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.
So back to my original question... besides the cake incident (cause we already debated about that and i don't want to get off topic) what other big government laws are being unjustly pushed down our throats to force acceptance as you claim?What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.
Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.
So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?
Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.
You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.
It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.
Because laws reflect government action anything else is opinion and speech which we are free to express in this country. What specific examples are you objecting to? It feels like you are dodging the question.So back to my original question... besides the cake incident (cause we already debated about that and i don't want to get off topic) what other big government laws are being unjustly pushed down our throats to force acceptance as you claim?What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.
So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?
Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.
You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.
It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.
It's not limited to government, but just the fact that government can take sides in a case involving nothing more tangible than hurt feelings is enough to be worried about.
Why is this discussion limited to laws?
Because laws reflect government action anything else is opinion and speech which we are free to express in this country. What specific examples are you objecting to? It feels like you are dodging the question.So back to my original question... besides the cake incident (cause we already debated about that and i don't want to get off topic) what other big government laws are being unjustly pushed down our throats to force acceptance as you claim?What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?
Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.
You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.
It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.
It's not limited to government, but just the fact that government can take sides in a case involving nothing more tangible than hurt feelings is enough to be worried about.
Why is this discussion limited to laws?
Wouldn't you argue that these people and companies have the right to whine about and do anything they want? You surly wouldn't want to government to step in and prohibit them from doing so, would you?Because laws reflect government action anything else is opinion and speech which we are free to express in this country. What specific examples are you objecting to? It feels like you are dodging the question.So back to my original question... besides the cake incident (cause we already debated about that and i don't want to get off topic) what other big government laws are being unjustly pushed down our throats to force acceptance as you claim?What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?
It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.
It's not limited to government, but just the fact that government can take sides in a case involving nothing more tangible than hurt feelings is enough to be worried about.
Why is this discussion limited to laws?
Things like companies feeling they have to fire or reprimand people who hold opinions that are not considered "popular", even before any backlash could materialize. Things like cry-bullies on campus trying to stifle speech by conservative or libertarian speakers. Things like the hypocrisy of people boycotting States that even consider bathroom laws, while still dealing with countries that do far far worse to the persons in question.
All of this is the progressive's attempts to stifle things they don't like in the public forum. It isn't liberalism anymore, its authoritarian.
You must be wearing his ass out on the issue. He always deflects when he sees that he is getting his ass handed to him.What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.What else besides the cake?"bake that damn cake, peasant"
That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.
Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.
So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?
Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.
You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.
Wouldn't you argue that these people and companies have the right to whine about and do anything they want? You surly wouldn't want to government to step in and prohibit them from doing so, would you?Because laws reflect government action anything else is opinion and speech which we are free to express in this country. What specific examples are you objecting to? It feels like you are dodging the question.So back to my original question... besides the cake incident (cause we already debated about that and i don't want to get off topic) what other big government laws are being unjustly pushed down our throats to force acceptance as you claim?It goes to the reasons for Anti-discrimination laws, which were based in real, tangible economic and political dis-enfranchisement, most of it government mandated. They were not made to adjudicate between two parties where the only damage is hurt feelings, or a private backlash, i.e. a boycott.
It's not limited to government, but just the fact that government can take sides in a case involving nothing more tangible than hurt feelings is enough to be worried about.
Why is this discussion limited to laws?
Things like companies feeling they have to fire or reprimand people who hold opinions that are not considered "popular", even before any backlash could materialize. Things like cry-bullies on campus trying to stifle speech by conservative or libertarian speakers. Things like the hypocrisy of people boycotting States that even consider bathroom laws, while still dealing with countries that do far far worse to the persons in question.
All of this is the progressive's attempts to stifle things they don't like in the public forum. It isn't liberalism anymore, its authoritarian.
You must be wearing his ass out on the issue. He always deflects when he sees that he is getting his ass handed to him.What are you talking about? You are going off on a tangent... how does your point apply to this situation?Live and let live is easy to say when you are part of the privileged majority. Put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority and all of a sudden "living" is a much harder thing. There is nothing wrong with government intervention to make a safer and more inclusive environment, that is their job. They aren't forcing acceptance, thats not possible, but they can force inclusion in their policies. Discrimination and divisiveness goes against the principles that many Americans believe in.What else besides the cake?
That's just the legal part of it. Its about forcing people out of certain positions when they have opposite views, its about the California AG trying to open up donor lists of organizations that go against PC.
Tolerance is live and let live. What progressives want is acceptance, or at least the veneer of it.
So you are going with the "check your privilege" crap?
Government's job is not to pick sides in arguments that have no harm other than hurt feelings, and they NEVER have a job to make people think the way one side or another wants them to think, or even worse, pressure them to keep a public veneer to avoid being persecuted for political or other views.
You are taking laws that were designed to fight real, systemic discrimination, discrimination that was intrinsic to local governments, and mandated by state and local laws, to sever economic and political power from a class of people, and using these laws to have government pick sides in moral arguments where the only end result prior to government's intervention is hurt feelings by one party, or the other. Now with government taking a side, it gets to apply the force it has to either get acceptance, or ruin the people if they resist it.
