Its Okay To Be White trends on twitter

[XponentialChaos]

I'm fine with institutions removing people who spread hate like this guy did.

So you agree that burning the American flag is hateful expression and should be banned, right?

Absolutely not.

However, an employer, school, or other institution should be able to remove someone for doing so.

 

[K9Buck]

Absolutely not.

However, an employer, school, or other institution should be able to remove someone for doing so.

Should an employer be able to fire a black employee for wearing a "black" hairstyle that the employer dislikes?

 

[XponentialChaos]

...he can find an institution willing to put up with his statements.

Universities used to be bastions of free speech - and then the left took over.

Yea? Maybe you should try spreading white supremacist messages with your employer and see how that goes. I'd be curious about the outcome.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Absolutely not.

However, an employer, school, or other institution should be able to remove someone for doing so.

Should an employer be able to fire a black employee for wearing a "black" hairstyle that the employer dislikes?

Hmmm, I think it would be perfectly legal since hairstyle isn't a protected class.

They could probably put something together about hygiene (like in a kitchen or something) or professional appearance. It would most likely receive heavy backlash from the work environment, but I think it would legally be acceptable.

 

[satrebil]

If the phrase has that much history with racism, I don't see a problem with the dean's actions. I'm sure you'll disagree. If I were you, I would try to distance yourself from white supremacist hate groups. The backlash is clearly because of them, not because of being white.

Does "it's okay to be black" have a history of being spread by racist hate groups? If not, then my guess is that the student would not be expelled. But that's just a guess since I haven't heard of such a thing happening. Frankly, I think it would be stupid regardless of the outcome.

Yes, I disagree with the dean. I support the concept of free expression, even expression that I find repugnant.

What other forms of expression do you want to ban?

I don't want anything banned, but I'm fine with institutions removing people who spread hate like this guy did.

He can spread his white supremacist shit all he wants. And he can face the consequences for doing it. These kinds of things have a way of sorting themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

"I don't want anything banned but it's totally fine to ban this guy."

View attachment 298819

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How about that play they did in NYC a few years back where President Trump was stabbed to death on a nightly basis? Do you agree that it an expression of hate and should be banned?

How about George Lppez? He offered on Instagram to assassinate the president. Instagram did nothing. Do you agree that Lopez' statement was hateful and that he should be banned?

Both of those should be banned in my opinion.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If the phrase has that much history with racism, I don't see a problem with the dean's actions. I'm sure you'll disagree. If I were you, I would try to distance yourself from white supremacist hate groups. The backlash is clearly because of them, not because of being white.

Does "it's okay to be black" have a history of being spread by racist hate groups? If not, then my guess is that the student would not be expelled. But that's just a guess since I haven't heard of such a thing happening. Frankly, I think it would be stupid regardless of the outcome.

Yes, I disagree with the dean. I support the concept of free expression, even expression that I find repugnant.

What other forms of expression do you want to ban?

I don't want anything banned, but I'm fine with institutions removing people who spread hate like this guy did.

He can spread his white supremacist shit all he wants. And he can face the consequences for doing it. These kinds of things have a way of sorting themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

"I don't want anything banned but it's totally fine to ban this guy."

View attachment 298819

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

First Amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from prohibiting free speech.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

 

[satrebil]

How about that play they did in NYC a few years back where President Trump was stabbed to death on a nightly basis? Do you agree that it an expression of hate and should be banned?

How about George Lppez? He offered on Instagram to assassinate the president. Instagram did nothing. Do you agree that Lopez' statement was hateful and that he should be banned?

Both of those should be banned in my opinion.

The play is freedom of expression. George Lopez offer of assassination was clearly in jest, but borderline.

 

[satrebil]

Yes, I disagree with the dean. I support the concept of free expression, even expression that I find repugnant.

What other forms of expression do you want to ban?

I don't want anything banned, but I'm fine with institutions removing people who spread hate like this guy did.

He can spread his white supremacist shit all he wants. And he can face the consequences for doing it. These kinds of things have a way of sorting themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

"I don't want anything banned but it's totally fine to ban this guy."

View attachment 298819

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don't want anything banned, but I'm fine with institutions removing people who spread hate like this guy did.

He can spread his white supremacist shit all he wants. And he can face the consequences for doing it. These kinds of things have a way of sorting themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

"I don't want anything banned but it's totally fine to ban this guy."

View attachment 298819

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

They're pissing in the face of something that doesn't apply to them. Neat.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How about that play they did in NYC a few years back where President Trump was stabbed to death on a nightly basis? Do you agree that it an expression of hate and should be banned?

How about George Lppez? He offered on Instagram to assassinate the president. Instagram did nothing. Do you agree that Lopez' statement was hateful and that he should be banned?

Both of those should be banned in my opinion.

The play is freedom of expression. George Lopez offer of assassination was clearly in jest, but borderline.

Just my opinion from what I read. I'd think that it could easily be construed as a threat, which is illegal.

I'd have to look into more of the details to give a better answer.

 

[satrebil]

"I don't want anything banned but it's totally fine to ban this guy."

View attachment 298819

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

They're pissing in the face of something that doesn't apply to them. Neat.

No, they're pissing the face of something they literally exist to defend. Derp.

 

[bluzman61]

I don't want anything banned, but I'm fine with institutions removing people who spread hate like this guy did.

He can spread his white supremacist shit all he wants. And he can face the consequences for doing it. These kinds of things have a way of sorting themselves out as far as I'm concerned.

"I don't want anything banned but it's totally fine to ban this guy."

View attachment 298819

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

Comprehension is NOT their strong suit. They appear to be QUITE dim, judging from the lack of intellect in their responses. Thank you.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

The government can't restrict what he says. His employer or school can implement consequences for things that reflect poorly on them.

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

They're pissing in the face of something that doesn't apply to them. Neat.

No, they're pissing the face of something they literally exist to defend. Derp.

They.
Aren't.
The.
Government.

I think we're done here.

 

[satrebil]

Sure they can. But I'm also free to point out the irony of a law school essentially pissing in the face of the First Amendment over a completely benign statement.

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

They're pissing in the face of something that doesn't apply to them. Neat.

No, they're pissing the face of something they literally exist to defend. Derp.

They.
Aren't.
The.
Government.

I think we're done here.

Jesus Christ.
Nobody is disputing that they aren't the government you idiot. I/we are pointing out the hypocrisy of a fucking LAW SCHOOL expelling someone because they disagree with their speech.

If you can't see the colossal elephant in the room named "conflict of interest", I can't help you.

 

[K9Buck]

Yea? Maybe you should try spreading white supremacist messages with your employer and see how that goes. I'd be curious about the outcome.

No reasonable employer would fire anyone for saying "It's ok to be white" or "It's ok to be black".

 

[K9Buck]

Hmmm, I think it would be perfectly legal since hairstyle isn't a protected class.

They could probably put something together about hygiene (like in a kitchen or something) or professional appearance. It would most likely receive heavy backlash from the work environment, but I think it would legally be acceptable.

There is an effort by some lawmakers to make it illegal to ban certain "black" hairstyles. It's refreshing to hear that you support an employer's right to establish their own guidelines for acceptable hair styles at work.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The law school isn't the government.

First Amendment doesn't apply.

I'm not going to explain this to you again.

No shit sherlock. Now read what I said again and actually comprehend it.

They're pissing in the face of something that doesn't apply to them. Neat.

No, they're pissing the face of something they literally exist to defend. Derp.

They.
Aren't.
The.
Government.

I think we're done here.

Jesus Christ.
Nobody is disputing that they aren't the government you idiot. I/we are pointing out the hypocrisy of a fucking LAW SCHOOL expelling someone because they disagree with their speech.

If you can't see the colossal elephant in the room named "conflict of interest", I can't help you.

A university has the right to punish people for their speech.

The government does not have the right to punish people for their speech.

There is no conflict of interest, you fucking moron.

 

[K9Buck]

First Amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from prohibiting free speech.

The left would love to modify that amendment. Perhaps you've noticed that, where the left has control, freedom of expression is absent.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yea? Maybe you should try spreading white supremacist messages with your employer and see how that goes. I'd be curious about the outcome.

No reasonable employer would fire anyone for saying "It's ok to be white" or "It's ok to be black".

Try spreading white supremacist messages at your presumably non-leftist employer and let me know what happens. Let us know if your employer is a bastion of free speech.