Jon Gruden

[Zooty]

4 hours ago, squirrelmastr21 said:

Thank you for ruining Pizza. Eating homemade salads indefinitely.

 

Tossed?

[Chief Dick]

8 minutes ago, Zooty said:

 

Tossed?

 

Bravo.

 

[buddahj]

15 hours ago, FinishTheDrill said:

 

Many people far better than both of us have given their lives for the right of people to say things, irrespective of whether or not you agree.  I absolutely defend his right to say what is on his mind (especially in a private conversation) just as I defend your right to post about the importance and merits of the marginalized fighting back.  I dont have to agree with him, you, or my aunt Gert in order to support your right to say it. 

 

That is all.  

Just so I'm understanding you. You support people's right to be racist, homophobic and misogynistic? 

[stevegrab]

12 minutes ago, buddahj said:

Just so I'm understanding you. You support people's right to be racist, homophobic and misogynistic? 

 

Ever heard the phrase "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." 

[buddahj]

55 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 

Ever heard the phrase "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." 

Yeah...the Beatrice Hall's statement 

 

I don’t think that lies or verbal abuse should be defended. Quite the opposite. I think they should be called out and, in extreme cases, penalized. Such behavior is damaging to individuals and to communities.

People who would defend the ‘right’ of others to tell harmful lies, or to verbally assault people, are elevating their ideology above basic morality and the common good. I think this is a mistake.

I support the right of people to speak the truth, or to say anything that is not intended to harm another person.

[millworkguy]

2 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

Ever heard the phrase "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." 

Your rights end, when they infringe on my rights.

 

Racist,  homophobic and misogyny (among other actions) violate the rights of others, and therefore you don't have "rights" to protect. 

 

No one has the rights to be racist.

Edited October 15, 2021 by millworkguy

[stevegrab]

Whatever, you both completely missed the point. 

[millworkguy]

6 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Whatever, you both completely missed the point. 

Nope, I think you did. 

 

 

[Bobby Brown]

16 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Whatever, you both completely missed the point. 

Brining up Beatrice Hall's quote in the first place was completely missing the point.  It's a reference to freedom of speech from the state.  I didn't see anyone on the board advocating for laws against Gruden's stupidity. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Bobby Brown

[millworkguy]

Just now, Bobby Brown said:

Brining up Beatrice Hall's comment in the first place was completely missing the point.  It's a reference to freedom of speech from the state.  

It's a typical change the narrative approach to deflection.

 

Just like my body my choice argument in Texas regarding vax status,  while refusing to give women that same respect 

[stevegrab]

2 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

Brining up Beatrice Hall's quote in the first place was completely missing the point.  It's a reference to freedom of speech from the state.

Well except that somebody else talked about people fighting to defend our rights in this country, to say what we like. And then they were asked if that included defending people's right to be racist etc. 

 

So who gets to decide what things we say which should not be defended?  Many thought that kneeling during the Anthem was un-American and not to be defended. Others may think other things (trans, homosexuality, etc) are offensive and should not be defended either. 

[millworkguy]

38 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 that included defending people's right to be racist etc. 

 

So who gets to decide what things we say which should not be defended?  Many thought that kneeling during the Anthem was un-American and not to be defended. Others may think other things (trans, homosexuality, etc) are offensive and should not be defended either. 

Like I said you missed the point, 

 

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RACIST.   YOUR RIGHTS END WHEN IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.

 

Just because you find something offensive doesn't give you the right to cause damage to others.   

[League_Champion]

24 minutes ago, millworkguy said:

 

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RACIST.   YOUR RIGHTS END WHEN IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS

 

At least you can still call White people White Trash or Redneck 

[rajncajn]

1 hour ago, millworkguy said:

Like I said you missed the point, 

 

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RACIST.   YOUR RIGHTS END WHEN IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.

 

Just because you find something offensive doesn't give you the right to cause damage to others.   

That's not the way it works. A person has the right to say whatever he/she wants, whether it's hateful bigotry or not. Unless that speech is directed or personal towards an individual or personally threatening or directly provokes individuals towards violence then the First Amendment protects your right to express it. It doesn't mean that there won't be personal consequences, such as getting fired etc, but you do have the right to say it and simply being a bigot does not infringe on anyone's rights unless you act upon those beliefs or provoke others to act on your behalf.

Edited October 15, 2021 by rajncajn

[Shaft]

7 hours ago, rajncajn said:

That's not the way it works. A person has the right to say whatever he/she wants, whether it's hateful bigotry or not. Unless that speech is directed or personal towards an individual or personally threatening or directly provokes individuals towards violence then the First Amendment protects your right to express it. It doesn't mean that there won't be personal consequences, such as getting fired etc, but you do have the right to say it and simply being a bigot does not infringe on anyone's rights unless you act upon those beliefs or provoke others to act on your behalf.

True to a certain extent, this does not apply in the private sector (i.e., companies and employers) from restricting speech. As you mentioned, it can get you fired but the actual amendment only applies to government censorship. The balance between the 1st amendment and discrimination is constantly being challenged in the court of law, and I think it always will be. 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Shaft

[rajncajn]

8 minutes ago, Shaft said:

True to a certain extent, this does not apply in the private sector (i.e., companies and employers) from restricting speech. As you mentioned, it can get you fired but the actually amendment only applies to government censorship. The balance between the 1st amendment and discrimination is constantly being challenged in the court of law, and I think it always will be. 

Agree completely. 

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, rajncajn said:

That's not the way it works. A person has the right to say whatever he/she wants, whether it's hateful bigotry or not. Unless that speech is directed or personal towards an individual or personally threatening or directly provokes individuals towards violence then the First Amendment protects your right to express it. It doesn't mean that there won't be personal consequences, such as getting fired etc, but you do have the right to say it and simply being a bigot does not infringe on anyone's rights unless you act upon those beliefs or provoke others to act on your behalf.

 

Yep that's the point. 

[FinishTheDrill]

9 hours ago, buddahj said:

Just so I'm understanding you. You support people's right to be racist, homophobic and misogynistic? 

 

I support people to think whatever they want to think or say, so long as they don't impinge directly upon others while doing it.  

 

Because I am an adult and I know that sticks and stones but names etc etc.  You know the thing.  

[FinishTheDrill]

8 hours ago, millworkguy said:

Your rights end, when they infringe on my rights.

That is correct.

 

8 hours ago, millworkguy said:

Racist,  homophobic and misogyny (among other actions) violate the rights of others,

Thoughts, private statements, or actions?  Let's be clear.   

 

8 hours ago, millworkguy said:

 

No one has the rights to be racist.

 

Thats not correct at all.   

[FinishTheDrill]

5 hours ago, millworkguy said:

It's a typical change the narrative approach to deflection.

 

Just like my body my choice argument in Texas regarding vax status,  while refusing to give women that same respect 

 

Yep.  Or pre-infants in NY.

[FinishTheDrill]

4 hours ago, millworkguy said:

Like I said you missed the point, 

 

YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RACIST.   YOUR RIGHTS END WHEN IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.

 

Just because you find something offensive doesn't give you the right to cause damage to others.   

 

I think you are missing a point as well.

 

Being a racist (or Jets fan, or Misandrist) is not an infringement on anyone.  Thoughts may become actions, but every adult knows that thoughts need not be acted upon.  

 

Being a racist, or a misAndrist, or thinking that X and Y arent Z, are thoughts.  Opinions.   Thoughts do not restrict anyone's freedoms until they become specific actions.

 

Someone acting upon the Misandry or racism (or any ism of the week) is another kettle of wax altogether, and if thats the topic, then I misunderstood.  

 

 

 

[FinishTheDrill]

3 hours ago, rajncajn said:

That's not the way it works. A person has the right to say whatever he/she wants, whether it's hateful bigotry or not. Unless that speech is directed or personal towards an individual or personally threatening or directly provokes individuals towards violence then the First Amendment protects your right to express it. It doesn't mean that there won't be personal consequences, such as getting fired etc, but you do have the right to say it and simply being a bigot does not infringe on anyone's rights unless you act upon those beliefs or provoke others to act on your behalf.

 

^ this.  (I should have read the rest of the thread before posting.)

[purplemonster]

Well you can be racist or misogynistic if you want it's not against the law. You have freedom of speech but you don't have freedom from consequences. So if your statements become known especially in indelible ways like email they can be used against you by any employer who wants to get rid of you, at least in at will employment where they can fire you for any reason. Certainly if you're using it in hiring practices, housing decisions, or other legally protected areas you are at risk. Generally though the U.S. doesn't regulate hate speech unless it incites violence, libel, slander, threatening towards a specific person Etc. Not a lawyer just my understanding

 

Edit: I just read Rajn's esponse which I think is pretty much the same as my own

Edited October 15, 2021 by purplemonster

[gilthorp]

ARRP - always read Rajn's posts.

[millworkguy]

16 hours ago, rajncajn said:

That's not the way it works. A person has the right to say whatever he/she wants, whether it's hateful bigotry or not. Unless that speech is directed or personal towards an individual or personally threatening or directly provokes individuals towards violence then the First Amendment protects your right to express it. It doesn't mean that there won't be personal consequences, such as getting fired etc, but you do have the right to say it and simply being a bigot does not infringe on anyone's rights unless you act upon those beliefs or provoke others to act on your behalf.

 

I never said you couldn't be racist,  I said you don't have the right to be racist,  as you said your words are not protected and can be used against you for saying them and are illegal if directed at someone or promote violence. 

 

  Being a racist doesn't give you protection from your actions or words, 

 

 The post I replied to asked "who decides what things we say should be defended" and previously wrote he would stand up and protect their right to be racist (in the form of an email that attacked a specific individual).

 

 My reply was that that there was no "rights" to protect here