DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential campaign thread 6

The Libs have a label for every opinion other than their own.

Homophobe
Racist
Bigot
Xenophobe
Klan member
Nazi

Americans have learned to keep their opinions to themselves in the face of oppression. An American can lose his job or position just for having an opinion the Left disagrees with.

Chic Fil a announces they support family values and the Left tries to crush their business because they are Homophobic.

Trump followers know to not place a Trump bumper sticker on their cars or a Trump sign in their yards because there will be retribution from the Left. You keep your opinion to yourself and you vote for Trump.

Instead of open discussion and understanding, employers just won't hire someone from a group they have an negative opinion about. They will say all the right things but they won't hire.

There are many examples I see on a daily basis where the Politically Correct words are spoken but the actions taken are the complete opposite.

Oppression has only served to end the discussion and increase the silent acts of retribution from others.

In my opinion this PC world has only served to make our Society worse than honest conversation ever could have.

Nice post, 40. I like how you wrapped it up:


That is so true. It just seems so obvious to me that it is better to just get all the ideas out there, no matter how unpleasant some of them may be. Get it all out there, then you can start working together on solutions.

When a quarter of the country is branded as deplorable, when people are attacked, harassed, and ostracized for their 'backwards' views, bigotry gets taken underground where it lives forever.

That's stupid. Let people say whatever they want to say, no matter how uncomfortable it may make some people. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Along those lines, I don't think that openly advocating for violence against others is acceptable. That does not really fall under the protections of free speech.

Pretty much everything else is fair game. That means that even 'backwards ideas' should not be persecuted by the state. People should not be sued into oblivion for having them, and people should not be shamed, kicked out of school, or made unemployable for them either.

It strikes me as both odd and revealing that you assign a label to a group of people you are criticizing for assigning labels.

meh, semantics aside, I understand what 40 is saying. I see how these labels get thrown around and they take on a life of their own, stifling any hope of good discussion.

I'm tired of it.

BS! Example please.

I've engaged on this asinine topic in the past. Are you aware Trump sued Bill Maher for comparing him to an orangutang? Are you aware he wants to open up libel laws? Are you also aware he tried to sue the Onion over a satire piece? That doesn't sound like a champion of anti-PC. That sounds like an overly sensitive individual.

If you want to say what you want, fine. However, your words do not free you from being socially ostracized, being fired from an organization if your words reflect poorly on said organization, and being labeled a certain way. Watch this interview by Ben Shapiro-

https://youtu.be/nIUAW5G2SBc

Posting openly offensive things doesn't make you anti-PC, it just makes you a jackass.

You must be blind. Just begin with Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder and follow thru to Chic Fil A and finish up with the pizza guy who was anti gay marriage and what he has gone thru.

Oppression!

Then they walk that jack-ass-backwards in shame.

So in those examples it was just the left that disagreed with their stances? ..........glad you cleared that up.

There was no discussion to the validity of what he said, there was only, "You can't say that! You are Fired!"

To this day there are many people who think what he said was true but he was forbidden to say it.

No discussion, no education, just oppression and suppression.
This serves no one.

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to spread hate, or malice without consequence. It gives you the right to say what you think, but there's consequences. It's why you can't get away with death threats, either.

It's like Newton's laws of physics: "For every action, there is an equal but opposite direction." (DC, sorry if I butchered it...physics was 10 years ago)

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-mo...ick-fil-a-11113

last year chick fil a was the 8th largest fast food chain in the U.S. and they close every Sunday of the week. They're hardly oppressed. By the way, how is a boycott PC? Isn't that just the interactions that businesses and consumers rely on under capitalism?

Yeah he disagreed with the left and he was fired?

Who was fired at Chic Fillet for disagreeing with opinions of the left?

Was the Pizza man fired for having an opinion disagreeing with the left?

Is it only the left that disagrees with these stances?

I call BS when I hear it, and your statement is 100% BS.

Not true. If you look at the meaning behind the "Right of Free Speech" in our Constitution, you will find it only, yes only, applies to our Right to speak against our Government. Nothing else.

In America we always had the freedom to speak our minds and society would judge it to be good or bad or proper.

Today, free Americans can no longer speak their minds, get a reaction, hear the truth, and be forever educated. They are just told "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!" "WE FIND IT OFFENSIVE!"
Truth be damned.

A perfect example is when I was a kid, everyone used the "N" word. As time went by and the Black Race made it clear the word was offensive, society began to change. My Grandparents still said it, my parents rarely said it, I never said it, and my children are horrified at the word.

Discussion tho offensive, education in it being offensive to many and in the fact that most don't wish to offend, and finally societal change.

That right there is how America is supposed to work, oppression is for Tyrant Nations!

But only the left will disagree with the use of it.

I love how this was said after an entire post about the period of the civil rights movement.

So are you saying my post was wrong or untrue?

No, I just find it funny how you post an example about how America wasn't a tyrant nation, during a time when they were being a tyrant nation.

If things were back then as they are today, my Grandparents would have been told "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!" and we would all probably be using the word today, in secret of course.

You may see us as a Tyrant Nation back then but I see a Nation on the road to greatness and learning how to get along with all the different people who make up our Society.

Education, not Oppression.

Then we essentially see the same thing. A tyrant nation becoming less tyrannical.

No.

Well Haus, I'm not one to be PC. I don't like people trying to make PC the standard at all.

However, there is a huge difference between not being PC, and being down right rude and nasty. And in politics and in political conversations today, people us the guise of not being PC, to downright spread and speak in ways that are nothing short of rude, mean and hateful. So there's two sides to the coin here.

Oh, and I understand how you feel more comfortable with Trump running foreign policy. After all, he's already stated that he knows more than all of the generals, so what could go wrong? We should have stolen all of Iraq's oil and simply bomb innocent citizens anywhere ISIS can be found.

Wow! Usually you finish your anti Trump tripe with "Oh yea, Hillary sucks too."

Must have forgot to announce your unbiased position this time.

I got your back Pit!


Hillary Sucks Too!

I know I'm going to catch hell for this 40, but it's time to face the facts.

First the N word was used everywhere. Blacks hated it and preferred the word Negro. So much so that the United Negro College Fund was founded and still use it in their title today.

Then blacks found that offensive and wanted to be called colored people. So much so, that the NAACP put the term in their title and still use it in their title to this very day.

Then that was found to be offensive and the term African American people became the popular term.

Then we were told to use the term blacks. In the last couple of generations we have been told to change our speech over and over again. And we've seemed to change to the whims of minorities time and time again every time they decide they want us to.

Maybe if they would finally make their minds up it would be fine. But it gets rather tiring to be dictated to over and over again.

I do not know much about what you are talking about in regards to Bill Maher and theonion. I will have to look into it. My comments were not about Trump or Hillary but rather general comments about political discourse. You may very well be right about Donald Trump's stance on this. I would add that I read Hillary as being very much anti-free speech and anti-internet freedom. I'll have to dig up some stuff about that.

About posting openly offensive things doesn't make someone anti-PC, it just makes you a jackass (and Rocket's somewhat related assertion that hate speech is not protected): The issue I have with is that there is no consistency in how these things are applied. I personally have a higher threshold for what constitutes racism or bigotry or hate speech than most other people.

I would agree with Rocket that death threats are not covered under free speech, nor should they. That is akin to openly advocating for violence which I think crosses the line. However, "hate speech" is so ambiguous, can mean so many things, and gets thrown around so loosely. Would any of my posts be considered hate speech? I have seen some European countries arrest its citizens for making anti-immigrant posts on their Facebook or whatever. If similar laws were enacted in the United States, would some of us on Dawgtalkers be subject to arrest for posting controversial opinions?

I know this is the slippery slope fallacy, but given that it has already happened in some European countries and the fact that some liberals here want to enact similar laws, I think they are reasonable concerns. I do not want to live in a society where I am only allowed to think and speak in certain ways.

There's more than enough people attacking Hillary and she deserves it all.

But when people actually state they feel safer with Trump, I feel like stating the obvious is only proper.

I mean didn't he actually say that he knows more than the generals? It's not like I made it up. It's a direct quote from Trump. Didn't he say he would bomb the hell out of Isis anywhere and everywhere they were?

So yeah, if someone feels safer with Trump, I plan to point those things out.

Did you mean like when Trump told his supporters at a rally that if they beat the hell out of protesters he would pay their legal bills, you feel that was hate speech or wrong?

Anything Trump can screw up is still light years better than Hillary picking a fight with Russia. The former is mostly just posturing although I do think going after ISIS makes a whole lot of sense. The latter could theoretically lead to end of the world territory.

There are some disconcerting things about Hillary. Go through and read some of the Wikileaks war emails. You won't find any smoking gun to anything awful but there is just this hawkishness that is hard to bear. Yes she has more experience in this regard, but when that experience helped lead to the chaos that we see in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya, I'm not so sure that experience is a good thing. Perhaps she has learned from her mistakes.

About Libya: the real scandal in Libya was probably not Benghazi but rather toppling the regime of Muammar Gaddafi. That was a complete, utter, disaster. And there we see more of the disconcerting stuff I was talking about Hillary. You know how he died? He was sodomized with a bayonet by 'moderate rebels'. But man she is all too happy to tell you about it.

Oh please don't mistake me for a Hillary fan. I just don't find her any more or less disgusting as Trump.

I'm For Gary Johnson.

From a legal standpoint, there is no call to urgent action and he'd be in the clear. However, the implication there is obvious, and I thought that was wrong and he shouldn't say those kinds of things. Those comments probably should have been a bigger deal than the ones that actually did generate controversy.

Maybe those were a big deal at the time? I don't even really remember. It's been a while.

Unlike Obama and Hillary, Trump is running for President of these United States of America and he is not running for President of the World.

America First!
Making America Great Again!

This PC discussion reminds me of why we can't get anywhere.

A lot of conservatives aren't complaining about being able to say what they want.

They're complaining that they aren't allowed to trash talk complete races or demographics without backlash.

Haus, your argument has boiled down to this:

If trump calls a woman a pig, she should just shut up and take it, because if she complains, she's being PC.

If somebody calls Mexicans rapist and murderers, they should just shut up and not say anything, because if they defend themselves, they are being PC.

You are so one sided it's ridiculous.

If you want to champion the anti PC cause, then you better be balanced.

If you want to call people names and think it's perfectly fine, then don't freaking cry when people return the favor.

Remember, it's anti-PC for them not to.

Your usual twisting or misunderstanding of the subject at hand.

Gets real old, real fast.

I wouldn't mistake you for a Hillary supporter.

Gary Johnson is a respectable candidate. I get that there are a lot of people who do not like Trump or Hillary and that's fine. If you think that one candidate gets too much of a pass and the other candidate is not being treated fairly, that's your right to speak up on it. Actually we probably need more guys like you and Vers and others who do not like either of the main candidates to make sure us other goofballs don't go too extreme.

Only the right would agree with you.

That is not even close to what my argument boils down to. It is more along the lines of having the freedom of thought and freedom of expression. This includes what some might consider to be 'backwards ideas', even if I would disagree with with many of them.

Another parallel could be drawn with the Colin Kaepernick situation. I don't agree with him sitting for Anthem, I think he is young and has a limited understanding of the views that caused him to protest in the first place, but I support his right to do it. Heck, like you have pointed out, he did so in a peaceful way and that point is not lost on me.

Honestly though, we've done this a bunch of times in the past and we're not going to change each others' minds.

Actually that's exactly what your argument is.

You're saying people should be "allowed" to say their backwards ideas.

Here's the issue with your stance: they already do!!!

You GET that right? People are already allowed to say their backward ass ideas. Your boy Trump does it at least once a week.

So your literally taking a stance that doesn't even need to be championed, seeing as how there is no law saying they can't say these things that they are ALREADY saying.

But you're arguing that people should be "allowed" to say whatever they want, but hers what your not arguing for: criticism.

You're basically saying that people should be allowed to have backwards ideas and NOT be criticized for it.

Just so everybody on this board, liberal or conservative, is aware, this is how being anti-PC works. That's how the 1st amendment works.

You're allowed to say whatever bigoted ass comments you choose

And I'm allowed to call you a freaking dumbass in response.

My response isn't PC whatsoever, right? A PC response would be "hey Haus, you're wrong, here's why".

An anti-PC response is to call you a bigoted dumbass, and here's why.

It has to work both ways.

If you want to be able to say whatever you want, which you ALREADY can, then you also better be able to accept the backlash and Critiscim that comes with it.

Because if not? Well, you aren't taking up the anti-PC cause.

All you want is to be able to say your backwards ideas(your words) and not be held accountable for your words.

You know what that's called? A safe space.

Libel laws and Trump

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

Bill Maher and Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/06/showbiz/trump-bill-maher-suit/

The Onion and Trump

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/that-tim...famatory-story/

That's your anti-PC champion.