Democratic Nominee in 2020

Quote: terapined

Has Harold Uhlig lost his right to practice free speech??????????????????
Somebody taped up his mouth lol
Bottom line
Cancel culture IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
If a business fires somebody and you disagree
Your problem is with the business
Not with people practicing their freedom of speech
How can you be against the freedom of speech to complain
Somebody practices freedom of speech saying something disgusting. Thats freedom
Somebody complains. Thats freedom
A business fires, thats freedom
We are free and there are consequences. Thats life

That's why I say, "De facto," and words like, "Effectively," or have used such words.

No, he has not lost his Constitutional Right to Free Speech, but when a person or group takes action detrimental to a person (and unrelated to the context of the speech itself) that's de facto restricting free speech. It's doing it in a roundabout way. If a person can't speak because they have to worry about consequences in their professional life...for quite innocuous statements I might add...then tell me what the hell the difference is between that and not being allowed to speak at all?

What's the difference between having your freedoms restricted by The Government v. The Mob? Either way, you're being controlled. At least with Government control there's a pretty clear list of all of the things you can or cannot do or say.

My problem is NOT with the business. My problem is with the underlying conditions that got the person fired, which is cancel culture and the people who did the cancelling. As you should see from my previous post, I expressed that I understand why the business sometimes does what it does from its perspective.

What I don't understand is when someone says, "Oh no, that person said a bad thing that hurt my feelings...I'd better go get them fired from their job, even though their job is hundreds of miles away and had nothing to do with the conversation at hand."

Anyway, I don't have a problem with cancel culture from a freedom of speech standpoint...at least, not to the extent that the cancelers are using their own free speech. But, if the supposed goal is to better society, then I don't see how getting someone fired from their job accomplishes that.

Person A says something that Person B (and several others) disagrees with. Person H finds out where Person A works. Person B through Person ABL hammer all over Person A's employer with social pressure and get Person A terminated from Person A's job.

Do you think that this has caused an epiphany for Person A? Like, "Oh, I see the light now. By ruining my life you have totally convinced me of the rightness of your positions."

No, Person A probably hates the other side even more. You know, that side that's supposed to be all about acceptance, rehabilitation, understanding and appreciation for different cultures and ways of thinking?

Oh, it's selective? Well, so are the Religious Right. Not that there's really any meaningful difference between the two on a deeper level.

Quote: Gandler

Total nonstory. He was not legally divorced, but separated for over 10 years.... She was not not encouraging him to cheat.... In any case its ironic that Trumpians suddenly care about cheating on their spouse....

I guess the idea that "real men cheat" only applies to male Republicans? (in any case it does not apply in this case because she did not cheat).

You are having a reading comprehension problem. I DON"T care if Harris cheated on her spouse. (she wasn't married, so she didn't). I care that she was sleeping with a guy, HER BOSS, who promoted her! How can you not understand that is worse, as far as suitability for public office, than sleazeball Trump sleeping with bimbos while he was married? Ok... if not worse, then DIFFERENT?

Quote: Mission146

That's why I say, "De facto," and words like, "Effectively," or have used such words.

No, he has not lost his Constitutional Right to Free Speech, but when a person or group takes action detrimental to a person (and unrelated to the context of the speech itself) that's de facto restricting free speech. It's doing it in a roundabout way. If a person can't speak because they have to worry about consequences in their professional life...for quite innocuous statements I might add...then tell me what the hell the difference is between that and not being allowed to speak at all?

In that case the person is limiting their own speech because of concerns. Others are not limiting their free speech. Speak freely and accept the consequences or don't speak up and limit consequences.

Quote: SOOPOO

You are having a reading comprehension problem. I DON"T care if Harris cheated on her spouse. (she wasn't married, so she didn't). I care that she was sleeping with a guy, HER BOSS, who promoted her! How can you not understand that is worse, as far as suitability for public office, than sleazeball Trump sleeping with bimbos while he was married? Ok... if not worse, then DIFFERENT?

This is the main problem with Harris,
and with Hillary. They are so unliked
because they're both blatant opportunists.
They are out for themselves only and
it's obvious. They will lie and manipulate
and suck and screw their way to get what
they want. They're both as phony as a
$3 bill and people sense this about them
immediately. They are both vile creatures
who have tons of enemies and few if
any real friends. They're probably
both textbook sociopaths.

Quote: DRich

In that case the person is limiting their own speech because of concerns. Others are not limiting their free speech. Speak freely and accept the consequences or don't speak up and limit consequences.

Oy vey.

My point is that there should not be consequences of that variety for speaking, at least, not when the consequences have no direct relation to the speech (or venue the speech took place).

Quote: Mission146

That's why I say, "De facto," and words like, "Effectively," or have used such words.

No, he has not lost his Constitutional Right to Free Speech, but when a person or group takes action detrimental to a person (and unrelated to the context of the speech itself) that's de facto restricting free speech. It's doing it in a roundabout way. If a person can't speak because they have to worry about consequences in their professional life...for quite innocuous statements I might add...then tell me what the hell the difference is between that and not being allowed to speak at all?

What's the difference between having your freedoms restricted by The Government v. The Mob? Either way, you're being controlled. At least with Government control there's a pretty clear list of all of the things you can or cannot do or say.

My problem is NOT with the business. My problem is with the underlying conditions that got the person fired, which is cancel culture and the people who did the cancelling. As you should see from my previous post, I expressed that I understand why the business sometimes does what it does from its perspective.

What I don't understand is when someone says, "Oh no, that person said a bad thing that hurt my feelings...I'd better go get them fired from their job, even though their job is hundreds of miles away and had nothing to do with the conversation at hand."

Anyway, I don't have a problem with cancel culture from a freedom of speech standpoint...at least, not to the extent that the cancelers are using their own free speech. But, if the supposed goal is to better society, then I don't see how getting someone fired from their job accomplishes that.

Person A says something that Person B (and several others) disagrees with. Person H finds out where Person A works. Person B through Person ABL hammer all over Person A's employer with social pressure and get Person A terminated from Person A's job.

Do you think that this has caused an epiphany for Person A? Like, "Oh, I see the light now. By ruining my life you have totally convinced me of the rightness of your positions."

No, Person A probably hates the other side even more. You know, that side that's supposed to be all about acceptance, rehabilitation, understanding and appreciation for different cultures and ways of thinking?

Oh, it's selective? Well, so are the Religious Right. Not that there's really any meaningful difference between the two on a deeper level.

I speak out all the time
I got doxxed by scientology
It never stopped me from protesting in person and online.
It would not surprise me if stuff was sent to my employment saying I was a religious bigot. That's scientology. I'm sure it happened.
But
I work for a good company that does not fire due to a mob. If it did, I would quit 1st on principal.
If I did get fired, I would blame the company, not scientology. I busted my ass for my company and they know it. That's what saved my job
Scientology has a right to complain about me
I have a right to protest against scientology

Quote: terapined

I speak out all the time
I got doxxed by scientology
It never stopped me from protesting in person and online.
It would not surprise me if stuff was sent to my employment saying I was a religious bigot. That's scientology. I'm sure it happened.
But
I work for a good company that does not fire due to a mob. If it did, I would quit 1st on principal.
If I did get fired, I would blame the company, not scientology. I busted my ass for my company and they know it. That's what saved my job
Scientology has a right to complain about me
I have a right to protest against scientology

I'm not going to continue this until such time that we are actually having the same conversation.

The original challenge was to demonstrate that such a thing, vis-a-vis employment, was even happening.

Now, it seems that you are having a discussion of rights where I am not. I don't believe that I ever said the cancelers don't have the right to do or not do what they are doing. For me, it's a question of should they do it. I say they should not for reasons already stated.

Quote: Mission146

For me, it's a question of should they do it. I say they should not for reasons already stated.

Overall its meaningless
People are gonna do what people do
As long as nobody is breaking the law, it is what it is
People shouldn't do drugs like alcohol. They do it anyway just as people will complain anyway
Thats the way it is
You may be against cancel culture but you can also say you are against human nature. Same thing

Quote: terapined

Quote: Mission146

For me, it's a question of should they do it. I say they should not for reasons already stated.

Overall its meaningless
People are gonna do what people do
As long as nobody is breaking the law, it is what it is
People shouldn't do drugs like alcohol. They do it anyway just as people will complain anyway
Thats the way it is
You may be against cancel culture but you can also say you are against human nature. Same thing

I'm against some of the tribalistic elements of human nature simply because we should have evolved past them by now...though I grant that I'm certainly not completely immune to such elements. In any case, I basically see cancel culture as a tribalistic sort of affair.

Quote: terapined

Who has lost their right to free speech?
Got a name?
I even saw free speech practiced at the Civil Rights museum by the Lorraine motel against the museum
What a great country
Jacqueline Smith protests against the museum is ongoing and you can talk to her across the street from the motel
She was the last resident of the Lorraine motel.
She is still pretty upset she got evicted
She continues to practice her freedom of speech against the motel and museum every day

People that only protest on line are talking the talk but not waking the walk
Jacqueline Smith is talking the talk and walking the walk

How about my own. When I still ran my store there was some major protests in town backed by the major union in town. They wanted all the business's in town to shutdown in support. One of my friends that knew I didn't support their cause was at the organizational meeting. He phoned to warn me that the plan was to break windows in any store that didn't shut down in support.