Agree with LF, these type of tactics are what we accuse the SJW’s of doing. We must NOT do this.
Agree with LF, these type of tactics are what we accuse the SJW’s of doing. We must NOT do this.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
You wouldn't want a sexual offender working at a school. You also wouldn't want someone who screams racism when there is none working in any company with an HR department. While the magnitude is obviously different the point remains.Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
No, the point does not stand. This is no better than what they do, in their own sanctimonious high horse posturing.
You either have principles or you don’t. A rule for thee but not for me does not fly.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
This isn't about blacklisting someone for the wrong politics. This is about blacklisting people who gleefully defamed an innocent family. One is essentially a thought crime, the latter is "penalizing" someone due to concrete unethical actions.
Seriously, Lewk? So someone being racist should enjoy protection for their speech (i.e., Milo), but people accusing others of racism should not? It's telling that you think white supremacists aren't unethical.
Hope is the denial of reality
Da fk? You are free not to hire genuine racists either. I say genuine because apparently anyone to the left of Stalin is automatically a racist and a Nazi in the eyes of the left. For example Sarah Jeong has as history of direct non-humor based sexist and racist statements and I don't think the NYT should have hired her.
Lewk, you've consistently defended the rights of white supremacists to spew hate speech on free speech grounds. You've gone after organizations that punished white supremacists in any way. Because free speech is great. Unless people using free speech are supporting beliefs you disagree with. White supremacy is not one of those beliefs, apparently.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think we've got rather too far with the sex offender thing and Megan's Law and its ilk, actually. But it is amusing, appalling, and illustrative that you have equated sex offenders and students participating in a rally. Incidentally, the school and its officials were in a position where they certainly knew that the claims were false and discovery proved they knew that AND didn't care. A claim that you have not one shred of evidence for wrt these students. Rumormongering isn't the same as defamation or libel and FALLING for rumormongering is even less so.
Huh. You know, for a long time, I felt that Lewk was not actually racist, he was just an easily pandered to political-tribe idiot. But you make a point that does successfully demonstrate otherwise. Lewk does get angry and spews verbiage on here when people take offense at or try and blacklist white supremacists, claiming free speech, but here is demanding the exact same thing. He IS a racist. He identifies with the white supremacists.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
While the magnitude is obviously different the point remains.
You even quoted it so I would assume you actually read what I wrote, but maybe not. Let me highlight it again for you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote