Muzzling Opposing Voices

[Unkotare]

No need to. I know Americans are generally stupid.

You've only demonstrated that description applies to yourself, personally.

Not in the slightest.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Unkotare]

The fact is most of them don't have the brains God gave a goat never occurs to them.

That would mean they have five to ten times the brains you do. Go take an English course, dimwit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fact that most of them don't have the brains God gave a goat never occurs to them.

That would mean they have five to ten times the brains you do. Go take an English course, dimwit.

Fixed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You've only demonstrated that description applies to yourself, personally.

Not in the slightest.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Your opinion concerns me not in the slightest. I expect the stupid to reject me, just as you do, which makes you one of them.

 

[Unkotare]

Not in the slightest.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Your opinion concerns me not in the slightest.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to someone with your limitations.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Your opinion concerns me not in the slightest.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to someone with your limitations.

No, but it should be to yours.

Go and play now. TY...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly, and character assassination of the living and of the dead.

You mean like "callous conservatives"?

I never have and never will censor callous conservatives, nor have I engaged in calumny; every thing I post demeaning callous conservatives is based on the evidence they have supplied in their posts. In fact most callous conservatives are proud of their ideology, "I got mine, screw the rest of you".

And with good reason – private citizens lack the authority to ‘censor’ anything; only the state has the authority to censor, which is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness.’

 

[Unkotare]

Your opinion concerns me not in the slightest.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to someone with your limitations.

No, but it should be to yours....

Very creative, moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You mean like "callous conservatives"?

I never have and never will censor callous conservatives, nor have I engaged in calumny; every thing I post demeaning callous conservatives is based on the evidence they have supplied in their posts. In fact most callous conservatives are proud of their ideology, "I got mine, screw the rest of you".

And with good reason – private citizens lack the authority to ‘censor’ anything; only the state has the authority to censor, which is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness.’

PC is me not calling you a moron for not understanding what PC means.

 

[Unkotare]

I never have and never will censor callous conservatives, nor have I engaged in calumny; every thing I post demeaning callous conservatives is based on the evidence they have supplied in their posts. In fact most callous conservatives are proud of their ideology, "I got mine, screw the rest of you".

And with good reason – private citizens lack the authority to ‘censor’ anything; only the state has the authority to censor, which is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness.’

PC is me not calling you a moron for not understand [sic] what PC means.

About that remedial English class...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And with good reason – private citizens lack the authority to ‘censor’ anything; only the state has the authority to censor, which is why there is no such thing as ‘political correctness.’

PC is me not calling you a moron for not understand [sic] what PC means.

About that remedial English class...

I type quickly, and often. Deal with it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mozilla had the right morally, ethically, and legally to tell the CEO to shut up or get out. He chose the latter: his right to do so.

Far right wing nuts, particularly the social religious conservatives, are doing their best to shut down criticism of them.

Not surprising. The criticism is just.

Characterization is your forte? Everybody just shut the fuck up. If the right is nuts the left is nuts too. That's why we should all shut the fuck up. amirite.

^lol

^^ Both sides need to yell as loud as they can.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mozilla had the right morally, ethically, and legally to tell the CEO to shut up or get out. He chose the latter: his right to do so.

Far right wing nuts, particularly the social religious conservatives, are doing their best to shut down criticism of them.

Not surprising. The criticism is just.

Jake, I don't think even you believe what you just posted.

First, the CEO has legal standing to sue for wrongful termination. You cannot fire someone for having an opinion. He can also bring up charges of collusion against the board. You cannot pressure someone to leave for having a mere opinion. It would be like me being banned for no reason here because my views didn't match those of the authorities.

And we aren't shutting down anyone. WE are being shut down, from freely expressing ourselves. So, the man could say he supported gay marriage, and nobody would have been the wiser. He takes the opposite stance and he is run out of town. Just who do liberals think they are? This is supposed to be a land of ideas and expression, Jake.

You fought for freedom, not for oppression. And yet here you are clearly advocating it at the hands of self righteous gay rights activists. It takes a pretty blind person-- or a willfully ignorant one, to not acknowledge the bullying and subversion of ideas and opinion being enacted on people with a simple opinion they disagree with. Why must people get away with crushing dissent? Hmm?

Don't ever think you have the moral or ethical qualification to inventory my service. You are still young enough to enlist.

Corporations can limit speech, and can discipline their people for public language and behavior that violates contractual clauses or company image and standard.

A corporation can decide to defend self righteous far right Christian attitudes or not, as the corporation decides. Or LGBT.

You need to study the Constitution again, its history, and the development of case law on business and worker reciprocal relationship.

You don't like a corporation's stance, punish it economically.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘PC’ is a contrivance of the right, a partisan myth they trot out whenever their agenda of ignorance and hate is subject to criticism.

And when private citizens in the context of private society reject the conservative agenda of ignorance and hate, conservatives make unfounded, inane claims of being ‘oppressed,’ ‘silenced,’ or ‘muzzled,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth – as private citizens and private society lack the authority and means to do any of the above.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...the CEO has legal standing to sue for wrongful termination.

Wrong.

A CEO who resigns has no ‘legal standing’ to sue.

You’re as ignorant of the facts of this case as you are of the law in general.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Time and again, this essential truth about comes up: Liberalism is about closing down debate, shutting up opposing voices, slandering any with opposing ideas.

It's euphemistically known as "political correctness."





1. The feelings-based nature of liberalism helps explain why people on the Left are much more likely to claim to be “offended” when faced with which they differ. Not, ‘I disagree,” but “I am offended!”

When are people ‘offended’? When their feelings are hurt.

A pro-choice woman is ‘offended’ by the pro-life position, ostensibly because her feelings are more worthwhile than the objective worth of a human fetus.
‘Political correctness’ is also based on not hurting people’s feelings.
Complaint about Senator Joseph McCarthy often center around how abusive he was to communists….again, feelings.
Dennis Prager






And now, this:

2. "Hypersensitive students and professors all over the country are about to score another victory for political correctness if they succeed in their mission to normalize the use of “trigger warnings,” which are intended to protect people from taking part in class discussions and media that might offend them.

3. Trigger warnings are most commonly attached to online news ....warn readers that the post contains specific, offensive content. An article about sexual violence, for instance, might come with a trigger warning for rape victims.

4. ...censorship-inclined activists are now eager to force professors to attach trigger warnings to their syllabi.

“Some students and professors argue that nearly everything should come with a trigger warning,” wrote Laurie Essig, a professor of psychology at Middlebury College and a contributor to the Chronicle of Higher Education.

a. The Great Gatsby? Trigger warning: suicide, domestic abuse, graphic violence.





5. ....“by creating trigger warnings for their students, professors can help to create a safe space for their students — one that fosters positive and compassionate intellectual discussion within the collegiate classroom.”

6. Students at the University of California-Santa Barbara are doing their best to make their PC dreams a reality. The student government passed a resolution that urged administrators to adopt mandatory trigger warnings as official university policy last month.

7. ....some liberals are condemning it in no uncertain terms. The Nation’s Michelle Goldberg called the pro-censorship agenda of the PC crowd “left-wing anti-liberalism,”:

"In the 1960s, longtime socialist intellectuals were horrified by the anarchic energies of the new left. Then some of those new leftists reached middle age and watched, aghast, as new speech codes proliferated on college campuses during the first iteration of political correctness. I was in college then and am now in my thirties, which means it’s my turn to be dismayed by a growing left-wing tendency towards censoriousness and hair-trigger offense."
Trigger warnings: New wave of political correctness hits campuses | The Daily Caller







8. "Oberlin College has published an official document on triggers, advising faculty members to "be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression," to remove triggering material when it doesn't "directly" contribute to learning goals....

a. Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart," it states, is a novel that may "trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more."

9. What began as a way of moderating Internet forums for the vulnerable and mentally ill now threatens to define public discussion both online and off. The trigger warning signals not only the growing precautionary approach to words and ideas in the university, but a wider cultural hypersensitivity to harm and a paranoia about giving offense.

10. Trigger warnings are presented as a gesture of empathy, but the irony is they lead only to more solipsism, an over-preoccupation with one’s own feelings—much to the detriment of society as a whole."
Trigger Warnings Have Spread from Blogs to College Classes. That's Bad | New Republic






Liberals should take the warning in Oscar Wilde's famous 'two tragedies'

“There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.”

Muzzling opposing voices and now trying to get anyone fired who disagrees with you as well.

Purge the Bigots

Brendan Eich quits Mozilla: Let?s purge all the anti-gay donors to Prop 8.

But, hey, why not elect a president ( Obama) who believed the SAME way Eich did in 2008 the same year Eich made the donation! But we will get some guy fired and hope to fire thousands more! Hypocrites.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Mozilla had the right morally, ethically, and legally to tell the CEO to shut up or get out. He chose the latter: his right to do so.

Far right wing nuts, particularly the social religious conservatives, are doing their best to shut down criticism of them.

Not surprising. The criticism is just.

Jake, I don't think even you believe what you just posted.

First, the CEO has legal standing to sue for wrongful termination. You cannot fire someone for having an opinion. He can also bring up charges of collusion against the board. You cannot pressure someone to leave for having a mere opinion. It would be like me being banned for no reason here because my views didn't match those of the authorities.

And we aren't shutting down anyone. WE are being shut down, from freely expressing ourselves. So, the man could say he supported gay marriage, and nobody would have been the wiser. He takes the opposite stance and he is run out of town. Just who do liberals think they are? This is supposed to be a land of ideas and expression, Jake.

You fought for freedom, not for oppression. And yet here you are clearly advocating it at the hands of self righteous gay rights activists. It takes a pretty blind person-- or a willfully ignorant one, to not acknowledge the bullying and subversion of ideas and opinion being enacted on people with a simple opinion they disagree with. Why must people get away with crushing dissent? Hmm?

Don't ever think you have the moral or ethical qualification to inventory my service. You are still young enough to enlist.

Corporations can limit speech, and can discipline their people for public language and behavior that violates contractual clauses or company image and standard.

A corporation can decide to defend self righteous far right Christian attitudes or not, as the corporation decides. Or LGBT.

You need to study the Constitution again, its history, and the development of case law on business and worker reciprocal relationship.

You don't like a corporation's stance, punish it economically.

Don't ever think you have the moral or ethical qualification to inventory my service. You are still young enough to enlist.

Jake, I know what my father fought for, I know what generations of soldiers in my family fought for. Freedom. That means the freedom to have an opinion among other things. I have the moral and ethical standing to question a soldier who believes people with certain opinions should be suppressed. You set standards for yourself that I will judge you by. Oppression is not why you donned your Battle Dress Uniform and took up your arms, Jake. If you fought for oppression, then you enlisted for the wrong reason, sir.

Corporations can limit speech, and can discipline their people for public language and behavior that violates contractual clauses or company image and standard.

Corporations can be sued for limiting speech, Jake. You cannot fire someone for having an opinion outside of the workplace.

A corporation can decide to defend self righteous far right Christian attitudes or not, as the corporation decides. Or LGBT.

See my previous response. That is oppressive behavior. Think of all the people in corporations across America who have donated to anti gay causes, and specifically Prop 8? You don't see any of them being ousted, do you?

You need to study the Constitution again, its history, and the development of case law on business and worker reciprocal relationship.

Actually, I don't need to do any such thing, Jake. In fact, as an aspiring paralegal, I do believe I have a superior perspective on the law and of the constitution than you do. I've read both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I've read the pros and cons of the US Constitution laid out by both sides of the Constitutional Convention at the time. I've studied the histories of all 27 amendments.

Eich could have brought up a case to the NLRB in California.

California prohibits adverse action against an employee based on political expression and/or lawful, off-duty activity. Given that Eich was being paid and employed by Mozilla, such averse reaction can be seen as unlawful. If an employer is doing business in a state with such a law, it cannot discharge an employee for the employee’s speech or conduct outside of the workplace even of it conflicts with the employer’s culture, values, or policies.

The donation, and thus his speech was outside of the corporation's control.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Here's what is deliciously ironic about the attempted denial that PC even exists:

It avoids discussion about a tactic often used to avoid discussion.

Fabulous!

And, as a public service, here's a little reminder of some examples of PC:

1. Screaming "racist" at every opportunity (or any other "-ist", for that matter)
2. Participation ribbons (to avoid "hurt feelings")
3. Hyphenated Americans
4. Changing words because someone claims to be "offended" (too many examples to list, but we all know what they are)
5. Trying to ban words so that no one claims to be "offended"
6. Lowering standards so that "feelings" aren't "hurt"
7. Trying to get someone fired for using a word or phrase that might "offend"

You're welcome!



.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

Here's what is deliciously ironic about the attempted denial that PC even exists:

It avoids discussion about a tactic often used to avoid discussion.

Fabulous!

And, as a public service, here's a little reminder of some examples of PC:

1. Screaming "racist" at every opportunity (or any other "-ist", for that matter)
2. Participation ribbons (to avoid "hurt feelings")
3. Hyphenated Americans
4. Changing words because someone claims to be "offended" (too many examples to list, but we all know what they are)
5. Trying to ban words so that no one claims to be "offended"
6. Lowering standards so that "feelings" aren't "hurt"
7. Trying to get someone fired for using a word or phrase that might "offend"

You're welcome!



.

PC is about words, that's all. Someone not saying what they really mean. like most here who use low-information black voters when what they mean is stupid ******* who vote for free stuff down on the old Democratic Plantation.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Here's what is deliciously ironic about the attempted denial that PC even exists:

It avoids discussion about a tactic often used to avoid discussion.

Fabulous!

And, as a public service, here's a little reminder of some examples of PC:

1. Screaming "racist" at every opportunity (or any other "-ist", for that matter)
2. Participation ribbons (to avoid "hurt feelings")
3. Hyphenated Americans
4. Changing words because someone claims to be "offended" (too many examples to list, but we all know what they are)
5. Trying to ban words so that no one claims to be "offended"
6. Lowering standards so that "feelings" aren't "hurt"
7. Trying to get someone fired for using a word or phrase that might "offend"

You're welcome!



.

PC is about words, that's all. Someone not saying what they really mean. like most here who use low-information black voters when what they mean is stupid ******* who vote for free stuff down on the old Democratic Plantation.

No, it's a tactic, a strategy. PC is a tool for controlling the conversation or avoiding a conversation. For putting your target on the defensive.

And, as I point out above, I don't expect you to admit that.

.