Political Correctness

sturg33 said:
It's certainly ok to attack shooting survivors if they don't toe the leftist line

[TW]982351709140729857[/TW]
Click to expand...

To be fair, **** Clarence Thomas. I do agree that it's gross to attack Kashuv, just as it's gross to attack the others.
 
Bill maher critical of actions like boycotting as a way of bypassing the first amendment. It's clear as day what's happening.
 
I think that dueling ideological boycotts underscore the degree to which our media discourse is beholden to corporate interests, and are disheartening for that reason, but are not inherently bad.

I really need you to elaborate on how the First Amendment is in play here. It's not, as you say, clear as day to me.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think that dueling ideological boycotts underscore the degree to which our media discourse is beholden to corporate interests, and are disheartening for that reason, but are not inherently bad.

I really need you to elaborate on how the First Amendment is in play here. It's not, as you say, clear as day to me.
Click to expand...

It's a backdoor to bypasss. People won't freely express themselves if they believe their means of livilihood is at stake. Then the acceptable brand of discourse narrows and anything out of that narrow focus becomes more easily ostracized and causes outrage which will 'require' action from then government to quell uprising of people demanding justice.
 
sturg33 said:
saying anything the left disagrees with apparently triggers them.

So how do you escape this conundrum
Click to expand...

I guess you probably don't realize that the author of the thread here is about as far to the left as anyone employed by a major media outlet, but is also anti-abortion. That would seem to invalidate the idea that "the left" is triggered, as you have it, by dissenting opinion, and would put the onus on the specific body of work of the individual, which in this case was--along with some ****ty race-baiting--the proposition that women who'd had abortions ought to be executed. By hanging, preferably, since the dude expressed a preference for that more than once.

But, on a larger point...you have twice, recently, opined that issues that are covered here are unimportant in the larger scheme--l'affaire Russe 2016 and gun control, specifically. On the other hand, your volume of posts and vehemence about this subject indicates that you think that the general campus free speech grift and manufactured outrage about ideological diversity in historically liberal publications are of the utmost importance to the future of the republic. Right?
 
Bruenig (even more so than her husband) is a fairly idiosyncratic leftist. The fact that some leftists embrace her, despite her position on reproductive rights (or, in this case, the right to be non-reproductive), while some leftists reject her on those grounds, is foremost proof that “The Left” is not the hegemonic boogeyman some here would have it be.
 
sturg33 said:
The left has lost its mind

[TW]986327546844377088[/TW]
Click to expand...

The bill seems to be banning so-called conversion therapy for adults, already banned for minors in CA.

I'm not actually clear on whether the amendment of the existing civil code actually bans the sale of goods, i.e. books, relating to conversion therapy outside the context of counseling or therapy. That's a concern, and maybe a valid one, though it's far from clear in the text.

Let's be honest in the discussion, though. The existing limitations on conmercial activity relating to conversion therapy have passed constitutional muster. The author of the linked article uses some fairly slippery language ("could" ban "books advertising Christian sexual morality") which doesn't really reflect the specifics of the bill, which is addressing, in essence, deceptive trade practices...legislation to which effect, in relation to so-called "gay conversion therapy," has passed in several states and been found to be constitutional.
 
i always love when this gets bumped to see the bs spin to have some fake outrage at "the left"
 
sturg33 said:
The left has lost its mind

[TW]986327546844377088[/TW]
Click to expand...


We need a new criminal offense. Perversion of the constitution. What this would apply to is when someone who passes law school and the bar exam then pretends to not know the basic constitutional principles. For example a guy like Rudy Guiliani. Based on his work his level of understand of the constitution is grade level. Same with Roy Moore. I dont think its unintentional ignorance anymore. They know the law they just dont care.
 
cajunrevenge said:
We need a new criminal offense. Perversion of the constitution. What this would apply to is when someone who passes law school and the bar exam then pretends to not know the basic constitutional principles. For example a guy like Rudy Guiliani. Based on his work his level of understand of the constitution is grade level. Same with Roy Moore. I dont think its unintentional ignorance anymore. They know the law they just dont care.
Click to expand...

Can't say about Roy Moore but in Rudy's case I think he'd be way more comfortable as a judge since he seems to be VERY used to being obeyed rather than debating or compromising.

EDIT: If we're going to put lawyers who don't know, or pretend not to know about the Constitution the jails are going to be pretty full. ;)
 
thethe said:
He doesn't even realize he is making Shapiro point. Soon you won't be able to say anything in America without fear of being fired.
Click to expand...

Williamson's OPed in the WSJ was interesting

In early March, I met up with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, at an event sponsored by the magazine at the South by Southwest conference in Austin. He had just hired me away from National Review, the venerable conservative magazine where I’d been a writer and editor for 10 years.

“You know, the campaign to have me fired will begin 11 seconds after you announce that you’ve hired me,” I told him. He scoffed. “It won’t be that bad,” he said. “The Atlantic isn’t the New York Times. It isn’t high church for liberals.”

My first piece appeared in the Atlantic on April 2. I was fired on April 5.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to that event at South by Southwest, where the Atlantic was sponsoring a panel about marginalized points of view and diversity in journalism. The panelists, all Atlantic writers and editors, argued that the cultural and economic decks are stacked against feminists and advocates of minority interests. They made this argument under the prestigious, high-profile auspices of South by Southwest and their own magazine, hosted by a feminist group called the Female Quotient, which enjoys the patronage of Google, PepsiCo, AT&T, NBCUniversal, Facebook, UBS, JPMorgan Chase and Deloitte. We should all be so marginalized. If you want to know who actually has the power in our society and who is actually marginalized, ask which ideas get you sponsorships from Google and Pepsi and which get you fired.
Click to expand...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-twitter-mob-came-for-me-1524234850
 
The power brokers hide behind the auspice of special interests when in reality they don't care at all. It's a veil for the end game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top