|
seiferguy posted:Hoo-boy, this one is hosed up. If you want to read about servicing gays is a slippery slope to making pedophilia and rape legal, read. Otherwise you may want to skip this long mindfuck. Phil Harmonic is an older guy, friend of mine that helped me do some car work. He posts a lot of income inequality stuff, and is generally highly opinionated (but mostly not-terrible ones). I have no clue who Reanne Carnation is, he's a friend of Phil Harmonic: Yet another 'What the gently caress did I just read' moment. 
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
edited because this is probably not fit for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
All sex is a threeway with the Lord. Wait, does that make it a 5-way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Look, the last time someone asked that question the church had a schism. Let's keep the genie in the bottle this time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Can anyone please link me to the part earlier in the thread with the annoying picture of the empty fridge with some nonsense about "NO JOB IN AMERICA"? (If for some reason, I'm imagining that this was already posted, I can post the annoying image myself)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
I don't know if you're one of the people in that conversation, seiferguy, but it looks to me like Reanne Carnation sort of clowned on the people he/she was debating. Obviously conservatives/libertarians will just shift goalposts and argue until their opponents give up, but I got frustrated reading that conversation because it seemed to me there were plenty of opportunities to make him/her look like an idiot that were missed. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
I'm not going to go back and try to find it, but I can't wait for LL101 to make angry images about Obama being a disrespectful arrogant jerk at the Gridiron Club dinner after that one image that said something like "If a conservative doesn't think something is funny, he just ignores it, but if a liberal doesn't think something is funny he gets mad and tries to ban it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:46
|
|
|
That word again, "ban." How has asking someone not to say a word been conflated with "ban" (which suggests legislative intervention). I was watching The Nightly Show (a disappointing show, by the way) and Nick DePaolo and John "No Labels" Avlon were acting like a university toothlessly encouraging students not to call women whores was one step removed from Stalinism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I'm not going to go back and try to find it, but I can't wait for LL101 to make angry images about Obama being a disrespectful arrogant jerk at the Gridiron Club dinner after that one image that said something like "If a conservative doesn't think something is funny, he just ignores it, but if a liberal doesn't think something is funny he gets mad and tries to ban it." Man, that's not just LL101 at this point. Remember the State of the Union. The Republicans interrupt Obama with cheering and hooting like petty children when he says he's got no more campaigns to run, but when he reminds them it's because he kept winning: quote:"Probably not helpful when you rub the other guy's nose in the dirt a little bit," Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a close ally of Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), told reporters.  liberals are so mean
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:That word again, "ban." How has asking someone not to say a word been conflated with "ban" (which suggests legislative intervention). I was watching The Nightly Show (a disappointing show, by the way) and Nick DePaolo and John "No Labels" Avlon were acting like a university toothlessly encouraging students not to call women whores was one step removed from Stalinism. Eh ban just means it's prohibited, even if not necessarily from the government. Take the SAE incident for an example, nobody was arrested but a couple of the guys were expelled because they said racist things that were against the university's policies. It was banned, and so they got kicked out for using it. Conservatives are harping on it because they think that facing consequences for using that sort of speech is a violation of free speech because "free speech is meant to protect speech that people don't like." The fact that it isn't the government doing it doesn't matter to them, in their minds it's become a matter of "political correctness gone mad" because some people faced consequences for singing a lovely racist song. And the funny thing is some of them turned around and attacked rap for using foul language, saying that it should be banned/censored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Man, that's not just LL101 at this point. Remember the State of the Union. The Republicans interrupt Obama with cheering and hooting like petty children when he says he's got no more campaigns to run, but when he reminds them it's because he kept winning: In fairness when you get dunked on that loving hard on live TV it's gonna sting. They walked right into it though by trying for a shot of their own and it seems obvious he pulled the response out on the spot, which makes it even better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVNC6dAeeyA&t=9s 
Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Eh ban just means it's prohibited, even if not necessarily from the government. Take the SAE incident for an example, nobody was arrested but a couple of the guys were expelled because they said racist things that were against the university's policies. It was banned, and so they got kicked out for using it. Conservatives are harping on it because they think that facing consequences for using that sort of speech is a violation of free speech because "free speech is meant to protect speech that people don't like." The fact that it isn't the government doing it doesn't matter to them, in their minds it's become a matter of "political correctness gone mad" because some people faced consequences for singing a lovely racist song. To be fair they're talking about 2 of the SAE students getting kicked out of the university, which does mean the government is doing it. But the university says they've disrupted the learning atmosphere of the university by making specific groups feel unsafe. Their case for doing so probably depends on the university's code of conduct to which the students agreed. There are competing standards for students' rights to express themselves in public schools: The Tinker Standard posted:Simply put, this ruling means school officials may not silence student expression just because they dislike it. They must reasonably forecast, based on evidence and not on an "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance," that the student expression would lead to either (a) a substantial disruption of the school environment, or (b) an invasion of the rights of others. The Fraser Standard posted:In its opinion, the court majority stated that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings."7 Instead, the high court set up a balancing test: "the freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior."8 Now, these are obviously both rulings that applied to high schools, not public universities. I don't have access to a lot of material at the moment that would tell me if these standards can be applied to universities (or if they are in practice, in any case). It looks like the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to apply the Tinker standard to a sort of similar case in 2009. Still, I don't see anything saying the SCOTUS has ruled these standards can't be applied to university cases. I also sort of doubt the students are going to file a lawsuit in this case, since it would just call attention to what they did for the rest of their lives. Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
There's something about seeing racists flip out about Obama's mere existence and then blame him for them revealing their racism that is both hilarious and disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:In fairness when you get dunked on that loving hard on live TV it's gonna sting. Yeah true, Obama went too far now that you mention it. He should have replied with some cheeky good-natured ribbing, maybe penned a letter to Iran telling them never to trust America because we'll reneg on anything we say 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Now, these are obviously both rulings that applied to high schools, not public universities. I don't have access to a lot of material at the moment that would tell me if these standards can be applied to universities (or if they are in practice, in any case). It looks like the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to apply the Tinker standard to a sort of similar case in 2009. Still, I don't see anything saying the SCOTUS has ruled these standards can't be applied to university cases. I also sort of doubt the students are going to file a lawsuit in this case, since it would just call attention to what they did for the rest of their lives. And to be fair, there are many MANY racists that don't care what they did, they'd still give them jobs as if it was the darkies that were the cause of the problem. I don't see much of a negative in filing a lawsuit because there are a lot of people that would champion their cause. The removal of the fraternity from college life is probably legally sound but in regards to their expulsion Noah Feldman had a supposedly pretty good opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune but I can't read it b/c it's behind a paywall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:
Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Thanks for the tip, looks like the article can be found for free here, unless it's actually a different piece (edit: I found the same article, with a different headline, for free on the Chicago Tribune site, I guess the paywall is only once you read a certain number of articles). His take is basically that the university could probably defend its decision pretty well, even if the hypothetical logical extreme of a university kicking people out for unpopular speech seems troubling. I'd be interested in a more scholarly take that addresses whether the standards I've brought up above can be applied. I'm pretty sure it's the same article since it mentions Eugene Volokh who recently wrote an op ed in the Washington Post with the opposite opinion. Another part of the argument is that OU as a state institution is the government proper and should be held to a constitutional standard, not just a societal standard of free speech. If this was Princeton or Dartmouth, the school would theoretically have more leeway in disciplining students for being racist shitheels. Not that it would stop the students from having a successful life though. Those expelled students will have about as hard a life as that kid who got 10 years of probation when he killed his friends due to 'Affluenza'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:I'm pretty sure it's the same article since it mentions Eugene Volokh who recently wrote an op ed in the Washington Post with the opposite opinion. Another part of the argument is that OU as a state institution is the government proper and should be held to a constitutional standard, not just a societal standard of free speech. If this was Princeton or Dartmouth, the school would theoretically have more leeway in disciplining students for being racist shitheels. Not that it would stop the students from having a successful life though. Those expelled students will have about as hard a life as that kid who got 10 years of probation when he killed his friends due to 'Affluenza'. This is why I'm curious about the application of the standards I mentioned above - public schools are government, but they also have very specific legal standards and ways in which they can limit speech that, say, a municipal or state law couldn't. The fact that schools have specific missions is relevant. The place where the speech was made also matters: it didn't take place in a public forum, nor did the school restrict the speech itself. The fact that the school didn't stop them from speaking in a public forum could, paradoxically, strengthen the university's case. You can be punished for speaking privately if it makes other students feel unsafe, but if you say horrible poo poo publicly you're free from punishment
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Why would a government-run business be held to the same constitutional standard as legislation? No one is stopping these kids from saying whatever they want, whenever they want. If I work for the post office, can I just say whatever-the-gently caress I want without professional consequences because it'd be a violation of freedom of speech if I got fired for chanting that I want to hang me some n*****s at a work event?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Distant family relation shared this: I'm trying really hard to not just drop this in the comments:   I'd post a picture of a dog whistle but it's pretty blatantly racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Distant family relation shared this: :Nike swoop: just do it And share the meltdown pleeeeez
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
.... Yeah, the government distributes crack pipes and air jordans
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why would a government-run business be held to the same constitutional standard as legislation? No one is stopping these kids from saying whatever they want, whenever they want. No, because there are pretty much identical laws in place that force public and private employers to take action if an employee is making the atmosphere at work hostile toward people because of their race. In fact the Feldman article makes a pretty similar analogy to the one you're making. But the government can't pass a law saying "you can't say this or we'll throw you in jail." And unless the speech is really disruptive, schools can't punish students for saying things in public, or in a student newspaper, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why would a government-run business be held to the same constitutional standard as legislation? No one is stopping these kids from saying whatever they want, whenever they want. I'd say it's because the government is your boss and by limiting your speech it is violating your First Amendment rights when compared to a private business. Then again, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that's what some constitutional lawyers are implying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:.... Yeah, the government distributes crack pipes and air jordans Maybe the CIA...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:.... Yeah, the government distributes crack pipes and air jordans I wouldn't be surprised at the former during the Reagan administration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
If a political party helps a group of people then that group of people is more likely to vote for that political party. A Good Macro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Eh ban just means it's prohibited, even if not necessarily from the government. Take the SAE incident for an example, nobody was arrested but a couple of the guys were expelled because they said racist things that were against the university's policies. It was banned, and so they got kicked out for using it. Conservatives are harping on it because they think that facing consequences for using that sort of speech is a violation of free speech because "free speech is meant to protect speech that people don't like." The fact that it isn't the government doing it doesn't matter to them, in their minds it's become a matter of "political correctness gone mad" because some people faced consequences for singing a lovely racist song. I agree, but the view that "political correctness" is an unprecedented affront to free speech orchestrated by an undefined "they" is widespread. Somehow language taboos are thought of a normal parts of socializing except when someone is discouraged from calling black people sub-human.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
This is a letter to the editor, but I don't know where else to put it. The writer responds to critics in the comments and it is so good.Someone who writes to the newspaper posted:Regarding Pittsburgh’s 71 homicides in 2014 and the continuing violence this year: Can the problem of violence in many poor communities be attributed to too much free time? Here is the letter with the comments: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...es/201503150132 My boyfriend refuses to believe that this is a real letter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:Here is the letter with the comments: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...es/201503150132 The guy who keeps bringing up the author not buying Legos when he was a kid is killing me. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Anyone who believes that people on welfare have "no financial worries" is so out of touch with reality that they should be taken out and shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Anyone who believes that people on welfare have "no financial worries" is so out of touch with reality that they should be taken out and shot. You are welcome to your opinion, but I am white and conservative and thus my opinion is fact.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:This is a letter to the editor, but I don't know where else to put it. The writer responds to critics in the comments and it is so good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Anyone who believes that people on welfare have "no financial worries" is so out of touch with reality that they should be taken out and shot. The
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
I was trying to figure out if "Carl Colpo" was an anagram for something or a reference that I just did not catch. It does read like any random caller to the local talk radio station. Maybe too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The e: My friend said he saw it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:They were all on bath salts that can't be tested for and they got the one clean person on welfare to piss 50 gallons to share out and they all sell clean urine on drug corners. All of these things happened concurrently. You didn't write that like a true conservative with random words capitalized. Also a severe lack of using FACT as impromptu speech breaks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
usbombshell posted:This is a letter to the editor, but I don't know where else to put it. The writer responds to critics in the comments and it is so good.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
I'm sure he was cutting grass 12 hours a day and then scrounging dumpsters for food and firewood, give the man a break
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:37 |
|
|
It's amazing how many people think the racist part of the SAE song was that they said n****r and not that they were singing about lynching black people. News flash, if they had said "African-Americans" instead it would have been just as loving racist, because the racist part was threatening to kill people based solely on their skin color.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 22:28
|
|