized their own freedom of speech.
.
Not sure what your point is. Do you think speech should have consequences or not? If you don't like being told that you are offensive, then quit being offensive. Problem solved.
And you'll try to issue consequences if I don't agree with your definition.
That's my point. Right there.
.
It's not spin, look it up.He quit, even though the board of directors stood up for him. He is now the CEO of another company. The entire thing was probably his BS way of getting out of Mozilla as his business methods weren't approved of. Sucks to be you!That's on him. He obviously can't handle criticism.What are the consequences of having those opinions? Many do, none are in danger of getting fired, jailed, etc. So what are the consequences? Someone thinks you're a dweeb?
Mozilla CEO resigns, opposition to gay marriage drew fire
Suck it, Trebek.
Bullshit.
Figures you would spin it that way.
Only if it's truly a private business."Ever" and "never" in the same post.Has there ever been a time when there was no consequence to what anyone said? Do you think it would be better if there was never any consequence to a persons words?
This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.
You choose to issue consequences.
.
Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.
Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?
So you don't believe in a private businesses right to run it as they see fit?
Rape? Talk about non sequitur...
Any business that serves the public is not private.
It's not spin, look it up.He quit, even though the board of directors stood up for him. He is now the CEO of another company. The entire thing was probably his BS way of getting out of Mozilla as his business methods weren't approved of. Sucks to be you!That's on him. He obviously can't handle criticism.
Bullshit.
Figures you would spin it that way.
And I wouldn't think of issuing consequences if you said something I didn't like.Ah, and you're in charge of determining what is "offensive".You have the right to say anything.Well, that's an odd view.Protesters who shout you down aren't taking away your rights. You can keep talking, even if no one can hear you.
PC Police who get you fired for "offending" them aren't taking away your rights. You can say whatever you want and suffer the consequences.
That's the difference. You can say anything you want. Your rights are secure. It's what they then do to you that matters. Yes, that's clearly against the spirit of Freedom of Speech, agreed. But what they are doing is not unconstitutional.
You wouldn't do that to them. I wouldn't do that to them. They have no such standards.
.
If we have the right to free speech then are punished by some social code or another person's definition of what is not free speech, then there is no free speech.
I am well aware that the right to free speech is not absolute. However when those with a political agenda use the threat of sanctions either via employer action or force of government to quash the rights of those with which they do not agree or more accurately, those that refuse to agree with them, we have no free speech.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that has decided to take it upon itself to intimidate you from saying something they don't like, using anything from personal to professional destruction.
That doesn't mean your right has been taken away. It simply means that they have weaponized their own freedom of speech.
.
Not sure what your point is. Do you think speech should have consequences or not? If you don't like being told that you are offensive, then quit being offensive. Problem solved.
And you'll try to issue consequences if I don't agree with your definition.
That's my point. Right there.
.
Yes. I am in charge of what is offensive.....for me. Just as you are in charge of that decision for you.
And I wouldn't think of issuing consequences if you said something I didn't like.Ah, and you're in charge of determining what is "offensive".You have the right to say anything.Well, that's an odd view.
If we have the right to free speech then are punished by some social code or another person's definition of what is not free speech, then there is no free speech.
I am well aware that the right to free speech is not absolute. However when those with a political agenda use the threat of sanctions either via employer action or force of government to quash the rights of those with which they do not agree or more accurately, those that refuse to agree with them, we have no free speech.
Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that has decided to take it upon itself to intimidate you from saying something they don't like, using anything from personal to professional destruction.
That doesn't mean your right has been taken away. It simply means that they have weaponized their own freedom of speech.
.
Not sure what your point is. Do you think speech should have consequences or not? If you don't like being told that you are offensive, then quit being offensive. Problem solved.
And you'll try to issue consequences if I don't agree with your definition.
That's my point. Right there.
.
Yes. I am in charge of what is offensive.....for me. Just as you are in charge of that decision for you.
Too bad that courtesy won't be returned.
.
Only if it's truly a private business."Ever" and "never" in the same post.
This is how you folks handle this. You drag it down to the absurd in an effort to deflect.
You choose to issue consequences.
.
Because the subject is absurd. There are always consequences to anything that is said. You whine about political correctness when what you really want is to deny free speech to people who disagree with your dumb remarks. Say what you want, but you have to expect what ever consequences.arise from what you say.
Why should there be "consequences", including and up to losing your job just for saying you think marriage should be between a man and a woman? Why should there be "consequences" just because you think illegal immigrants should be deported? Why should there be "consequences" because you think random college hookups between drunk people is not automatically rape if the woman decides later she doesn't like what happened?
So you don't believe in a private businesses right to run it as they see fit?
Rape? Talk about non sequitur...
Any business that serves the public is not private.
Seawytch is trying to get me into a trap about my concerns over businesses being forced to "bake or die".
This is actually two separate issues, one being government coercion and the other being coercion by the people.
