Is the West Mall still a place where all speech is welcome?

[statsman 5457]

1 hour ago, Terry Silver said:

People like Shapiro and even Joe Rogan are science deniers that are costing lives and disrupting democracy.  Their goal is to make outlandish statements to gain an audience.

Why would you censor them, then, instead of countering their arguments and claims with superior arguments? Countering them with censorship merely supports them when they say, “I have secret, hidden knowledge that our leaders don’t want to share, for their own nefarious reasons”. 

[Terry Silver 219]

Because they spread misinformation. It undermines our democracy 

[DaggerHorns 3083]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The internet will always ensure people have a platform to spout stupid shit. 

Agreed.

[Terry Silver 219]

2 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

Agreed.

But that’s the root problem. Social media needs to start censoring these people beginning with Trump 

[DaggerHorns 3083]

2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Ok.  I understand you aren't willing to connect the gaps between the first amendment and your defense of cartoon characters - but yet I'm "definitely missing the whole premise of free speech." Noted.

Cartoon characters was a reference to cancel culture. They’re a form of art where art is a form of expression. There’s your connection. You don’t have to like Banksy’s art or Thujone’s cartoons but they have a right to produce these drawings on any level regardless of their intended audience.
 

Were you ever going answer my question about your ridiculous accusation with unionization and free speech as I never talked about this at all? Or….do you want to just admit you were spouting nonsense? I’ll wait.

[statsman 5457]

25 minutes ago, Terry Silver said:

Because they spread misinformation. It undermines our democracy 

“Our” democracy is a liberal democracy. That means protection of minority factions/groups and individual inalienable rights. I would argue that censorship undermines our democracy. 

[Billy Pilgrim 1960]

5 minutes ago, Terry Silver said:

But that’s the root problem. Social media needs to start censoring these people beginning with Trump 

Then where does it stop? Do you silence communists? Antifa? Ted Cruz? AOC? Ilhan Omar? It’s a slippery slope? We shouldn’t all have a homogenous opinion. We should be free thinkers and decide for ourselves. The worst thing we could do is let the government or administrators at Twitter/FB/IG decide what information  should reach us.

[Brisketexan 105095]

42 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

If you want to go on Twitter and bring someone’s comments or actions to light, I absolutely think you should. If that results in someone getting fired for making insensitive remarks, fine with me. I don’t give a shit as long as there is a platform for someone to have an opinion.

There's always a platform.  But for the record, I (owner of platform X) am in no way fucking obligated to provide that platform to you.  I assure you, if I ever set up BrisketTwitter, I will de-platform the fuck out of nazis, for example.  Go be nazis somewhere else.  Preferably in hell.  But sure as hell not on my site.

41 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The internet will always ensure people have a platform to spout stupid shit. 

Yep.....it will.

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

1 minute ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Then where does it stop? Do you silence communists? Antifa? Ted Cruz? AOC? Ilhan Omar? It’s a slippery slope? We shouldn’t all have a homogenous opinion. We should be free thinkers and decide for ourselves. The worst thing we could do is let the government or administrators at Twitter/FB/IG decide what information  should reach us.

Essentially nobody thinks that the government should decide what information reaches us. But saying administrators of private companies shouldn't is crazy-pants. I agree with you that there is subjectivity (meaning some may advocate for Trump to be banned, some may advocate for AOC to be banned, etc.), but saying they shouldn't decide means that they are by definition forced to host anything. Surely you aren't advocating that private companies should be forced to publish views they don't agree with?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

Cartoon characters was a reference to cancel culture. They’re a form of art where art is a form of expression. There’s your connection. You don’t have to like Banksy’s art or Thujone’s cartoons but they have a right to produce these drawings on any level regardless of their intended audience.
 

Were you ever going answer my question about your ridiculous accusation with unionization and free speech as I never talked about this at all? Or….do you want to just admit you were spouting nonsense? I’ll wait.

The rights of cartoon characters you described aren’t associated with the first amendment because the first amendment is limited to actions by government.  None of your examples of the supposed infringement of cartoon character free speech rights have anything to do with government suppression or any connection to the first amendment.  

This is America.  Our free speech rights are guaranteed through the first amendment. If you aren’t talking about the first amendment, but rather your special belief system - maybe we can call it a snowflake free speech system, then OK.

Outside of constructing a snowflake scenario just for you and maybe others you identify with, your position makes no sense.

[Billy Pilgrim 1960]

10 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Essentially nobody thinks that the government should decide what information reaches us. But saying administrators of private companies shouldn't is crazy-pants. I agree with you that there is subjectivity (meaning some may advocate for Trump to be banned, some may advocate for AOC to be banned, etc.), but saying they shouldn't decide means that they are by definition forced to host anything. Surely you aren't advocating that private companies should be forced to publish views they don't agree with?

I agree with you, private businesses can do what they feel is best.

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

10 minutes ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I agree with you, private businesses can do what they feel is best.

But you literally just said "The worst thing we could do is let the government or administrators at Twitter/FB/IG decide what information  should reach us." Does that mean you think that all platforms should publish whatever is submitted with no filter? Because that alternative is that they do indeed decide what information reaches us. Just trying to understand your position. 

[Billy Pilgrim 1960]

19 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

But you literally just said "The worst thing we could do is let the government or administrators at Twitter/FB/IG decide what information  should reach us." Does that mean you think that all platforms should publish whatever is submitted with no filter? Because that alternative is that they do indeed decide what information reaches us. Just trying to understand your position. 

No- I personally think it’s wrong that they decide and filter information but it’s their business and it’s the most common platform out there. I wish there were alternatives but at the present time there isn’t. I don’t think the government forcing a private business to practice a certain way is legit either but it’s what we’ve got.

[Celery Man 20934]

banksy actually does not have the right to produce most of his drawings. that's like 80% of what makes them so cool

[crash_davis 23107]

government isn't doing shit. it's private businesses enforcing their terms of service agreement. twitter, facebook, tiktok, instagram can do what the fuck they want because they are private companies. they have terms of service which if a person breaks, they can remove the offending asshole. no different than a restaurant requiring shirts, shoes, jackets, etc. if you act like an asshole in a restaurant, they can have you removed. twitter is no different.

public universities and governments should not ban free speech but at some point, you have to address the elephant in the room which is people saying complete bullshit lies. at some point, there's a point of marginal utility of free speech where going past is just detrimental for society. the problem again is that line is different for all people.

[statsman 5457]

33 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

public universities and governments should not ban free speech but at some point, you have to address the elephant in the room which is people saying complete bullshit lies. at some point, there's a point of marginal utility of free speech where going past is just detrimental for society. the problem again is that line is different for all people.

Ok. My guess is that the line is much farther out there than most people concerned about “bad” (offensive, wrong, hateful, inciting) speech would put it. 
 
Germany’s experience with outlawing antisemitic speech is telling. The Weimar Republic actually prosecuted the Nazi party for anti semitic speech. It shut them up, publicly, but didn’t change their mind and gave their hateful ideas an allure to the masses that felt threatened by the status order. How did that work out?

After the war, and the Holocaust, Germany again banned anti Semitic speech, and even anti Semitism. They got kudos for their new enlightenment. Brandt got a Nobel for his willingness to seek peace with the east. Then, in the Munich Olympics, PLO terrorists killed several Israelis and were imprisoned. Brandt’s government released them when the PLO threatened German flights. How strong was their commitment to atone, after all, this nation that renounced anti semitism? (Is it ironic that the nation most committed to enforced anti semitism has the fewest Jews? Or expected?)

Bad speech is best countered by good speech in opposition. Censorship may be easy, but it’s dumb and ineffective. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by statsman

[crash_davis 23107]

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

Ok. My guess is that the line is much farther out there than most people concerned about “bad” (offensive, wrong, hateful, inciting) speech would put it. 
 
Germany’s experience with outlawing antisemitic speech is telling. The Weimar Republic actually prosecuted the Nazi party for anti semitic speech. It shut them up, publicly, but didn’t change their mind and gave their hateful ideas an allure to the masses that felt threatened by the status order. How did that work out?

After the war, and the Holocaust, Germany again banned anti Semitic speech, and even anti Semitism. They got kudos for their new enlightenment. Brandt got a Nobel for his willingness to seek peace with the east. Then, in the Munich Olympics, PLO terrorists killed several Israelis and were imprisoned. Brandt’s government released them when the PLO threatened German flights. How strong was their commitment to atone, after all, this nation that renounced anti semitism?

Bad speech is best countered by good speech in opposition. Censorship may be easy, but it’s dumb and ineffective. 

Hitler and Nazi Germany did not grow and thrive because they were banned free speech. There have been countless books on this but economic situations created by the end of WW1 and ineffective governments drove frustrated German people to the bullshit idealism and escapism of Hitler and his bullshit ideology. 

Just like you can't yell fire in a theater and hide under the pretext of free speech, nor should you be able to spout complete utter bullshit lies under the pretext of free speech. Blind dogma of any ism or idea is foolish and can be dangerous if followed without question and excused without reason.

[crash_davis 23107]

19 minutes ago, statsman said:

Ok. My guess is that the line is much farther out there than most people concerned about “bad” (offensive, wrong, hateful, inciting) speech would put it. 
 
Germany’s experience with outlawing antisemitic speech is telling. The Weimar Republic actually prosecuted the Nazi party for anti semitic speech. It shut them up, publicly, but didn’t change their mind and gave their hateful ideas an allure to the masses that felt threatened by the status order. How did that work out?

After the war, and the Holocaust, Germany again banned anti Semitic speech, and even anti Semitism. They got kudos for their new enlightenment. Brandt got a Nobel for his willingness to seek peace with the east. Then, in the Munich Olympics, PLO terrorists killed several Israelis and were imprisoned. Brandt’s government released them when the PLO threatened German flights. How strong was their commitment to atone, after all, this nation that renounced anti semitism? (Is it ironic that the nation most committed to enforced anti semitism has the fewest Jews? Or expected?)

Bad speech is best countered by good speech in opposition. Censorship may be easy, but it’s dumb and ineffective. 

and again, the US government isn't censoring anyone. it's private companies enforcing their terms of service. want to utter complete bullshit with reckless abandon? go on a another website which tolerates the bullshit. some people tried this in creating new free speech twitters/sites but what's the point of preaching complete bullshit to other people who also preach complete bullshit. again, it's not about the message, it's about being an asshole and the likes, of course.

[DaggerHorns 3083]

2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

The rights of cartoon characters you described aren’t associated with the first amendment because the first amendment is limited to actions by government.  None of your examples of the supposed infringement of cartoon character free speech rights have anything to do with government suppression or any connection to the first amendment.  

This is America.  Our free speech rights are guaranteed through the first amendment. If you aren’t talking about the first amendment, but rather your special belief system - maybe we can call it a snowflake free speech system, then OK.

Outside of constructing a snowflake scenario just for you and maybe others you identify with, your position makes no sense.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. 

Art is a form of expression as I previously stated. It’s a shame you can’t connect these dots.

I’m advocating for any form of freedom that allows different forms of communication while you call me a snowflake.

It’s ironic that you want to justify silencing these free forms of expression.

This is the 3rd time I’ll ask you as you seem to be preoccupied with your unintelligent banter. Are you going to address your unionization and free speech bullshit or continue to hide behind your bottle of massengill?

[Foosters 17850]

24 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. 

Art is a form of expression as I previously stated. It’s a shame you can’t connect these dots.

I’m advocating for any form of freedom that allows different forms of communication while you call me a snowflake.

It’s ironic that you want to justify silencing these free forms of expression.

This is the 3rd time I’ll ask you as you seem to be preoccupied with your unintelligent banter. Are you going to address your unionization and free speech bullshit or continue to hide behind your bottle of massengill?

To be fair, there's really no reason to move beyond the unintelligent banter if you are incapable or unwilling to understand what it is the First amendment actually does.

[irishtexan 11518]

29 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. 

Art is a form of expression as I previously stated. It’s a shame you can’t connect these dots.

I’m advocating for any form of freedom that allows different forms of communication while you call me a snowflake.

It’s ironic that you want to justify silencing these free forms of expression.

This is the 3rd time I’ll ask you as you seem to be preoccupied with your unintelligent banter. Are you going to address your unionization and free speech bullshit or continue to hide behind your bottle of massengill?

You really, REALLY don't understand the First Amendment. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

There is a designated "Speaker's Corner"-type spot like this in Houston and I wonder if anyone on here even knows where it is without googling. I think I've seen it in use once, by a preacher, and I've been to this place prob 100 times over the years.

[GW Hayduke 1953]

32 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

Art is a form of expression as I previously stated. It’s a shame you can’t connect these dots.

I’m advocating for any form of freedom that allows different forms of communication while you call me a snowflake.

It’s ironic that you want to justify silencing these free forms of expression.

This is nonsense.  

I’m advocating for the first amendment.

You seem to be advocating a different system of free speech, a special and unique system solely designed around your desires (a snowflake system), which would somehow force private entities (publishers) to publish cartoon characters against the wishes of that private entity.  

Obviously your position is non-sensical, but let’s play out a bit.  How do you propose to force private entities to publish against their will?  Would the government do that? If so, it would be counter to first amendment.  If not in violation of the first amendment, would there be a magical courtroom with DaggerHorns slamming his gavel and making pronouncements and decisions about which cartoon character must be published and then somehow magically it would be so? 

[irishtexan 11518]

5 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

There is a designated "Speaker's Corner"-type spot like this in Houston and I wonder if anyone on here even knows where it is without googling. I think I've seen it in use once, by a preacher, and I've been to this place prob 100 times over the years.

Designated free speech zones are often established at events that are likely to attract protesters exercising their rights to peaceable assembly. The interest of public safety has to be weighed against protecting rights of free speech. The West Mall is on actual Government property, so I'm not sure that they can restrict speech to only one specific area on the West Mall. But again, protesters/crowds cannot assemble in a way that compromises the safety and autonomy of others. There are limits to how one engages in free speech, protests, right to assemble, etc. The First Amendment does not protect anarchy. 

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

So right wingers are still allegedly concerned with institutionalized limitations on speech - here ostensibly  “asking questions” about the physical UT campus - so long as the subject of that speech aligns with what they believe. Do I have that right? 
 

Because I’ve seen no complaints of actual governmental bodies banning books from school libraries. “Well that’s fine. It’s just books about, or written by, minorities. It’s not as important as what Ben Shapiro can tell me about the importance of child pornographer sentencing from Judge Jackson’s history as a trial judge”

Im sorry. I can’t abide people whining about free speech and the first amendment while actual free speech is infringed by government. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

3 hours ago, DaggerHorns said:

Cartoon characters was a reference to cancel culture. They’re a form of art where art is a form of expression. There’s your connection. You don’t have to like Banksy’s art or Thujone’s cartoons but they have a right to produce these drawings on any level regardless of their intended audience.

The Simpsons are a business. They can remove the character if they so choose. That is within their rights. The artists who created the form of expression chose to stop creating the character. 

More specifically, Hank Azaria personally chose to stop voicing the character anymore. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/arts/television/hank-azaria-simpsons-apu.html

Quote

Azaria now says that he will no longer play Apu on “The Simpsons.” It is a choice he said he made for himself after a years long process of examining his own feelings and listening to others who explained how they had been hurt by Apu, who was for years the only depiction of an Indian person they saw on TV.

“Once I realized that that was the way this character was thought of, I just didn’t want to participate in it anymore,” Azaria told me in a recent interview. “It just didn’t feel right.”

You are correct "they have a right to produce these drawings on any level regardless of their intended audience". You are not wrong. They also have the choice not to produce these characters, which was the choice they made. 

You are just upset they made that choice. That is your choice. You can further continue to choose to watch the Simpsons because of this, or not. That is capitalism. 

 

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

1 hour ago, irishtexan said:

Designated free speech zones are often established at events that are likely to attract protesters exercising their rights to peaceable assembly. The interest of public safety has to be weighed against protecting rights of free speech. The West Mall is on actual Government property, so I'm not sure that they can restrict speech to only one specific area on the West Mall. But again, protesters/crowds cannot assemble in a way that compromises the safety and autonomy of others. There are limits to how one engages in free speech, protests, right to assemble, etc. The First Amendment does not protect anarchy. 

Yeah, but this place was designated in the hopes that it would be like West Mall or the OG Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park in London. Again, in the 50 years I've been going there, maybe it's been in use one time? I can't recall clearly. 

[horn4life 3760]

On 3/23/2022 at 5:58 PM, DaggerHorns said:

There are have people that have lost their jobs in both normal work conditions, tv hosting, and numerous other examples throughout our country. As much as I hate newer terms, the term “cancel culture” is there for an actual reason.

These issues did not exist in previous generations. We also did not have the far reach of idiotic social media. This is absolutely attributed to more recent generations.

I can see this clearly bothers you for someone to endorse more free thinking schools of thought.

If you were to compare me to something you could’ve chosen Bob Marley or Rage Against the Machine, but instead you went with your favorite website which is ironically the opposite of freedom of speech or unbridled thought.

I think Bill Maher would like to have a word with you on this "New" cancel culture thing...

[Brisketexan 105095]

5 hours ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

I personally think it’s wrong that they decide and filter information

Cool, cool.

So, this site -- a privately owned, publicly visible space on the internet, "decides what can be posted and filters information." 

Surly does so on things quite mundane: if you spam this site with promotions for your Scentsy sales scam, or Amway, or SuperMegaBrainVitaminFormula 3000, your posts will be removed and you will be banned.  

Surly does so on things that are illegal: post kiddie porn, post removed, user banned.

Surly does so on things that cross ethical lines: openly call for violence against others, or use the n-word as a slur, or call jews a plague and call for their extermination.....posts deleted, user banned.

Your position is that it is wrong for Surly to do any of those things.  Your position is shit.

3 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

So right wingers are still allegedly concerned with institutionalized limitations on speech - here ostensibly  “asking questions” about the physical UT campus - so long as the subject of that speech aligns with what they believe. Do I have that right? 

Because I’ve seen no complaints of actual governmental bodies banning books from school libraries. “Well that’s fine. It’s just books about, or written by, minorities. It’s not as important as what Ben Shapiro can tell me about the importance of child pornographer sentencing from Judge Jackson’s history as a trial judge”

Im sorry. I can’t abide people whining about free speech and the first amendment while actual free speech is infringed by government. 

That's because right wingers are 1,000 times more concerned about fake censorship (private parties choosing not to host their abject shittiness) than they are about ACTUAL censorship (real-deal book bannings, here in the 21st century.  Up is down, etc. etc.

I think a hallmark of a decent society is that it actually does have some lines drawn of behavior it won't tolerate.  If you like to drop n-bombs when referring to black people, you will not be welcome and will be summarily asked to leave 1) my home, 2) my place of business, 3) my public forum (if I owned one like Surly).  Not only am I okay with that, I think a society that CRITICIZES that is fucked up.  I think a society that says "Brisket, it's wrong for you to kick that racist POS out of your house" is utterly fucked up.  Yet, that's exactly what numerous people on this thread are saying.  Fucking amazing.

[DaggerHorns 3083]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

I think Bill Maher would like to have a word with you on this "New" cancel culture thing...

Thank you, I was looking for some scholarly replacement for the scholarly elite on this message board.

[DaggerHorns 3083]

5 hours ago, irishtexan said:

You really, REALLY don't understand the First Amendment. 

No examples or proof, just yell it from the mountain tops!

[Guest Lobo]

55 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

Thank you, I was looking for some scholarly replacement for the scholarly elite on this message board.

I am neither scholarly, nor elite.  But if you would like to discuss free speech on campus...I have deep insight and first-hand experience.  Particularly at the University of Texas at Austin. Let me know, you want to have an adult conversation.  I am so much more from your end of the political spectrum that you can possibly fathom, but I suspect you're just full of other bullshit, we can't have a frank discussion.  But here I am with facts, data, experience, and insight.  But no TV shows.

[DaggerHorns 3083]

36 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I am neither scholarly, nor elite.  But if you would like to discuss free speech on campus...I have deep insight and first-hand experience.  Particularly at the University of Texas at Austin. Let me know, you want to have an adult conversation.  I am so much more from your end of the political spectrum that you can possibly fathom, but I suspect you're just full of other bullshit, we can't have a frank discussion.  But here I am with facts, data, experience, and insight.  But no TV shows.

Never once have I said anything about my political preference. You have no idea which way I lean, yet you know which brush you want to paint me with. You are one in the same with your colleagues. I haven’t discussed politics. I am also here with frank discussion yet you judge me. 
 

It seems my last comment has struck a cord with you even though my guns weren’t pointed at you at all. Was it my comment about “scholarly elite” or just your simplistic insecurities?

[Brisketexan 105095]

Never once have I said anything about my political preference. You have no idea which way I lean, yet you know which brush you want to paint me with. You are one in the same with your colleagues. I haven’t discussed politics. I am also here with frank discussion yet you judge me. 
 
It seems my last comment has struck a cord with you even though my guns weren’t pointed at you at all. Was it my comment about “scholarly elite” or just your simplistic insecurities?

You’re trolling.
You’re not clever.
So you’re not very good at it.

Who’s next?

[DaggerHorns 3083]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You’re trolling.
You’re not clever.
So you’re not very good at it.

Who’s next?

Yup, give up, I’m just trolling. Don’t add any constructive conversation or answer my questions. Just throw out some accusation with no explanation so you can bail out and say, “who’s next?”

[Beau Vine 54211]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:34 PM, Neonmoon said:

Oh this website you can be crowdsourced for having shitty opinions.

You actually can't, because immamac will come add rep for you.

[Beau Vine 54211]

3 hours ago, DaggerHorns said:

No examples or proof, just yell it from the mountain tops!

There really should be no fucking need for examples or proof, because you're just a fucking moron.  What are the first five words of the the 1st Amendment?

[DaggerHorns 3083]

8 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

There really should be no fucking need for examples or proof, because you're just a fucking moron.  What are the first five words of the the 1st Amendment?

Waaaah! We don’t need proof, then you immediately ask me a 1st amendment question….

When was the last time you met with a social worker about your mental incapacity?

[Guest Lobo]

10 hours ago, DaggerHorns said:

Never once have I said anything about my political preference. You have no idea which way I lean, yet you know which brush you want to paint me with. You are one in the same with your colleagues. I haven’t discussed politics. I am also here with frank discussion yet you judge me. 
 

It seems my last comment has struck a cord with you even though my guns weren’t pointed at you at all. Was it my comment about “scholarly elite” or just your simplistic insecurities?

I'm an asshole poster, but one thing I don't really do is call out spelling/grammar/etc.  We all type fast, we all got fat fingers on little phones, we all post from the shitter.  But I just like that you wrote "struck a cord" in the same paragraph as "Scholarly Elite."  I hope all that firewood brings you great warmth.  Meanwhile, I'll play myself out in the Chord of E.  

[DaggerHorns 3083]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I'm an asshole poster, but one thing I don't really do is call out spelling/grammar/etc.  We all type fast, we all got fat fingers on little phones, we all post from the shitter.  But I just like that you wrote "struck a cord" in the same paragraph as "Scholarly Elite."  I hope all that firewood brings you great warmth.  Meanwhile, I'll play myself out in the Chord of E.  

I don’t consider you an asshole. You have some well thought reasoning and good commentary about your trucker situation which I appreciate for comparisons and clarity. Sorry about the typo, it’s difficult to play with myself while checking my bracket and typing on surly.

[Guest Lobo]

Don't apologize to me.  Say sorry to your wife who walked in on you spanking it to a march madness print-out and your phone's browser set to this fucking place. 

[Brisketexan 105095]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

Don't apologize to me.  Say sorry to your wife who walked in on you spanking it to a march madness print-out and your phone's browser set to this fucking place. 

Wait....are we kink-shaming now?  I didn't think we did that around here.

[Captainant 27653]

On 3/23/2022 at 9:08 PM, DaggerHorns said:

People get fired for their opinions all the time.

We live in a world where certain cartoon characters are removed and business owners are forced to facilitate people; rather than these people not watching that specific cartoon or simply ignoring the unwanted businesses.

Too say that there is no such thing as cancel culture is not only ignorant but incredibly stupid. We never had people fired for simply speaking out things that offended others. This is new.

When you say “people are being held accountable for their words and actions.” We aren’t addressing “actions.” Free speech is only about what you’re saying not doing. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with holding someone accountable for what they said. Again, people can say whatever they want regardless of who it offends, disagree, agree, etc. 
 

You can engage in a constructive debate saying anything you want on the UT Austin campus. The truth of this matter is that in today’s world, it’s absolutely, without question, easier to offend someone or find those who are easily offended. 

 

Man sounds like yall are reading the same FW:FW:FW: chain lol

[Guest Lobo]

George Will accepted our invite to campus next month.  Y'all be nice.  George will probably draw some ire given his bona fides.  But I suspect he'll also draw some vitriol from his former team because he writes in complete sentences.  Should be an interesting case study.  I'm trying to get him together with Elon Musk that same day but apparently there's a factory opening with peaches. 

[Celery Man 20934]

See if Peaches will play on the west mall, problem solved.

[Guest Lobo]

but what if there are millions of peaches, and peaches for free?  

[Deej 76759]

Peaches, you say?

 

[DaggerHorns 3083]

Peaches come from a can, they were put there by a man, in a factory downtown