Attack on the First Amendment

brianwspencer · #1 03-23-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Nobody is preventing anybody from saying anything. Did everyone miss that fact here?

Dear god, I don't believe this: on one hand, everyone is angry over what happened to Treyvon Williams; on the other they are upset that a town has publicly come out to support less racist and sexist speech.

Nobody has removed anybody's first amendment rights. A town is merely publicly supporting less racist and sexist public speech.

Yeah. That's a terrible, terrible thing, for society to speak out on the quality of life we have.

I suppose if I was a new poster without an obnoxious history of posts to call on that very well establish my bleeding heart credentials (which leaves me FAR left of where you get accused of being on a daily basis), I wouldn't have assumed a sarcasm alert was unnecessary on my first post.

The last one you seem to have misunderstood.

Riot · #2 03-23-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I suppose if I was a new poster without an obnoxious history of posts to call on that very well establish my bleeding heart credentials (which leaves me FAR left of where you get accused of being on a daily basis), I wouldn't have assumed a sarcasm alert was unnecessary on my first post.

The last one you seem to have misunderstood.

As a far left bleeding heart liberal Marxist Communist Socialist, we apparently are too cool to get irony and sarcasm

I guess that proves my cred as a stick-in-the-mud uncool unhip unwithit moderate Republican. Dang! And I SO wanted to be a Lefty!

bigrun · #3 03-23-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Dang! And I SO wanted to be a Lefty!

You mean you are not!..I'm crushed...

Riot · #4 03-23-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun

You mean you are not!..I'm crushed...

Me, too! I guess I'll have to go with Romney now

bigrun · #5 03-23-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Me, too! I guess I'll have to go with Romney now

Good choice, he doesn't need no steenkin teleprompter...

somerfrost · #6 03-23-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I suppose if I was a new poster without an obnoxious history of posts to call on that very well establish my bleeding heart credentials (which leaves me FAR left of where you get accused of being on a daily basis), I wouldn't have assumed a sarcasm alert was unnecessary on my first post.

The last one you seem to have misunderstood.

You don't post for a little while and folks forget...shame on you for not including a sarcasm alert...lol!

Riot · #7 03-23-2012, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You don't post for a little while and folks forget...shame on you for not including a sarcasm alert...lol!

I know! It's embarrassing ....

brianwspencer · #8 03-23-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by somerfrost

You don't post for a little while and folks forget...shame on you for not including a sarcasm alert...lol!

Well then my point, in a clearer explanation is this:

Much of what gets labeled as "political correctness" and "first amendment attacks" is little more than a person or group of people hoping or asking that people can talk and converse without every third word out of their mouth being some kind of potentially loaded word that can be an attack on a group of people or can cause harm to other people.

Very few of these things are actually people codifying those requests into law with negative consequences from the government for doing so. Almost none, actually.

So yea, being "politically correct" is an ugly attribute to many people, but if being "politically correct" means that I don't lob harmful verbal firebombs at people all the time with the intent of hurting them, and wish that other people would consider doing the same a bit more often, then yea, sign me up for being politically correct.

Such a horrible thing that is, being empathic and trying not to hurt other people and make them feel like $hit all the time.

Antitrust32 · #9 03-23-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Such a horrible thing that is, being empathic and trying not to hurt other people and make them feel like $hit all the time.

yeah, it's so horrible that guys like Howard Stern are allowed on the radio

brianwspencer · #10 03-23-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, it's so horrible that guys like Howard Stern are allowed on the radio

Cool straw man, Lori!

We should argue about that thing that I totally never said!

Antitrust32 · #11 03-23-2012, 02:54 PM

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this thread was not about radio hosts being censored by the government.

Antitrust32 · #12 03-23-2012, 02:55 PM

whoever came up with the word "straw man" should be shot.

we're not in Kansas anymore.

brianwspencer · #13 03-23-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that this thread was not about radio hosts being censored by the government.

Glad you realized it now.

If you think a city council passing something that really boils down to, "we'd like it if you would be nicer," with absolutely zero teeth or consequences to it is government censorship, then we have a really fundamental disagreement about exactly what censorship is. I'm really glad the real meaning of government censorship is not your definition of it, because we'd live in an awfully scary place if that were the case.

Enjoy the afternoon!