Cultural/Political/Social Trends & Divergence Thread

[soon]

2 minutes ago, wasted said:

There might be something to that. That’s how I see it, politically motivated. 

No I just using Roseanne as a known example. But the extension of freedom of speech is Roseanne needed it to develop to who she is, and the whole of comedy needs it. If they start getting shut down because they support Trump the world is doomed. Comics need space to fuck up. The race thing is low hanging fruit to go after people for. But when you want to give little kids growth hormones to change sex, the celebrity who says something might also get ruined. It’s where it’s going more than where it’s at. It’s all nice playing in the 60s idealism area. I just see trouble up ahead. 

I woukd suggest breaking the tribalism cycle. But that doesn’t get you elected. 

Saying it was politically motivated - I dont understand how there should be limits to how someone acts on their political convictions in the face of freedom of speech? Shouldn't both be free? Especially given the heavy overlap between the two issues?

Unless ever member of Storm Front is a comedian, that was just plain old racist shit. And where is it said that a comedian can regurgitate racist talking points, not as a joke and just say "Its okay, Im a comedian!" ?

I dont know of any examples of a person being "shut down because they support Trump." When has that happened?

 

[wasted]

40 minutes ago, soon said:

Saying it was politically motivated - I dont understand how there should be limits to how someone acts on their political convictions in the face of freedom of speech? Shouldn't both be free? Especially given the heavy overlap between the two issues?

Unless ever member of Storm Front is a comedian, that was just plain old racist shit. And where is it said that a comedian can regurgitate racist talking points, not as a joke and just say "Its okay, Im a comedian!" ?

I dont know of any examples of a person being "shut down because they support Trump." When has that happened?

 

I think Owen Benjamin got shows cancelled, kicked off twitter etc. Any comedian shows support for Trump in any way generally isn’t getting a Netflix special. Nick DiPaolo lost his radio show or something. They all are all pretty normal people. You have to be a leftist like Amy Schumer to make it. You know the daughter of Chick Schumer is maybe democrat senator? It’s weird you have this liberal elite controlling everything, and even sacrificial lambs like Aziz Ansari and Luis CK.

There’s a bumch of SJW type comedians who aren’t even really funny, they just say the right stuff. And I agree with them mostly but they seem to have got more militant or something. It’s vindictive. They act like they are really making a difference, in reality they are just sacking each other in a game of who’s the most progressive.  

I think the consequences should match the crime at least and consistency. Once you apply consistency you have to discuss it, then it gets blurry. You’re banning someone for being a supposed oppressor, which makes you the oppressor in a way, especially without much consideration. It’s a move that is almost the definition of leftism. It’s very authoritarian. 

They want to control the narrative. They don’t want a diverse discussion. They want you to bow down to tolerance. Which is just a way to dehumanize people and throw them away. The left are the bullies now. 

I think talk about what Roseanne said, let the market decide generally. If the whole show is a racist platform, sure, but this is Roseanne, basically bringing liberalism to middle america.  I mean one of her daughters in the show is trans? 

The impression I got was that she support Trump, she was putting big numbers up ratings wise and they were just ecstatic to jump on her dumb tweet. It’s sad that that is what it’s all about. 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by wasted

[SoulMonster]

My last post was boringly trivial and uncontroversial. Let me try again. Here is a permanent fix to racism: Genetically engineered humans. It is not conceivable in our lifetime, or even my children's, but at some point we will understand our genome to such an extent that we can start manipulating it with predictable effects. Then we might be able to eradicate those gene combinations that cause a predisposition for racism. And anything else we might find undesirable at that point in time. We have already done it with great effect when we breed animals (like creating non-aggressive dog breeds), but this is something else entirely. This is not directed reproduction as in eugenics, where we hope offspring will be so and so, this is directly engineering our genetic blueprint. Much more efficient. Much more controlled. At first it will be done purely somatically, i.e. in somatic cells and not germ cells, hence anything we do will not be heritable but just affect single individuals (and as such not alter humans as a species), but when this is observed to have no ill effects, we will start to permanently alter our germ cells in the same way, basically creating Homo sapiens 2.0. And it is likely to be extremely expensive at first, so only the richest will have the possibility of doing it, basically creating two separate human species coexisting. Today this is science fiction - and I think it is a popular theme in sci-fi, but this is a geneticist speaking, not a novel you are reading. And the technical hurdles really aren't gigantic. There really isn't an order of magnitude in what needs to be understood compared with where we are today, just a matter of continuing our elucidation of genetics, just more of the same. Eventually we will be there. We won't have to consider the advantages and risks of such a game changing technological advancement, but our descendants most certainly will.

[soon]

16 minutes ago, wasted said:

I think Owen Benjamin got shows cancelled, kicked off twitter etc. Any comedian shows support for Trump in any way generally isn’t getting a Netflix special. Nick DiPaolo lost his radio show or something. 

I think the consequences should match the crime at least and consistency. Once you apply consistency you have to discuss it, then it gets blurry. You’re banning someone for being a supposed oppressor, which makes you the oppressor in a way, especially without much consideration. It’s move that is almost the definition of leftism. 

They want to control the narrative. They don’t want a diverse discussion. They want you to bow down to tolerance. Which is just a way to dehumanize people and throw them away. The left are the bullies now. 

I think talk about what Roseanne said, let the market decide generally. If the whole show is a racist platform, sure, but this is Roseanne, basically bringing liberalism to middle america.  I mean one of her daughters in the show is trans? 

The impression I got was that she support Trump, she was putting big numbers up ratings wise and they were just ecstatic to jump on her dumb tweet. 

 

Ive never heard of any of those people. And I dont know why they had shows cancelled. But as for Trump supporters not getting a Netflix special its as simple as Trump supporters falling into 3-4 main categories; idiots, bigots, thoughtless followers and politically misinformed people who are easily mislead by the internet. None of these types of people produce good comedy. That said, Im pretty sure that Bill Burr has a bunch of Netflix specials.

A company can fire anyone that they dont want representing them. Theres laws in place that at termination could fall under, but it doesnt apply here. Theres no way to regulate legal termination and there is no reason to regulate them either. What like all the networks should get together and make a uniform policy on bigotry for the sake of "consistency?"

Are you calling corporate executives at ABC 'leftists' ? 

Her tweet was racist, not "dumb." Supporting her is to wallow in victim culture. One needs to be able to handle the consequences of actions. No one is entitled to success and a platform. 

[wasted]

37 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

My last post was boringly trivial and uncontroversial. Let me try again. Here is a permanent fix to racism: Genetically engineered humans. It is not conceivable in our lifetime, or even my children's, but at some point we will understand our genome to such an extent that we can start manipulating it with predictable effects. Then we might be able to eradicate those gene combinations that cause a predisposition for racism. And anything else we might find undesirable at that point in time. We have already done it with great effect when we breed animals (like creating non-aggressive dog breeds), but this is something else entirely. This is not directed reproduction as in eugenics, where we hope offspring will be so and so, this is directly engineering our genetic blueprint. Much more efficient. Much more controlled. At first it will be done purely somatically, i.e. in somatic cells and not germ cells, hence anything we do will not be heritable but just affect single individuals (and as such not alter humans as a species), but when this is observed to have no ill effects, we will start to permanently alter our germ cells in the same way, basically creating Homo sapiens 2.0. And it is likely to be extremely expensive at first, so only the richest will have the possibility of doing it, basically creating two separate human species coexisting. Today this is science fiction - and I think it is a popular theme in sci-fi, but this is a geneticist speaking, not a novel you are reading. And the technical hurdles really aren't gigantic. There really isn't an order of magnitude in what needs to be understood compared with where we are today, just a matter of continuing our elucidation of genetics, just more of the same. Eventually we will be there. We won't have to consider the advantages and risks of such a game changing technological advancement, but our descendants most certainly will.

I wonder how many people would be deemed racist? 

One of the reasons racism isn’t tackled is probably because there’s no money in it. But this could actually sell a lot. Then you wonder what everyone would virtue signal about. Back to the graveyard shift at the soup kitchen. So much easier to post on twitter that Trump is a nazi. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by wasted

[Len Cnut]

32 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

My last post was boringly trivial and uncontroversial. Let me try again. Here is a permanent fix to racism: Genetically engineered humans. It is not conceivable in our lifetime, or even my children's, but at some point we will understand our genome to such an extent that we can start manipulating it with predictable effects. Then we might be able to eradicate those gene combinations that cause a predisposition for racism. And anything else we might find undesirable at that point in time. We have already done it with great effect when we breed animals (like creating non-aggressive dog breeds), but this is something else entirely. This is not directed reproduction as in eugenics, where we hope offspring will be so and so, this is directly engineering our genetic blueprint. Much more efficient. Much more controlled. At first it will be done purely somatically, i.e. in somatic cells and not germ cells, hence anything we do will not be heritable but just affect single individuals (and as such not alter humans as a species), but when this is observed to have no ill effects, we will start to permanently alter our germ cells in the same way, basically creating Homo sapiens 2.0. And it is likely to be extremely expensive at first, so only the richest will have the possibility of doing it, basically creating two separate human species coexisting. Today this is science fiction - and I think it is a popular theme in sci-fi, but this is a geneticist speaking, not a novel you are reading. And the technical hurdles really aren't gigantic. There really isn't an order of magnitude in what needs to be understood compared with where we are today, just a matter of continuing our elucidation of genetics, just more of the same. Eventually we will be there. We won't have to consider the advantages and risks of such a game changing technological advancement, but our descendants most certainly will.

Like a sort of PC master race, I’d rather stick with the fucked up dysfunctional arseholes that nature made us.

[wasted]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

Ive never heard of any of those people. And I dont know why they had shows cancelled. But as for Trump supporters not getting a Netflix special its as simple as Trump supporters falling into 3-4 main categories; idiots, bigots, thoughtless followers and politically misinformed people who are easily mislead by the internet. None of these types of people produce good comedy. That said, Im pretty sure that Bill Burr has a bunch of Netflix specials.

A company can fire anyone that they dont want representing them. Theres laws in place that at termination could fall under, but it doesnt apply here. Theres no way to regulate legal termination and there is no reason to regulate them either. What like all the networks should get together and make a uniform policy on bigotry for the sake of "consistency?"

Are you calling corporate executives at ABC 'leftists' ? 

Her tweet was racist, not "dumb." Supporting her is to wallow in victim culture. One needs to be able to handle the consequences of actions. No one is entitled to success and a platform. 

She did more good than harm. And it was dumb to make a racist comment, but I actually don’t think she meant to. She just shouldn’t be riffing on twitter. You understand this is Roseann not  Bill O’Reilly. 

Yeah I would say they are leftists. Liberal authoratarians. That’s the whole point of freedom of speech though, however dumb you think they are, that’s not how comedy should be decided. I’m not saying they can’t do that, just that I see it’s for non comedy reasons, it’s for supporting the president. Trump in the final analysis is pretty much having the same effect as the last two guys. That’s why I don’t get all the over reaction. 

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

It’s really about consistency. You either have freedom of speech or not. This is the toughest one. 

Yeah I think she’s pretty done. And her show was basically a liberal show. 

I think you’re misunderstanding me, I said I think there’s a danger to protecting groups in this heavy handed way. Not that racism isn’t bad or we shouldn’t do anything about it. Like I said the ABC way leads to tribalism. I would suggest a less dictatorial style and probably let the market decide Roseanne’s fate. Along the way maybe real change will happen. But this way keeps the cycle of abuse going. If you want tolerance you have be tolerant yourself. 

Danger of what?

The only dangerous people are those who equate freedom of speech with freedom to violate other people's rights just because they can.

Roseanne is a public figure, she's got a platform of followers and viewers. The things she says have a bigger echo than the things one guy mumbling shit while sitting at the park could ever have. What she says and tweets reaches a lot of people, lot of minds. There's a reason why anyone in media is an opinion former, they reach thousands if not millions of people with their ideas.

Having Roseanne say that shit is enabling others to do it as well and listen, some people will not remain stuck in words. Once they stop getting enough stamina from offending others they will move onto the action and that's how you get all those hate crimes that are so popular in the USA.

Besides, what's the point of having that dinousar roaring junior high jokes? She's not even funny, she's not even witty, she's basic as a rock. Her tweet about the appearance of the other woman is so primitive that I can't believe she is paid millions of dollars to say shit like that.

[soon]

9 minutes ago, wasted said:

She did more good than harm. And it was dumb to make a racist comment, but I actually don’t think she meant to. She just shouldn’t be riffing on twitter. You understand this is Roseann not  Bill O’Reilly. 

Yeah I would say they are leftists. Liberal authoratarians. That’s the whole point of freedom of speech though, however dumb you think they are, that’s not how comedy should be decided. I’m not saying they can’t do that, just that I see it’s for non comedy reasons, it’s for supporting the president. Trump in the final analysis is pretty much having the same effect as the last two guys. That’s why I don’t get all the over reaction. 

Out of all the words she could put together, you'd suggest that she simply stumbled across calling a black person an ape? No awareness of the slur "porch m0nkey" and just a year after Milo and the Ghost Buster actor no less? What a 1 in a billion coincidence that is.

The ABC executives are leftist and the ABC executives are also simultaneously authoritarian liberals? What a mash-up. Brings to my minds eye a picture of polyamorous, insurrectionaries running a cooperative printing press who also drink champagne and eat sushi while watching Rachael Maddow.

But Id agree that calling a black person an ape is indeed showing support for Trump, in the ideological sense. But of course in the more realistic sense, calling a black person an ape is just straight up racist and not in any way directly related to Trump.

 

[Kwick1]

For those not in the US you might not follow American football and the NFL. Last year many teams and members of teams decided to not stand for the National Anthem.  My feelings aside, the majority of those players are African American. This year the NFL put it in the rule book that one must stand or be penalized. Kareem Abdul Jabar a BB legend said in the press that forcing a black person to stand for the National Anthem was no different than forcing slaves to sing songs. 

Really?! Slavery ended 150 years ago and no NFL player has ever been a slave forced to sing. They're playing a sport they love for their job and many are making millions every year because of the NFL. 

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, soon said:

The ABC executives are leftist and the ABC executives are also simultaneously authoritarian liberals? What a mash-up. Brings to my minds eye a picture of polyamorous, insurrectionaries running a cooperative printing press who also drink champagne and eat sushi while watching Rachael Maddow.

You are the fucking AMO!

 

[wasted]

5 hours ago, killuridols said:

Danger of what?

The only dangerous people are those who equate freedom of speech with freedom to violate other people's rights just because they can.

Roseanne is a public figure, she's got a platform of followers and viewers. The things she says have a bigger echo than the things one guy mumbling shit while sitting at the park could ever have. What she says and tweets reaches a lot of people, lot of minds. There's a reason why anyone in media is an opinion former, they reach thousands if not millions of people with their ideas.

Having Roseanne say that shit is enabling others to do it as well and listen, some people will not remain stuck in words. Once they stop getting enough stamina from offending others they will move onto the action and that's how you get all those hate crimes that are so popular in the USA.

Besides, what's the point of having that dinousar roaring junior high jokes? She's not even funny, she's not even witty, she's basic as a rock. Her tweet about the appearance of the other woman is so primitive that I can't believe she is paid millions of dollars to say shit like that.

That’s not what she gets paid for and not what or who she is. That’s the point, it was a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes. Again she isn’t responsible for history. She’s not part of a vast racist conspiracy. She’s not racist at all. 

The other thing is it’s dangerous to tell groups of people they are victims of this conspiracy. And the way Roseanne was handled played into that. This is not to discount individual victims of racism but to look at the broader context and assess how true this is. And it’s kind of not true, a few mistaken words are not a reason to assume that such a level of hostility exists. 

[wasted]

6 hours ago, soon said:

Out of all the words she could put together, you'd suggest that she simply stumbled across calling a black person an ape? No awareness of the slur "porch m0nkey" and just a year after Milo and the Ghost Buster actor no less? What a 1 in a billion coincidence that is.

The ABC executives are leftist and the ABC executives are also simultaneously authoritarian liberals? What a mash-up. Brings to my minds eye a picture of polyamorous, insurrectionaries running a cooperative printing press who also drink champagne and eat sushi while watching Rachael Maddow.

But Id agree that calling a black person an ape is indeed showing support for Trump, in the ideological sense. But of course in the more realistic sense, calling a black person an ape is just straight up racist and not in any way directly related to Trump.

 

It’s a racist comment but that’s not what this is about. 

I would liberals sort moved left to start to enforce their ideas in an authoritarian way. 

The way they handle things is very authoratarian and can lead to bad places if you look at history. 

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

That’s not what she gets paid for and not what or who she is. That’s the point, it was a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes. Again she isn’t responsible for history. She’s not part of a vast racist conspiracy. She’s not racist at all. 

The other thing is it’s dangerous to tell groups of people they are victims of this conspiracy. And the way Roseanne was handled played into that. This is not to discount individual victims of racism but to look at the broader context and assess how true this is. And it’s kind of not true, a few mistaken words are not a reason to assume that such a level of hostility exists. 

She isn't responsible for history? No, but she is responsible for the present and the future. She is responsible for her own racist act at the present time and must pay for that.

She is also responsible for tweeting those lame racist jokes. No one else but her decided to type all that out and press the send button. No one else than her can be held accountable for what she did. As far as I know, she is a person functioning in all her senses, right?

When you are a public figure of that weight and caliber you are not allowed to make those "mistakes". Unless you live in a cloud of farts where there's just you and your alter egos. Does she ever walk the streets of her country?

You know, this shit is very simple: either you are a bigot or you are not. If you are not, you don't tweet that crap. Period.

33 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Do you think it's a right to never be offended?

I think it's a right to have your humanity respected by others.

[wasted]

2 hours ago, killuridols said:

She isn't responsible for history? No, but she is responsible for the present and the future. She is responsible for her own racist act at the present time and must pay for that.

She is also responsible for tweeting those lame racist jokes. No one else but her decided to type all that out and press the send button. No one else than her can be held accountable for what she did. As far as I know, she is a person functioning in all her senses, right?

When you are a public figure of that weight and caliber you are not allowed to make those "mistakes". Unless you live in a cloud of farts where there's just you and your alter egos. Does she ever walk the streets of her country?

You know, this shit is very simple: either you are a bigot or you are not. If you are not, you don't tweet that crap. Period.

I think it's a right to have your humanity respected by others.

I would agree in this day and age racism isn’t very nice. I just disagree on free speech and the ramifications of not up holding it. For extreme, organized racism which results in violence then I would send in the military.

But I don’t want to take away people’s freedom over some 60 year olds ambien twitter comment. You understand it’s not this particular instance that matters, but the wider repercussions of limiting free speech. I guess it’s about consistency. If they shitdown Roseanne they can shutdown you. When it happens you will be helpless. 

Do you think GNR should have had their record contract cancelled for One in a Million?

Edited August 17, 2018 by wasted

[wasted]

2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Is never being offended a requirement for that?

Watch that George Carlin video, he sums it up nicely.

P.S. For the record I think Rosanne is ghastly. I don't know whether @wasted does or not but that's besides the point.

I’ve never really paid much attention to her. I might have seen one ep of Roseanne ever. She’s never done or said anything I’m into. 

Both sides should have their humanity respected. But don’t allow a situation to arise where one side can control the narrative. 

You can’t stop racism by just stamping on it when it pops up. It can only be done by understanding and communication. I really think most Trump fans doubled down on whatever after the Roseanne thing. It didn’t help anything. 

What I fear is that one day it will be something else. Like there’s obscenties in this thread. I don’t want people not to be able to share ideas because of a few no no words.  

 

[Len Cnut]

13 hours ago, Kwick1 said:

For those not in the US you might not follow American football and the NFL. Last year many teams and members of teams decided to not stand for the National Anthem.  My feelings aside, the majority of those players are African American. This year the NFL put it in the rule book that one must stand or be penalized. Kareem Abdul Jabar a BB legend said in the press that forcing a black person to stand for the National Anthem was no different than forcing slaves to sing songs. 

Really?! Slavery ended 150 years ago and no NFL player has ever been a slave forced to sing. They're playing a sport they love for their job and many are making millions every year because of the NFL. 

I think hes talking more on a symbolic level, if their great great grandparents and they feel that now, in this era of apparent equal rights, there is still racism and racial issues and they wanna protest and highlight that by kneeling (essentially a respectful and dignified act) and they’re not allowed to do that well then I can see the parrallel hes trying to draw, even if the two instances are not identical.  Perhaps its not for me and you to understand because we’re not wealthy rich black males, a demographic who, in past and recent decades, have gotten a lot of stick for like, yknow the old thing of gettin’ money and moving out the hood, literally as well as figuratively (not doing nothing for their people etc, every famous black person from Steppin Fetchit and Sidney Poitier all the way down to your Eddie Murphys and Michael Jacksons caught that shit) and they wanna do this one little thing to like, let them know that in this time of police brutality and violence, they wanna let their people know that like, yknow, I see you, I’m with you.  I dont see why its a problem, I mean this ain’t no Pussy Riot type protest here, its kneeling, you could arguing kneeling is more respectful than standing.  And lets face it, its a rule put there for black guys, it was them that started protesting (though they were maybe joined by others, I dunno, I don’t watch American sports) so this law came out, its the establishment telling black guys ‘hey, stop fuckin’ around’.  I can totally see where Kareems comin’ from.  Remember, these things are analogies, they’re meant to draw parrallels in the applicable principles involved, they are not saying ‘OMG SOMEONE STUFFED US ALL IN A TIME MACHINE AND HERE WE ARE BACK IN SLAVERY TIMES!’

Also, there’s something a little slimey about the ‘you’re playing a sport you love for millions of dollars so you should be appreciative’...they’re working for it arent they?  They’re Americans arent they?  I mean are they being done a favour with it or are they being rewarded for excellence in their field?  If its just a case of being blessed cuz you’re American why isn’t everyone doing it?

Edited August 17, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Lio]

I seem to be the only one who enjoyed Roseanne back in the day.

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, Lio said:

I seem to be the only one who enjoyed Roseanne back in the day.

Yes, you are   Seriously, that show was dreadful.  I mean, what do I know, I used to watch Happy Days and The Wonder Years as a kid but yeah, Roseanne, ugh.  She always came off as a sort snotty charmless east coast (is she even from the east coast?) ratbag.

EDIT:  Well fuck me, she's from Utah!

Edited August 17, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Angelica]

3 minutes ago, Lio said:

I seem to be the only one who enjoyed Roseanne back in the day.

I loved it back in the day and rewatched the best seasons (1-4) last year. They hold up. It was funny and smart and ballsy as hell.

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yes, you are   Seriously, that show was dreadful.  I mean, what do I know, I used to watch Happy Days and The Wonder Years as a kid but yeah, Roseanne, ugh.  She always came off as a sort snotty charmless east coast (is she even from the east coast?) ratbag.

She was always the least likeable character, but the show itself was legitimately good. 

[soon]

11 hours ago, wasted said:

It’s a racist comment but that’s not what this is about. 

I would liberals sort moved left to start to enforce their ideas in an authoritarian way. 

The way they handle things is very authoratarian and can lead to bad places if you look at history. 

Im still not clear why you think that an employer wouldn't seek to separate themselves from racism? I have no insight into how you get from that easily relatable reality to the notion that its representative of a monolithic "leftist" conspiracy.

The left is a spectrum. But you seem to use the term 'left' and 'authoritarian' interchangeably. Is that the case - it is the same thing in your view?

Being an employer is authoritarian. Why is the element of authority good when they use it to hire but evil and duplicitous when they use that authority to fire? Saying that the company has to put up with her racism is the only thing that would be hyper authoritarian.

[killuridols]

6 hours ago, wasted said:

I would agree in this day and age racism isn’t very nice. I just disagree on free speech and the ramifications of not up holding it. For extreme, organized racism which results in violence then I would send in the military.

But I don’t want to take away people’s freedom over some 60 year olds ambien twitter comment. You understand it’s not this particular instance that matters, but the wider repercussions of limiting free speech. I guess it’s about consistency. If they shitdown Roseanne they can shutdown you. When it happens you will be helpless. 

She still has her free speech. Her Twitter hole wasn't shut down, only her stupid show, but that's because ABC doesn't want to be associated to her and that's their right.

She could have made use of her free speech to criticize Valerie Jarrett without having to resort to racism. Because freedom of speech is not an absolute anywhere, especially when it enters in conflict with other human rights and in this case her right to free speech crossed the line where the other person becomes a victim of her racism just because.

There are lots of countries already exercising limitations to freedom of speech so I guess you are late to the protest.

6 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Is never being offended a requirement for that?

This is not about being offended or not. There's a higher instance where being a racist or intolerant is beyond the particular individual. You can compare it to sexual abuse in minors. When you have sex with a minor, whether there is consent or not, you are committing a crime.

When you throw your hate speech at others you are damaging the dignity of someone else, regardless of their internal emotions or if they manifest being offended or not.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. 

7 hours ago, wasted said:

Do you think GNR should have had their record contract cancelled for One in a Million?

Hmm... it wouldn't make sense to release OIAM but at the same time cancelling the contract? 

The analogy is not working because Roseanne said her racist stuff in a different means than where she was going to have her show.

Either way, I wish someone would have stopped OIAM from being released without having the band's contract cancelled. But it is obvious everybody was on board and in synch at the time. ABC was not in sync with Roseanne, so it's different.

[wasted]

19 minutes ago, killuridols said:

She still has her free speech. Her Twitter hole wasn't shut down, only her stupid show, but that's because ABC doesn't want to be associated to her and that's their right.

She could have made use of her free speech to criticize Valerie Jarrett without having to resort to racism. Because freedom of speech is not an absolute anywhere, especially when it enters in conflict with other human rights and in this case her right to free speech crossed the line where the other person becomes a victim of her racism just because.

There are lots of countries already exercising limitations to freedom of speech so I guess you are late to the protest.

This is not about being offended or not. There's a higher instance where being a racist or intolerant is beyond the particular individual. You can compare it to sexual abuse in minors. When you have sex with a minor, whether there is consent or not, you are committing a crime.

When you throw your hate speech at others you are damaging the dignity of someone else, regardless of their internal emotions or if they manifest being offended or not.

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. 

Hmm... it wouldn't make sense to release OIAM but at the same time cancelling the contract? 

The analogy is not working because Roseanne said her racist stuff in a different means than where she was going to have her show.

Either way, I wish someone would have stopped OIAM from being released without having the band's contract cancelled. But it is obvious everybody was on board and in synch at the time. ABC was not in sync with Roseanne, so it's different.

Okay I won’t give you a hard time about it. I mean I agree with your sentiments overall. I’m just very intelligent and drunk. 

I’d cut Axl and Roseanne a break if they don’t breed.

[killuridols]

7 minutes ago, wasted said:

Okay I won’t give you a hard time about it. I mean I agree with your sentiments overall. I’m just very intelligent and drunk. 

I’d cut Axl and Roseanne a break if they don’t breed.

Does it mean that I won? 

 

yaaaaay!!!! 

 

[wasted]

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

Does it mean that I won? 

 

yaaaaay!!!! 

 

Why not? We are all one fear based consciousness beating as one. You won as long as you accept I’m right. 

There is no right or wrong, no good or evil, it’s a fear based videogame you are meant to wake up from and realise. After that aliens are your friends. Meth is unique. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by wasted