|
blackguy32 posted:Also, you can tolerate people you disagree with if you want, but I usually draw the line at hateful comments. But if you don't continue to shop at your local neo-nazi's store, you are engaging in  financial coercion edit: my argument is that OP your threats to free speech are imagined, and "twitter lynch mobs" (lol using that term in this thread of all places) have no real power to fire people or anything like that. many johnnys fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jun 25, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:History changes and moves We've got the motives in writing from the legal bodies that made secession and the Confederacy come into being, acting like why they did what they did is buried in some kind of impenetrable subjective fog is being disingenuous as hell. Put more plainly, it's a flat-out dishonest way to frame the question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Venerating the statues is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. The problem is people whitewashing the atrocity of the past. The evidence of that should stand.  blackguy32 posted:I would usually analyze why my twitter comments are unpopular. It has also, as far as I know, never murdered anybody or had acts of terrorism committed in its name, and the twitter flag is not (yet) flown in front of any government building, so I think the comparison is a bad one even if we can level legitimate criticism at the practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I think that the removing Confederate flag from state houses is a really bad jumping off point for this discussion, not in the least because it wasn't driven by internet outrage at all but by a radicalized individual committing an act of terrorism explicitly because of the ideals that flag was arguably raised on the statehouse grounds to represent. You're probably right. I came here to express my frustration with the fact that even though we've increased our ability to communicate by a thousand fold, we've boiled down the tone and depth of our conversations to, "Nuh uh, you're the [racist/sexist/evilest] because you don't agree with me." And what I got was, "So what, are you a racist or something? You would even defend the confederate flag and the South? How could you possibly argue that the millions of people in the South weren't all evil racists all the time and had no other desires?" Particularly when I didn't make any of those points, and I said I don't even give a poo poo about the flag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Ok maybe there's something to this whole idea about taking down statues. blarzgh posted:You're probably right. I came here to express my frustration with the fact that even though we've increased our ability to communicate by a thousand fold, we've boiled down the tone and depth of our conversations to, "Nuh uh, you're the [racist/sexist/evilest] because you don't agree with me." Increased ability to communicate means that the ability to communicate is no longer restricted to those who are good at it. So yes, most of the additional communication is going to be of low quality. Hurrah for humanity and Sturgeon's law. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:We've got the motives in writing from the legal bodies that made secession and the Confederacy come into being, acting like why they did what they did is buried in some kind of impenetrable subjective fog is being disingenuous as hell. Put more plainly, it's a flat-out dishonest way to frame the question. You're like the only person who'e worried about that in this thread. I think you came here looking for a particular fight, and decided, "well by god, if no one else is going to have this fight, then I'll just beat myself up over it!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'm really more concerned that we're losing the freedom to have dissenting views, in this age of internet outrage and twitter lynchings. Its distressing to me that someone can lose their job over a twitter comment, and that the largest retailers in the country will immediately cow-tow to only the perception of public pressure. Hahaha, holy crap dude. The government is not going to prevent you from saying racist things, much less just having them. Be racist all you want! It is perfectly fine for jobs to fire you for being racist, however, and I don't think I've seen a single incident of someone being fired for saying something that wasn't, in fact, super racist. Pretty much the only legitimate point you might have here is that it's not entirely clear whether it's acceptable for businesses to fire you because of things you say in social media. That being said, people should be aware that the things they post online publicly can reflect poorly upon them. If someone posts some racist poo poo on facebook and has black coworkers, the company would have a pretty good reason to be concerned. I'm not as comfortable condoning this sort of thing, since it could also lead to things like teachers being fired for posting a picture of them drinking alcohol on Facebook (I think something like this has actually happened?), but I have yet to see someone be unjustly fired for saying something racist. Regardless, this has nothing to do with government censorship or the first amendment. There is a huge difference between the government punishing people for expressing certain beliefs and private businesses and individuals doing so. Other people calling you racist on Facebook is not violating your right to free speech. I should reiterate that I have yet to see a single instance of people being fired, much less punished or censored by the government, for saying something that wasn't actually really racist and terrible. You keep putting scare quotes around "racist", like people are expressing legitimate opinions and being unfairly attacked for them, so by all means feel free to share some examples with us. Again, we're talking about people who actually faced real repercussions for what they said, not a bunch of people calling you racist on Facebook or the SA forums. edit: After reading some other posts you made after I posted this, I noticed that you are, in fact, complaining that other people accusing you of being racist/whatever is "stamping out dissent." This is completely ridiculous. There is nothing in the constitution that protects you from peoples' reactions to your beliefs. A bunch of people saying that you're a racist/bigot is not "stamping out dissent." No one is silencing you, and even if they were it would still not be violating the first amendment unless it was the government doing so. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're probably right. I came here to express my frustration with the fact that even though we've increased our ability to communicate by a thousand fold, we've boiled down the tone and depth of our conversations to, "Nuh uh, you're the [racist/sexist/evilest] because you don't agree with me." Give us the nuance behind the Confederacy and it's flag that we are missing since that was your example
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're probably right. I came here to express my frustration with the fact that even though we've increased our ability to communicate by a thousand fold, we've boiled down the tone and depth of our conversations to, "Nuh uh, you're the [racist/sexist/evilest] because you don't agree with me." Well, I think there's an issue in that regardless of what you think about the values of the Confederacy or whatever, there's a pretty compelling argument that the specific displays that are being removed sprung up in reaction to the 1960s civil rights movements. You might want to pick up Jon Ronson's book on public shaming, I think it has a lot more cogent examples that would probably serve as better bedrocks for discussion of the issues you want to raise. I do think we have an issue where we've confused tolerance with acceptance with politeness, but I don't think that's necessarily singularly on the side of the outraged twitterati.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Believe me, I understand the difference between a 1st Amendment violation and society generally. I'm not concerned about the government, but more about the tone we are taking as a society. I really do think its dangerous to constantly vilify everyone we disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You're like the only person who'e worried about that in this thread. I think you came here looking for a particular fight, and decided, "well by god, if no one else is going to have this fight, then I'll just beat myself up over it!" You... brought the entire topic up, right here? Like, my post quotes your post and responds directly to it and everything. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You might want to pick up Jon Ronson's book on public shaming, I think it has a lot more cogent examples that would probably serve as better bedrocks for discussion of the issues you want to raise. Thats probably much more constructive; will do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Twitter shaming really does go well above and beyond what is reasonable sometimes, it's closer to the principle of shaming or shunning practiced in exclusive religious communities. I agree, that twitter shaming can go above and beyond what is reasonable, and it actually works both ways such as in the case of Anita Sarkeesian. I remember someone gave me poo poo because I stated that race is something that was socially constructed and wasn't being used biologically by most people who use the concept and then when I was called out on it, I reflected on it a bit and came to the conclusion that even though I am black, I have very little in common with black people from Africa to the point where the grouping is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
You keep on talking about censorship and loss of freedom, but what freedom are you fighting for? The freedom to find the battleflag readily available for sale at every commercial retailer? Everyone is still free to buy, sell, and fly any flag they want. There were no boycotts or protests that lead to anyone deciding not to sell this symbol of a pro-slavery institution anymore. Should they be forced to continue selling it against their will?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Give us the nuance behind the Confederacy and it's flag that we are missing since that was your example There isn't as much nuance behind the confederacy and its flag as there is behind the people flying it. White Southerners have traditionally been mostly poor and uneducated. They lost a war and the other half of the country came in and told them how to run things. They hold on to the flag out of pride, stubbornness, lack of education, and yes often racism. But a lot of the backlash in this whole debate is because so many of these people genuinely believe their favorite flag isn't racist. It would be nice if the people arguing against the flag would try harder to see that and approach them with more subtlety to their persuasions than "You're racist."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:There isn't as much nuance behind the confederacy and its flag as there is behind the people flying it. White Southerners have traditionally been mostly poor and uneducated. They lost a war and the other half of the country came in and told them how to run things. They hold on to the flag out of pride, stubbornness, lack of education, and yes often racism. But a lot of the backlash in this whole debate is because so many of these people genuinely believe their favorite flag isn't racist. It would be nice if the people arguing against the flag would try harder to see that and approach them with more subtlety to their persuasions than "You're racist." It's more "That flag is racist and you shouldn't fly it if you care about racism" Sure, some people may be ignorant to its history and meaning, but I wouldn't bet on a majority. Plus, the war they lost was over keeping slaves. They should be corrected. Maybe I'll just stick with "Bless their hearts"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:There isn't as much nuance behind the confederacy and its flag as there is behind the people flying it. White Southerners have traditionally been mostly poor and uneducated. They lost a war and the other half of the country came in and told them how to run things. They hold on to the flag out of pride, stubbornness, lack of education, and yes often racism. But a lot of the backlash in this whole debate is because so many of these people genuinely believe their favorite flag isn't racist. It would be nice if the people arguing against the flag would try harder to see that and approach them with more subtlety to their persuasions than "You're racist." Many times, I think this is similar to Reagan's Philadelphia, MS speech in that most people know whats going on in a coded way. I don't think Southerners are stupid. and while the South is a complex place, it isn't that hard to dig up the history about the Civil War if one really wanted to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Believe me, I understand the difference between a 1st Amendment violation and society generally. I'm not concerned about the government, but more about the tone we are taking as a society. I really do think its dangerous to constantly vilify everyone we disagree with. Okay, fair enough. In that case, the major problem with your argument is that you're basically saying it's never okay to condemn people for their opinions. Let's say someone posts "I hate niggers!" on their Facebook. Are other people being intolerant and trying to silence that person if they reply with "wow, you're a racist rear end in a top hat"? What you're saying is basically "WHAT IF GOOD BELIEFS ARE SOMEDAY TREATED LIKE BAD BELIEFS" (by private citizens, not the government, as we've established) which is a super dumb slippery slope argument. If someone is wrong about your beliefs, explain why. Don't just try and silence them (which is exactly what you're doing; you are saying that people should not express their anger or condemn others). It's honestly pretty ironic that you're criticizing others for trying to silence people with "dissenting" opinions, when the people you're criticizing are rarely actually saying "you can't say this." Someone that says "you're an rear end in a top hat for saying ______" is not trying to silence you. You, on the other hand, are explicitly saying "people should not express certain opinions" (in this case the opinion that others believe things that are wrong/harmful). It's super hypocritical. edit: I should mention that some of what you're talking about might be flat out harassment more than anything else. If a bunch of people swarm you online (or one person posts a whole bunch) saying "you're super racist and a terrible person! shut up you racist!" that's more a matter of harassment than anything else. This can happen a bunch on Twitter just because of the nature of the platform; when thousands/millions of people can see and reply to what you post, you're naturally going to get a huge volume of responses. Regardless, I don't think this ever really happens to anyone who isn't famous/a public figure of some sort and is mostly just a problem on Twitter or public Facebook pages. There also isn't really a way to prevent it, other than just suggesting to people that contributing the same opinion that 500 other people have already contributed isn't helpful. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Okay, fair enough. In that case, the major problem with your argument is that you're basically saying it's never okay to condemn people for their opinions. Let's say someone posts "I hate niggers!" on their Facebook. Are other people being intolerant and trying to silence that person if they reply with "wow, you're a racist rear end in a top hat"? Well, he does have a point when what people consider "good" and "bad" beliefs can end up with a loss of livelihood, especially when those beliefs are entirely unrelated to job performance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well, he does have a point when what people consider "good" and "bad" beliefs can end up with a loss of livelihood, especially when those beliefs are entirely unrelated to job performance. Does this actually happen much? I've seen teachers, cops, and other public figures see repercussions for bigotry (as they can't really be trusted to be fair to members of the group they hate - this is directly tied to their job responsibilities), and I've seen people let go from honorary PR positions for not reflecting the organization's values (see: that recent Tim Hunt thing). I've also seen people stop frequenting shops where the owners have broadcasted such opinions (which has been covered by the thread already). What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well, he does have a point when what people consider "good" and "bad" beliefs can end up with a loss of livelihood, especially when those beliefs are entirely unrelated to job performance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well, he does have a point when what people consider "good" and "bad" beliefs can end up with a loss of livelihood, especially when those beliefs are entirely unrelated to job performance. Yeah, that's why I added a caveat of sorts that people being fired (or punished otherwise) for things they post on social media is a legitimate problem and at the very least is a moral grey area. He seems to be speaking much more generally, though. "People should never react strongly to opinions because everything is relative and what if everyone thinks you're wrong someday????" is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. All opinions are not created equal and some beliefs are legitimate bad. If you feel that people are being criticized for believing things that aren't bad, you should explain why those things are not bad; not try to silence their criticism/reactions. Social stigma against bad/harmful beliefs serves a genuine purpose, and that must be balanced against the potential harm of people reacting the same way against good/correct beliefs. Basically, in the current political climate the benefit of people trying to ostracize racists/bigots definitely outweighs the existing and hypothetical harm of people condemning others for harmless beliefs. There is no realistic threat of us magically transforming into Nazi Germany, and a bunch of people condemning others for having racist beliefs is not some ominous sign of things to come.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:Does this actually happen much? I've seen teachers, cops, and other public figures see repercussions for bigotry (as they can't really be trusted to be fair to members of the group they hate - this is directly tied to their job responsibilities), and I've seen people let go from honorary PR positions for not reflecting the organization's values (see: that recent Tim Hunt thing). I've also seen people stop frequenting shops where the owners have broadcasted such opinions (which has been covered by the thread already). I mean, I'm sure in some sense it has always happened, but the reason it's become a Thing is that it's all public and global now. It also ties into employers and employees both participating in the same spheres of social media, and employer "brand management" effectively requiring employees to live as if they're representing their employers 24/7, which is a level of controlling employees that we should be very wary about crossing into. It's easy to say things like "well, employees have a right to manage their images by firing people who tweet racist stuff," but the same argument applies to an Anheuser Busch employee tweeting "Bud Light tastes like the urethral discharge of a syphilitic orangutan." It probably isn't that frequent to be honest, but it's a seemingly novel issue which is why it gets attention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
many johnnys posted:Does this actually happen much? I've seen teachers, cops, and other public figures see repercussions for bigotry (as they can't really be trusted to be fair to members of the group they hate - this is directly tied to their job responsibilities), and I've seen people let go from honorary PR positions for not reflecting the organization's values (see: that recent Tim Hunt thing). I've also seen people stop frequenting shops where the owners have broadcasted such opinions (which has been covered by the thread already). Shirley Sherrod. Although I think that is a bit different. The Warszawa posted:I mean, I'm sure in some sense it has always happened, but the reason it's become a Thing is that it's all public and global now. It also ties into employers and employees both participating in the same spheres of social media, and employer "brand management" effectively requiring employees to live as if they're representing their employers 24/7, which is a level of controlling employees that we should be very wary about crossing into. This is true, but I think it is a symptom of another problem in that employers can fire you for almost anything they want and get away with it, because it's definitely not limited to social media. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
The novel part is that we live in a surveillance state now, and this is spilling out into all of our relationships. Unable to challenge this through the democratic process, people turn to right-wing populism, which pins the blame firmly on the left (eg SJWs, and so on). Or they try to justify it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
So what was the nuance of the Confederacy that is obfuscated by outright blanketing the history of the Confederacy as villainous?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I mean, I'm sure in some sense it has always happened, but the reason it's become a Thing is that it's all public and global now. It also ties into employers and employees both participating in the same spheres of social media, and employer "brand management" effectively requiring employees to live as if they're representing their employers 24/7, which is a level of controlling employees that we should be very wary about crossing into. Yeah, I think that it's probably best to err on the side of not allowing employers to punish employees for what they post on social media, unless what they post corroborates with other behavior of theirs while on the job. That being said, there are plenty of situations where it's difficult to draw a line legally but we still think it's best for the law to exist. If someone is posting a bunch of really vile poo poo on twitter and their employer and fellow employees know of it (especially if it's racist and they have black coworkers or something, like I mentioned in an earlier post), it might be more justifiable to fire someone. It's entirely possible to judge such situations on a case by case basis. If the result of such a legal precedent was more negative than positive, it could be reassessed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I have said thousands of things on the internet that, if presented to me in a deposition, would surely result in my being fired and internet shamed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
As someone who has Civil War reenacted for the greater amount of my life (18 1/2 years out of 19) due to family obligations I can say with 100% certainty that the Confederate Flag (and all confederacy related flags) should be kept to museums and historical and educational events. And before you ask "well what about all the US flags because the US also did bad stuff!?!?" well the US has also done not bad stuff to, the Confederacy had little to no redeeming qualities at all and the only people who think it did are uneducated or vile human beings who are pissed their way of life is dying/dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
The Confederate flag shouldn't be burned because that's a respectful way to retire a flag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:It makes it more difficult for racists to signal their presence to one another. That means people will be less certain about the prevalence of their views and therefore more uncertain about how those around them will react if they express those views, even if they're only implicitly racist. Racists would likely be bolder about their racism amongst a sea of Confederate symbols than without them. Uh maybe in the 80's but we have the internet these days. Why would any person be less certain of their views? You can find an echo-chamber for basically any position imaginable. Also you act like code-words don't exist, people in the north hardly need the confederate flag to be racist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Believe me, I understand the difference between a 1st Amendment violation and society generally. I'm not concerned about the government, but more about the tone we are taking as a society. I really do think its dangerous to constantly vilify everyone we disagree with. It's a really stupid question because this is the primary and arguably only way human society has ever behaved. Or to put it constructively, the entire premise of your argument is incorrect, because this isn't new and we aren't "becoming" this way. Would you rather go back to settling philosophical disagreements with politically motivated genocide? Because the world has been doing that for ages. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't think it helps the debate to say this, but I honestly couldn't care less about the Confederate Flag. I'd probably care more if they came for this: If your dissenting view is that "the confederacy was good and noble and had great ideas on how to treat black people" then yes, that view should be eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:57
|
|
because its racist against Mexicans; that flag is much more representative of what I consider to be my State's history.
|
blarzgh posted:You're probably right. I came here to express my frustration with the fact that even though we've increased our ability to communicate by a thousand fold, we've boiled down the tone and depth of our conversations to, "Nuh uh, you're the [racist/sexist/evilest] because you don't agree with me." This is really post 9-11 stuff, the whole 'you are with us or you are against us' was adopted by both sides quite willingly. Spangly A posted:It's a really stupid question because this is the primary and arguably only way human society has ever behaved. This isn't true at all, but it's understandable why you would think this if you are young. tsa fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is really post 9-11 stuff, the whole 'you are with us or you are against us' was adopted by both sides quite willingly. *cough* cold war *cough*
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
tsa posted:Uh maybe in the 80's but we have the internet these days. Why would any person be less certain of their views? You can find an echo-chamber for basically any position imaginable. Also you act like code-words don't exist, people in the north hardly need the confederate flag to be racist. People in the north may be more the rude kinda racist, but the south literally builds monuments to people who founded the KKK, murdered hundreds of slaves in cold blood, and celebrate the deaths of the heroes of abolition. Like the daughters of the confederacy put up a fuckhuge monument at harpers ferry that literally says "John Brown killed a black dude once during his rebellion to free the slaves makes u think"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
I hope you appreciate the irony of using lynching imagery in order to concern-troll on behalf of the loving klan flag. Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is really post 9-11 stuff, the whole 'you are with us or you are against us' was adopted by both sides quite willingly. yeah sorry im not prepared to treat opinions like "nathan bedford forrest wasnt all that bad" with respect i guess. its very impolitic of me to not acknowledge that the war criminal and terrorist might have some positives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? There's a lot that can be said about financial coercion but the way around that would be to make it so people aren't reliant on selling their labor in order to survive, not to make it impossible to fire someone who publicly expresses views that make your company look bad and/or make your other employees feel threatened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:53
|
|
- hi
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Believe me, I understand the difference between a 1st Amendment violation and society generally. I'm not concerned about the government, but more about the tone we are taking as a society. I really do think its dangerous to constantly vilify everyone we disagree with. See that's funny, because until very recently there was a certain very large, very vocal segment of white society that greatly enjoyed harassing and bullying anyone they felt was too "Liberal", "Commie", "human being", "race traitor", "(insert racial slur here)", "Hippy freak", etc. They lined the halls of power. You know, Good Old Boys. They pulled all sorts of interesting poo poo. For instance; Standing in doorways to prevent black kids from going to school. Using dogs and fire hoses to prevent black people from voting. Dragging suspected homosexuals from the backs of their pickup trucks. Lynching a whole lot of black folks. Burning down businesses of minorities and anyone who dealt farily with them. Passing segregation laws. Passing miscegenation laws. Passing anti-sodomy laws. Redlining. Creating sundown towns. The list could go on for quite a while. But you know what happened? Real recently it became not as socially acceptable to be a bigoted piece of poo poo to other people for immutable characteristics. So now you have a huge chunk of the white populace, crying foul that their "deeply held views" are being "censored". Suddenly, it's "Christianity under attack!" "Obama Tyranny!" and "They're culturally cleansing the south!" Nobody is oppressing you by looking at your lovely views about other people askance. You just get to be judged by others for the things you do and say, just like everyone else always has. Though hopefully, you won't be judged for your immutable characteristics like they have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 20:58
|
|