This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - eggsalad
1
« on: November 18, 2018, 05:17:11 PM »
Even when I believed in one and thought he would resent me I didn't really fear him because I felt I deserved it and that everything was as it should be. I figured if god thought something then he was probably right, so what is there for me to do about it.
2
« on: October 08, 2018, 08:22:00 PM »
Conservative heavy SC now that a bunch of civil rights cases for LGBTQ+ folks are likely going to be hitting the court in the coming years. Yeehaw.
3
« on: October 01, 2018, 03:15:53 PM »
for the gratification of using debate as a means to psychological self-harm
4
« on: October 01, 2018, 01:43:16 PM »
they cant breed if theyre all dead
5
« on: July 03, 2018, 11:04:28 PM »
awww he's so cuteeee
the correct letter to extend in this word would be the "u" as the "e" is silent
you're correct my bad
6
« on: July 03, 2018, 01:54:57 PM »
awww he's so cuteeee
7
« on: June 11, 2018, 12:41:48 AM »
20 years ago people wouldn't put up with this kind of crap go postal then you limpdick
8
« on: June 10, 2018, 11:30:33 PM »
neck
9
« on: May 28, 2018, 05:48:34 PM »
Generally no but various areas of society should be held to a standard such that they are not discriminatory or hostile environments.
You can shout racial slurs all you want if you're just a private citizen on the street, but someone shouldn't be openly demeaned in their place of work, education, etc on the basis of their race, gender, disability, etc. If a business or university or whatever fails to uphold this standard, they should be held accountable. Similar to how a business that fails to uphold fire and health safety codes is held accountable.
10
« on: May 28, 2018, 12:42:06 PM »
Was alright. Acting was inconsistent.
Better than Rogue One, not sure how it squares up with the new trilogy.
11
« on: May 20, 2018, 11:54:04 AM »
There's a reason "he" and "she" exist. It's easier to use those words than to form the sentence differently, or maybe the person you're speaking to doesn't know their name, or forgets names a lot. It's convenient. Calling someone a nigger isn't convenient
Speaking from your own biases here. Some old cunt from 1940 probably could just as easily feel that "nigger" does come off the tongue easily, and being able to just say "nigger" instead of otherwise describing a person is incredibly convenient. its only use is malicious. The person who wants to use it may claim they don't mean it in a malicious way. "Nigger" is just how they describe black people. To them "nigger" could just means someone has dark skin. You can argue calling someone who identifies as female but is a male "he" is malicious Yeah that's sort of the point. but calling someone "he/him" is not inherently malicious Never claimed as such. I don't see how something not being inherently malicious means we can't address situations in which it is malicious. Hell, "nigger" isn't inherently malicious either. It can be said for historical or contextual reasons, like it is right now, ironically. And all of this just seems to be arguments why one should be restricted and the other not, but doesn't really tell me why one is "compelled" speech and the other not, which is more what I intended to be the scope of this conversation.
12
« on: May 19, 2018, 10:42:25 PM »
So often in discussions pertaining to free speech I hear this term thrown out in attempts to justify why someone might condone some forms of speech restriction but not others. Of course I am alluding to people who condone preexisting regulations on hate-speech in regards to race, but not also condoning such regulations in regards to gender identity.
The argument typically goes that in the case of race it is merely restricted speech. That you are not permitted to say specific words that we consider to be racial slurs or discriminatory language. They present this as being different from the case of gender identity, specifically gendered pronouns. Supposedly because you are "forced" or "compelled" to use specific words, in this case a person's preferred pronouns. But are you really?
I have not seen a single policy that explicitly states one must refer to someone specifically by the pronoun they prefer. One merely cannot persistently apply pronouns to a person that they are not comfortable with. If a person says they would prefer to be referred to as "he", that is not an immediate obligation upon you to refer to him as "he". You can refer to him with his name. You structure your sentences such that you do not need to use pronouns. You can avoid talking about him in the third person. You merely cannot refer to him as "she".
So how exactly is this "compelling" or "forcing" you to say something specifically; at least, any more than current speech restrictions are?
If you can claim that this is compelled speech, why can I not claim that me not being able to call my coworkers racial slurs is a form of compelled speech? Why can I not claim that I am being compelled to refer to coworkers as things that are specifically not racial slurs? In saying that I cannot call someone a racial slur, you are saying that I "must" refer to them as something that is not a racial slur.
13
« on: May 17, 2018, 01:22:08 PM »
There was a manchild behind us in the theatre who laughed like a git at the stupidest things, was the sole clapper, and when Redskull showed up he sounded like his mind had actually been melted exclaiming "Is that REDSKULL?  !?" to the entire theatre.
14
« on: May 15, 2018, 04:09:03 PM »
The manner in which an act can be carried out that causes the least amount of experienced suffering as possible.
15
« on: May 03, 2018, 03:52:37 PM »
The key to winning is to not care about hearing loss.
16
« on: April 23, 2018, 11:55:38 AM »
If you genuinely believe this is a solution, you should be castrated.
17
« on: April 11, 2018, 05:32:39 PM »
Need to know how they'll die first
18
« on: April 11, 2018, 11:30:11 AM »
t-t-tra-transformation?
even better
PUNITIVE transformation
yesssssssssssssss
19
« on: April 11, 2018, 12:45:27 AM »
t-t-tra-transformation?
20
« on: April 09, 2018, 02:55:22 PM »
Rwandan radio shows didn't start with encouraging everyone to pick up machetes, it worked up to that point.
21
« on: April 09, 2018, 02:53:55 PM »
And you can think I'm naive all you want to, but I still believe people in general can be taught to discern right from wrong
h i s t o r y d i s a g r e e s
22
« on: April 08, 2018, 10:45:39 PM »
So long as all you're doing is shitting on a specific group or just making claims that they don't have certain rights, then the right to speak remains. It's sad that people will spout that kind of rhetoric but they need to see how society in general will respond to it, they need to have their little bubble of ideas popped by the ideas of others. I think it's much worse if they stay inside that bubble where an echo chamber forms and no one is challenging them.
I'm not so afraid of radicals recruiting your average person to their cause when their rhetoric is so flawed, unreasonable, and/or oppressive. I have faith that people can be taught to think critically and discern what is really right and wrong.
This all strikes me as naive. This assumption that somehow bad ideas will fail and good ideas will win in the marketplace of ideas makes false assumptions about the conditions of the market. The only way in which this happens is when people are fully rational and value ideas based on merit, but people aren't always rational. Do you realize how often people on opposing sides of a discussion will think the speaker in a debate that they agree with won? How exactly do you think these "bubbles" will pop? Not all of these people present their shit rhetoric through the form of debate, or even answer questions. Some just throw it out there with no opportunity for rebuttal. Many treat debates merely as whacky personality shows in which they can just try and troll their way through it so that their followers can think they're so hip and cool for not being serious. It is *strategic* to use these ideas of free speech in order to try and give your message as broad a scope as possible to garner as many potential followers as possible. They don't care about intellectual honesty, and you seem to not realize what it takes to defend against that.
23
« on: April 08, 2018, 10:02:02 PM »
Define incitement concisely.
Telling people that they should go and physically attack others or their property?
Okay, does this mean specific people? Can I say that a demographic is subhuman, less deserving of rights, that our country would be better off if they could somehow be removed? Can I doxx someone and describe all the horrible acts they have committed, but not explicitly instruct anyone to harm them?
24
« on: April 08, 2018, 09:55:59 PM »
My example with Owen Benjamin goes against what you're saying, though. The context of him saying the word nigga was ignored by the people who protested him. They didn't care that he was making a joke pointing out the absurdity of racism from rich white yuppies, they didn't care that he was just referencing an old meme, they didn't care that he isn't racist at all, they simply hated the fact that he said nigga being a white man. oh okay, i see now
yeah, i guess it was wrong for him to be imprisoned and beaten to death, then
oh wait, he's still alive? he's still doing okay? and still perfectly free to do whatever he wants?
well then, looks like we got ourselves a non-fucking-issue
As for the point about censorship, I was not making that point about individuals, I was speaking generally. It's good to know you wouldn't try to censor anyone although it's sad to me that you would be willing to de-platform people.
you've yet to explain how de-platforming is even bad to begin with
it's good
If people want to listen to and exchange ideas with someone, then they should be able to do so. They should be able to allow someone a platform to speak, regardless of what that person's own ideas are. So long as there is no incitement to violence. It's that simple. It's a matter of principle. It also allows radicals to be confronted by the general public by which their ideas have a greater chance to be challenged, and creates less of a chance for them to withdraw into whatever dark corner they would have where they can claim to be oppressed and be radicalized even further.
In regards to the Owen Benjamin situation, I was simply making the point that these people, who claim to be a part of the left, are offended by his use of the word nigga and not the context behind that use. Which goes against what you're saying about the entirety of the left being opposed to getting upset over words alone.
Define incitement.
25
« on: April 08, 2018, 11:33:45 AM »
i dont know how people enjoy those sensations
i experience ASMR, i just dont know how its enjoyable
this person masturbates to flies btw
demonstrate this empirically with a pic i can fap to
26
« on: April 07, 2018, 08:00:27 PM »
i dont know how people enjoy those sensations
i experience ASMR, i just dont know how its enjoyable
27
« on: April 03, 2018, 06:46:42 PM »
is this the howtobasic face reveal
28
« on: March 31, 2018, 12:47:17 AM »
"native" americans came here at one point too smh this shit aint no ones but the bumfuck bears and dipshit bees
They were first to colonize. By your logic all of us have to go back to Africa.
yes lets
29
« on: March 30, 2018, 10:20:54 PM »
"native" americans came here at one point too smh this shit aint no ones but the bumfuck bears and dipshit bees
30
« on: March 24, 2018, 03:47:39 PM »
I think it's kind of funny since MTF folks still have to register for the draft...
...But, uh, you're not allowed if you get picked.
So are males paralyzed from the neck down. SS is stupid as shit. I have a girl's name and am designated as female on my birth certificate and government identification but the SS still demands to know my location because a doctor two decades ago saw my dick.
|
Show Posts