desantis bans degrees in CRT and DEI in florida's public colleges

[John_von_Neumann]

Who I defend is irrelevant [...].

https://media.tenor.com/6dbwhR6OUbkAAAAd/chewin-the-fat-smell-shite.gif

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Defending someone doesn't require that I sign on to repeating your overt slimeball sleaze. Mostly because this ain't kindergarten and you ain't really a hero.

On the other hand, I do actually support someone having the Constitutional Right to say what they believe whether I agree with them or not. Apparently you believe that Constitutional Rights are subject to your personal approval. Why am I not surprised at you acting like good little fascist tyrant you really are.

Condemning racists has nothing to do with their Constitutional Right to speak. Racists SHOULD be loudly condemned every time they open the mouths to spread their toxic views, otherwise it appears they have more support then they actually do.

 

[Chernosoth]

Condemning racists has nothing to do with their Constitutional Right to speak. Racists SHOULD be loudly condemned every time they open the mouths to spread their toxic views, otherwise it appears they have more support then they actually do.

That may feel personally satisfying, but it doesn't decrease racism or anything else shouted down. The most it can do is sustain a shouting match.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

That may feel personally satisfying, but it doesn't decrease racism or anything else shouted down. The most it can do is sustain a shouting match.

Having racists shout their view makes it very clear who they are and what they stand for. Plus it's always worthwhile to shout for justice and equity, even if you're not shouting down a racist.

Like, for example, I think it's great when movies or TV shows show black or mixed race parents doing normal stuff with their kids. Such speech is not explicitly antiracist, but being loud and proud with positive messages is a good thing.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Condemning racists has nothing to do with their Constitutional Right to speak. Racists SHOULD be loudly condemned every time they open the mouths to spread their toxic views, otherwise it appears they have more support then they actually do.

Well said, and Exactly why I advocate more moderation of these forums, or at the VERY LEAST, banning the multiple-screen-name trolls on here and deleting some of the more incendiary posts. We shouldn't be giving these people use this website as a platform. Take it to stormfront.org.

 

[jaF0]

banning the multiple-screen-name trolls on here

The best way to handle those is to go to the Profile page and click Report in the upper right hand corner. Explain who you think the past IDs are.

Mom's the only one with the Ban-O-Matic. None of the Mods have one.

Though several have offered, Mom has yet to saddle any of us with the Poli board.

 

[HisArpy]

Condemning racists has nothing to do with their Constitutional Right to speak. Racists SHOULD be loudly condemned every time they open the mouths to spread their toxic views, otherwise it appears they have more support then they actually do.

And I support your right to do so.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or that I can't defend someone else's beliefs against your tirade.

You have the right to speak your mind. As do others. I will support that right no matter what you or they say. It's a pity that you do not extend the same courtesy to your friends and neighbors with whom you disagree.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And I support your right to do so.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or that I can't defend someone else's beliefs against your tirade.

You have the right to speak your mind. As do others. I will support that right no matter what you or they say. It's a pity that you do not extend the same courtesy to your friends and neighbors with whom you disagree.

He didn’t say he doesn’t extend the same courtesy. How you arrived at that is inexcusable.

 

[HisArpy]

He didn’t say he doesn’t extend the same courtesy. How you arrived at that is inexcusable.

Shouting someone down so they cannot speak isn't supporting the right to speak.

Censorship over what you deem to be "misinformation" isn't supporting the right to speak either.

You have a right to speak but so do "they." When you insist that your right to speak is greater than another's because your message is supposedly "more important" then you do not truly support "free speech," you only support "approved speech."

If you actually could think for yourself rather than parrot words you'd understand that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Shouting someone down so they cannot speak isn't supporting the right to speak.

Censorship over what you deem to be "misinformation" isn't supporting the right to speak either.

You have a right to speak but so do "they." When you insist that your right to speak is greater than another's because your message is supposedly "more important" then you do not truly support "free speech," you only support "approved speech."

If you actually could think for yourself rather than parrot words you'd understand that.

How is the government censoring someone in this situation?
I’ll wait…..

 

[HisArpy]

How is the government censoring someone in this situation?
I’ll wait…..

Did I say they were, in this instance?

And where have you been that you cannot extrapolate the entire Twitter censorship debacle into a conversation about "free speech"? Or is my hope that you're capable of discussing concepts rather than parroting direct quotes misplaced?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Did I say they were, in this instance?

And where have you been that you cannot extrapolate the entire Twitter censorship debacle into a conversation about "free speech"? Or is my hope that you're capable of discussing concepts rather than parroting direct quotes misplaced?

Yes, you did.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, you did.

Cite?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Shouting someone down so they cannot speak isn't supporting the right to speak.

Censorship over what you deem to be "misinformation" isn't supporting the right to speak either.

You have a right to speak but so do "they." When you insist that your right to speak is greater than another's because your message is supposedly "more important" then you do not truly support "free speech," you only support "approved speech."

If you actually could think for yourself rather than parrot words you'd understand that.

Condemning racists isn’t censoring them. I think they are vile human beings whose toxic ideas should be spoken out against whenever they advance them.

If you supported free speech you would understand that it also includes the right to express disapproval to the speech of others, instead of being expected to always nod politely along.

 

[ll74]

Condemning racists isn’t censoring them. I think they are vile human beings whose toxic ideas should be spoken out against whenever they advance them.

If you supported free speech you would understand that it also includes the right to express disapproval to the speech of others, instead of being expected to always nod politely along.

Snowflakes think criticism is censorship.

 

[HisArpy]

Condemning racists isn’t censoring them. I think they are vile human beings whose toxic ideas should be spoken out against whenever they advance them.

If you supported free speech you would understand that it also includes the right to express disapproval to the speech of others, instead of being expected to always nod politely along.

How do you consistently misunderstand what I post?

In this instance what I said was that you have the right to free speech. I also said your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to talk over someone else or shout them down.

How you misunderstood that to mean that you have to nod along with what you disagree with is beyond me when all I meant was that you don't get to trample other people's rights while exercising yours. That meaning was clearly expressed in my prior post.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

How do you consistently misunderstand what I post?

In this instance what I said was that you have the right to free speech. I also said your freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to talk over someone else or shout them down.

How you misunderstood that to mean that you have to nod along with what you disagree with is beyond me when all I meant was that you don't get to trample other people's rights while exercising yours. That meaning was clearly expressed in my prior post.

What in your opinion is the proper way to oppose racists? How do you do it?

 

[HisArpy]

What in your opinion is the proper way to oppose racists? How do you do it?

You have a choice; you can either wait your turn to step up onto the soapbox and speak your mind, or you can go somewhere else and use your own soapbox.

Also, keep in mind that there are other soapboxes out there and you're entitled to use any and all of them if you so choose. You just don't get to steal someone else's soapbox out from under them no matter how much you disagree with their message.

 

[RoryN]

Hey Hey! The "persecutor" is here!

Tell us again, counselor, how I supposedly do this.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You have a choice; you can either wait your turn to step up onto the soapbox and speak your mind, or you can go somewhere else and use your own soapbox.

Also, keep in mind that there are other soapboxes out there and you're entitled to use any and all of them if you so choose. You just don't get to steal someone else's soapbox out from under them no matter how much you disagree with their message.

The same is true for you. If you disagree with how I exercise my free speech, you’re welcome to start your own thread instead of trying to shout me down here.

 

[ll74]

The same is true for you. If you disagree with how I exercise my free speech, you’re welcome to start your own thread instead of trying to shout me down here.

He doesn't start threads. He just throws his lawyering around on other people's threads.

Granted, I rarely start threads myself, but I don't lawyer quit as stupid

 

[Dribble]

The same is true for you. If you disagree with how I exercise my free speech, you’re welcome to start your own thread instead of trying to shout me down here.

No no...rules only apply to you

 

[HisArpy]

The same is true for you. If you disagree with how I exercise my free speech, you’re welcome to start your own thread instead of trying to shout me down here.

^ this is censorship motivated by pique and cloaked in snark.

Reminder, you don't own this soapbox and have no power to tell me I cannot engage you in polite debate. Your only choice is whether you wish to speak or not.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

No no...rules only apply to you

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

 

[HisArpy]

No no...rules only apply to you

They apply to you too.