United States of Politics in 2018

Actually car crash victims do influence the rules of the road. The example of MADD was already given, and also I know multiple 4 way stop signs and red lights have been installed around here because enough people complained about how dangerous the intersections were without them.

 

You tolerant progressives and your safe space echo chambers.


Liberals are more likely to unfriend you over politics — online and off

 

Dont sorry shaman, some of us libtards are still listening to you assholes

 

Ah, there's that big bad "Left" again, always speaking in unison. Unlike the "right", mouthing talking points provided by Breitbart, Fox and InfoWars. What an ideologue!

 

Thanks I don’t know what I would do without you

I’m also glad you’re now embracing the libtard label with a sense of pride and empowerment. Just as it should be. TBH I think Kerri and Idlewild are adorable.

 

So you don't want anything to challenge your beliefs?

 

Challenge is one thing, mindless repetition another. Spending hours, day after day, pointing out obvious fallacies and fake facts in right wing arguments can be tedious "But people die from bathtub slips, and dey're just as ded". But ladders. "But cars kill more people than guns". "But Muslims want to take over the U.S. and ram Sharia down our throats after they and the Mexicans rape our wimmins." But Obama. But Hillary."But people die from bathtub slips, and dey're just as ded".But ladders. "But cars kill more people than guns". "But Muslims want to take over the U.S. and ram Sharia down our throats after they and the Mexicans rape our wimmins." But Obama. But Hillary. "But people die from bathtub slips, and dey're just as ded"."But ladders." "But cars kill more people than guns". "But Muslims want to take over the U.S. and ram Sharia down our throats after they and the Mexicans rape our wimmins." But Obama. But Hillary. Yada Yada Yada

 

Neither does having a Hip Forums account, but look at all the experts here.

 

Laura.

 

So if someone was outed as gay, and the court of public opinion demanded that they be fired for it, that would be ok, because the court of public opinion must be respected...right?

 

There was once a freedom of speech movement in America. It was once largely supported by the left.
Traditional liberal values of open mindedness and tolerance seem to require that you hear the opinions of those that you disagree with, and counter them with reason rather than censorship.

Now that the left holds a dominant position in education and the media, any support for freedom of speech by them seems to have been discarded. The left only supported freedom of speech to the extent it was useful to their objectives.

We seem to have reached a historical moment where being a leftist, and upholding the traditional liberal values of tolerance and open mindedness are diametrically opposed.

 

The right often has ideas that have no scientific basis only a religious one. They think they are censored because people question them.
Ignorance is not equal to facts.

 

I don't watch much tv, so I'm not entirely aware of what, in particular, he has argued.

I would say in general, what I would say in defense of 2nd amendment rights is that guns have been around for a long time. What's new is not guns, but rather a supply of people who are angry enough to use them.

If we simply try to address the problem of gun violence by restricting gun ownership, we will at best achieve more effective marginalization of an angry segment of society.

We don't live in a genuine democracy. What we believe to be true, and what we will consent to is largely manufactured by those who control information. Gun ownership is one of the few rights of the people that can not be so easily torn up.

Trying to resolve the issue of gun violence by further erosion of the rights of the individual citizens shifts more power into the hands of those who control information.

I'm not claiming that restricting gun ownership would not in principle reduce the mortality rate in mass killings. I am saying that such a restriction would not be without adverse consequences for society.

So just my 2 cents. I don't have the time or the energy to get into multipage debate about this.

 

It was insinuated that conservatives should be banned from HF. That's not censorship though, that's just the righteous reaction of the wise and tolerant to ignorance...right?

 

I dont know why the 1st amendment is confusing for so many.

She has the freedom to say cunty things. People who oppose what she says have the freedom to boycott her advertisers. Her advertisers have the freedom to pull their ads from her network, and her network has the freedom to fire her because she's costing them money. All of this is perfectly legal. No one is forced to respect the court of public opinion but advertisers and television networks generally do listen to the court of public opinion because in their business that translates to dollar signs and profit is usually the bottom line.

As far as your example. I think a judge stuck in the 50s actually did rule recentlu that one's sexuality isnt a protected class. I sincerely hope that ruling is challenged and overturned as sexuality should be a protected class.

But for now I think it works the same....people have the right to boycott advertisers, advertisers can pull their ads, the network can fire him because he's costing them money. This one is a bit stickier though because the gay person who was fired can then hire a lawyer and challenge the existing court ruling and hopefully overturn it so that sexuality is officially recognized as a protected class.

Even then I think the network would probably have an argument if the gay man in question was costing them a lot of money. No one should be forced to employ someone who makes a for-profit company lose money. But even so, if the fired person in question can prove he was fired for being gay he would probably have a pretty good case .

Thankfully this is just a highly hypothetical situation because its 2018 and the court of public opinion isnt likely to sway in the direction of firing someone for being gay, and advertisers likely arent going to pull ads because someone is gay when corporations try so hard to promote an inclusive environment these days.

But anyways. Being a person who says cunty things will never be a protected class.

Does that answer your question?

 

Yes. If the left doesn't like someone, it's ok for them to be fired. If the left does like someone, then it is not ok for them to be fired, but lucky for us the leftist are in power, so it's a non issue.

 

This forum gives me so many WTF moments

Aaand deleting the rest because why bother

I'm sorry you didnt understand my post.

 

Laura Ingraham's ratings have now risen 20% since before the boycott.

 

I think its fair to say that Mel, along with many other Lefties, just dont want to see the point that others are making.