Author Topic: The War on SJWs  (Read 364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Gawd

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1565
  • Darwins +139/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The War on SJWs
« Reply #29 on: Today at 12:55:13 AM »
As far as registry for refugees or foreigners is concerned, I don't see the problem. I am a natural born citizen. I am registered. Why shouldn't everyone else also be held to the same standard of tracking as I am?

I was finger printed in second grade...everyone in my school was. I am licensed. My home address and phone number and credit score is meticulously tracked. I must re register my license and current home address every four or five years. I must be insured for every possible contingency and be able to provide proof of my insurance whenever asked by the proper authorities. If I want to vote, I must prove that I am who I say I am. 

I don't see why people from other countries should be absolved from that process.

I haven't heard of this registry for refugees. Perhaps I have not paid much attention to that issue. Also, as you are describing I would not be opposed to. However, a registry for "Muslims" (which is the only registry I've heard be suggested) would be problematic on a lot of grounds.

The way it was explained and the way I take it is not so much that there will be a "Muslim" registry but a country registry. Maybe I am  miss-remembering things but I could have swore that what Trump said was that he would call for "extreme" vetting[1] for refugees coming to America from places with heavy terrorist activity, like Syria. Since ISIS has openly proclaimed that part of their strategy is to sneak their combatants into different countries under the guise of being a refugee...well...I don't disagree with taking a hard look at people who want to come here from "hot beds" of terrorist activity.

Like I said, I might not be remembering things correctly and I don't have time to do the actual research at the moment so If I am way off target, I will not take offense if I am corrected on this issue.
 1. whatever that is

I am pretty sure it was a Muslim registry, and the "extreme" vetting of "Muslim countries." I don't think I have to explain why the registry would be Hitlerian. The extreme vetting is silly. Either they can vet people or they can't. Personally, I accept that there is no way to determine who is Muslim and who isn't, and I also accept that there may be some that get in with the full intentions of carrying out an act of mass violence. I am okay with that because as has been shown we are not exempt from these domestic acts and I am more likely to be killed by a Dylan Roof type terrorist or police officer than someone from Syria. Also, as for "radicalization" and "ISIS inspired" attacks most of this is our fault.

The only way to stop these attacks is to change our policies somewhere.

Please watch this short video to understand my confusion and then explain to me why you are so certain that he actually intends to create a registry based solely on religion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-muslim-registry/story?id=43639946

That link you gave only addressed the "Muslim ban" I am referring to the registry.

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Darwins +291/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: The War on SJWs
« Reply #30 on: Today at 06:43:27 AM »
Guys nobody addressed the point that you allow hate speech to identify haters.   

Most Transsexuals I've heard from, not many maybe 3, are fine with he and she.  Will an employer hire a trans?  It;s less likely if just by using the wrong pronoun you could get sued.  There is a transgender man to woman named Blair who says it makes finding employment harder.

Slander is a different tale.  You can't tell lies on someone that will cost them money.  That is reasonable.  Those cases are so hard to prove.  I can't recall a single case.  Here are some:  http://plaza.ufl.edu/bshields/caselaw.html

I don't like hateful words.  You guys know that about me.  When a person is free to say what they think we know who they are.

I've been called a man a few times, especially when I was bald.  Should I retaliate against them or empath it to they didn't know better.  I was in a federal building one time this happened.   Hell Santa called my grandson a girl.  My kids won't cut his hair.  I just think some things should be left to the individual.  You can't force people to be nice and respectful.   Both instances were honest mistakes not meant to cause me stress.  Santa did turn red when I told him he's a boy.  :laugh:

It all boils down to when they go low we go high.  Banning and/or forcing speech is not higher ground.  Trust me I know high.  :P 

Growing up my whole generation was called slackers.  I also learned sticks and stones...but words can never hurt me.  Sure they hurt your feelings if you let it but it doesn't break bones.  You know we're being called delicate snowflakes over this right?

If my neighbor is a homo-phobe I want to know it.  If he/she is not free to spout his/her hate speech I will not know it. 

I'm so atheist I don't care how you say Merry Christmas.  I only participate for the baby.  I would never force a religious employee to say happy holidays.   If you do they probably won't care to get fired from your business.  Maybe you should hire based on religious beliefs. &)  Would that be right if a christian has more experience to be refused a job based on religious beliefs?   Just hang a sign out no Christians allowed to apply.  How is that different from no coloreds allowed?  It's discrimination isn't it?  You will most likely find your business under protest and boycotted.  People are not programs and should not be treated like one.  This Christmas I got very little greetings at retail stores.  I said Merry Christmas at my job because we are an advertised Christian business.  The reactions I got were like YES!!! I love this woman.  "I wasn't sure what to say".  Honest good people afraid to speak their hearts. 

I'm not sure because I'm no lawyer but wouldn't that employee have grounds to sue you for discrimination if fired?  Employees have rights too!  As an atheist I would frown upon such a mean thing to do; fire someone who wants to say Merry Christmas.  Christmas is so very nostalgic.  You remember grandma's cookies, you miss her so much, and the happiness when you woke up and there was that bicycle you asked for.  Your mom and dad, you miss them so much, says Merry Christmas I love you.  You want to take that nostalgia away from them.  That is fucked up.  It in NO WAY represents what we agree upon here concerning the golden rule, treat people the way they want to be treated.  Nobody wants to be told what to say.  I mean sure you have suggestive selling at fast food.  That is truly part of the job.  It does not interfere with ideologies.   Now if that person agreed to say happy holidays when hired then refused that's a horse of a different color.   

Sure I need to find out what the "Q" means.  I also except it freaks some people out.  They don't understand it.  That's determinism.   If we accept determinism as true these people can't help it.  Shaming them seems to only cause a hard push back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

I truly have a love hate relationship with words.  That's why most of my posts are short.  As I heard the other day and I agree w/o conversation/words we have violence to settle disputes.

I see no problem asking employers for this speech but force them, no I don't agree. 

I'm not the one calling lefties fascist that's the righties.
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7047
  • Darwins +423/-89
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: The War on SJWs
« Reply #31 on: Today at 07:16:24 AM »
Its hard to make racist jokes against the dominant culture, the jokes just don't cut. Racist jokes against a minority hurt.

Anyone splain the asymmetry??
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline junebug72

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Darwins +291/-107
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's talk about Love
Re: The War on SJWs
« Reply #32 on: Today at 07:18:40 AM »
Or referring to someone as 'it', for that matter.  There are people out there who intentionally refer to transgendered people as 'it'.  Is this just?

It's mean but unjust may be a stretch.

Quote
What about intentionally referring to other people with a name that isn't theirs?  Or simply referring to them with an epithet?  Is this just?

Maybe we need thicker skin?  People gonna hate!

Quote
Freedom of speech is important, but it is not a blank check.  For example, there are laws against libel and slander.  Is it just to allow those in the name of freedom of speech?

They call it defamation for a reason.  It hurts more than feelings it destroys a person's character and their income.  I don't see it as free speech.  I see that as assault.

Quote
Not only that, but whatever people might think about political correctness, that's freedom of speech too.  Not to mention freedom of association.  If I disapprove of the things someone says, why should I have to associate with them?  Let's take the Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas 'controversy', for example.  If I were to employ someone to greet people at a store, and I told them to say Happy Holidays as long as they were working as my greeter, and they choose to say Merry Christmas instead, should I be made to continue employing them as my greeter even though they didn't follow the policy I set?  If I am made to, that violates my own First Amendment rights.

Sure but it's a choice.
Quote
This issue isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the anti-PC crowd would like to believe, because freedom of speech cuts both ways.  If someone wants to use PC terms, they have the right to do so via the same freedom of speech argument being used to criticize them.  It's more than a little ironic that the anti-PC pushback is aimed at behavior that's fundamentally the same as what they're doing.  They're complaining because of the use of speech they don't approve of - which is exactly what PC is about in the first place.

It's not as easy as we think it is.  They don't care if we use PC they care that it's being forced by government down their throats. 

Is it just to use xtian instead of Christian, capital C?  I don't care for double standards by anybody.  Tolerance must be applied equally or not at all.  I strive to make this a reality in my life;  don't be a hypocrite.  It's not always easy.  I do fail sometimes but at least I try hard.
Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man...Thomas Paine

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8066
  • Darwins +1051/-26
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The War on SJWs
« Reply #33 on: Today at 01:32:10 PM »
Referring to someone as an 'it' treats them as a non-entity, a non-person.  So yes, I would say it is unjust.  Same thing with epithets, when you get right down to it.  I'm not talking about the occasional tendency people have to do such things, I'm talking about the systematic use of it by some people to treat other people as being fundamentally less human than they are.  That's not something that can be excused with sayings like "haters gotta hate".

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that government should regulate such speech.  That's blocked by the First Amendment, and even if it weren't, attempting to enforce civility through government regulations is a bad idea.  I don't think the PC crowd is aiming for that, but I would oppose it in any case.

But the fact remains that they do have some good points.  Like it or not, things like referring to a transgendered person as 'it' or referring to someone by an ethnic slur can also be forms of defamation, especially if used systematically.  The same goes for bullying and things like it.  If you can see things like libel and slander as being assault rather than free speech, then you should be able to understand that it can apply to other things too, instead of simply assuming that a person just needs thicker skin.

Freedom of speech doesn't give someone license to intentionally hurt others with it.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.