Author Topic: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration  (Read 6736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Stadler

  • Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14779
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #140 on: January 25, 2017, 07:36:46 AM »
Okay, I'm not advocating actual damaging consequences to free speech, I really am not. I'm talking entriely about verbal responses, I never called to boycott any of these people or others.
Let's examine one of these though, I don't know details of Anselmo's deal and I vaguely remember the rest except Michael Richards. So Richards said something along the lines of "Look at them, they're niggers, look at the niggers, a 100 years ago you'd be hanging from a tree". Does that qualify as "speaking his mind freely" as you put it? Is that the kinda thing you deal with by means of meaningful dialogue?

Depends on the context.   If it's two guys at a bar looking to use the same urinal, probably not.  If it's a more existential statement, perhaps.   I don't know.  I don't know what's going through Michael Richards head, and that's the point.  You (not you personally, but the people that think "PC" is just fine and dandy) don't get to put yourselves into his head.  You don't have to LIKE the idea, but you do have to respect his right to have it.   If you're just talking verbal responses, I'm with you, and we have no disagreement.  It's when people take the USE of a word or words, look at them purely out of context and through their own lenses, with no rebuttal, and often no fact-checking, and institute "consequences" that sometimes have no reversal.  Whether Michael Richards meant what he said in a racist way or not, putting that video out there will forever brand him as such regardless. And after the cat is out of the bag, any rebuttal by him is seen as "PR work" and "too little too late". 

This ruins people's lives.   We ought to make damn sure that we are using due process, such that it may be, before we do that.

I'm completely against casting out that business, the bigotry here is not respecting the cake maker's ideals and forcing him to do something against his beliefs. I'm getting what you're saying about repercussions of repercussions but I don't believe it's gotta be like that. Yes that would be "PC run amok" and it gives a bad name to PC.
And as for "there doesn't seem to be any standard by which we judge the response reasonable", that seems to be the problem and the clear point of where I differ with you and Barto, for example the economical ruin is something that I'm definitely opposed to, that cake maker didn't say "fuck gays", he just doesn't wanna deal with them, he has every right to that!

But that's where we are.  That's exactly where we are, and some activist judges have supported that position.  I will give you a heads up that - and I haven't read any posts after this so they may be there already - I promise you someone is going to post something that says, in effect, DAMN RIGHT he has to make that cake.  It's that persons' RIGHT to have that cake!"  totally and utterly ignoring that basically, for ANY OTHER REASON, that cake maker can turn down the job, just not when "homosexuality" is involved.  It essentially gives homosexuals not equality, but in fact MORE rights than their heterosexual counterparts.   If I walked in and asked that cake maker to put something like "To Fido, my dog, my pet, my lover, my sex toy, my best friend. Stadler" he could say "yeah, not my thing.  Sorry." without recrimination.  But if I went in and asked for "To Adam, my husband, my pet, my lover, my sex toy, my best friend.  Steve." he is forced to make that cake, because "HOMOPHOBIA! HATE!".   

I've said it many times before; I don't think Trump, the person, has any strong ideological convictions that he's loyal to. I think his compass only points to "WINNING!", he's megalomania exemplified. When I think or talk about Trump I'm thinking of the movement he has created, adopted and sponsored. I'm thinking of the people he pacified and allied himself to, I'm thinking of his administration and advisers. To me, Trump himself is nowhere comparable to Hitler like some folks like to, but the Trump movement that's now in power is eerily comparable in many aspects and that's coming from someone who usually rules out Nazi comparisons in politics as cliche and overly dramatic.

He's not Hitler in any way shape or form. Okay, maybe in terms of bad hair, but that's it.  He IS all about "WINNING". 

Interesting thing is, though, now that he's in, he's doing what he says he would do in a way that the Obama followers have to be thinking - at least to themselves - where the hell was this action and initiative in 2008?   You're telling me you couldn't sign a paper and close Gitmo?  Mofo, please.

Yes, says me. I didn't claim that one was binary at all. I agree with your points about Hillary sans for the part that she's more dangerous than Trump, I still maintain that everything you said about her applies to other politicians and sometimes presidents, including disregard for the law, she's only unique cause she's exposed.

This discussion is interesting to me and thought provoking, I take the time to read and absorb what you're saying but it's really exhausting and time consuming since you say a lot that merits replying so it's not like I can respond to the gist of what you're saying, this post took an hour to type up :lol Long story short; bear with me here and if you will; don't give me more to work with until I get around to the rest of what you said heh

Hey, it's supposed to be fun and hopefully illuminating (to both of us).  Take your time, and I look forward to your thoughts!