Be mindful of what you post — Employer could be watching

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally support firing a person that cheers the death of a fellow American. You just have to be a psycho to do that.

Then you are anti-American b/c doing so -regardless of how morally reprehensible it is- is free speech. Yes, I know that private employers are different but this is being said by people in government, too.

And, also, just wanted to point out that the RIGHT did exactly the same thing, if not worse, for: Pelosi's husband, George Floyd, and many others. So, you can point your finger at the person in the mirror. And your party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

It’s a solid wall of crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

It’s a solid wall of crazy.

It is! And such a huge divide in this country. The right can’t even hear what the left is saying. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

Yup. Facts and reason are meaningless to irrational people working off of fictional narratives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

It’s a solid wall of crazy.

It is! And such a huge divide in this country. The right can’t even hear what the left is saying. Sad.

Not really. Most of us agree on most things (check the issue polling).

It’s just that the extremists have the (virtual) megaphones and vote disproportionately in primaries.

Eff the nutter Rs and the progressive left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally support firing a person that cheers the death of a fellow American. You just have to be a psycho to do that.

Then you are anti-American b/c doing so -regardless of how morally reprehensible it is- is free speech. Yes, I know that private employers are different but this is being said by people in government, too.

And, also, just wanted to point out that the RIGHT did exactly the same thing, if not worse, for: Pelosi's husband, George Floyd, and many others. So, you can point your finger at the person in the mirror. And your party.

You think a teacher in a public school system can post whatever he/she wants about any group of people? Kids from different backgrounds and their study habits, involvement in gangs, parental indifference, etc? Good luck with your line of reasoning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

It’s a solid wall of crazy.

It is! And such a huge divide in this country. The right can’t even hear what the left is saying. Sad.

Not really. Most of us agree on most things (check the issue polling).

It’s just that the extremists have the (virtual) megaphones and vote disproportionately in primaries.

Eff the nutter Rs and the progressive left.

But the Rs paint all liberals (see DJT’s comments) as progressive left; in reality it is a small faction of the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally support firing a person that cheers the death of a fellow American. You just have to be a psycho to do that.

Im not going to let the right martyr him. He does not need the flag at half staff, he should not have been transported on AF2, and the VP should not be hosting his podcast on government property.
Christo fascism is here. And it's in charge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We lived through that with Covid snitching. Neighbors reporting on neighbors if they dared go outside or gather, let alone send their children to the playground.

Now it’s our turn.

Not mourning a fascist versus trying to prevent the spread of a deadly disease overwhelming hospitals.

Totally the same thing. Totally the same.

Do you all even listen to yourselves?

Yes. Tell us how an airborne disease will be stopped by keeping people inside. All the people, every single one. Did you think people were never going to go outside ever again? Not for food, or anything? Tell us how you thought it would end in your scenario.

You loved the control it gave you. A sense of hope by forcing people to do something worthless.

We tried to keep people from cramming 200 people into a small space to prevent superspreader events, which seemed to keep happening. Even God tried to stop you by letting getting you sick right in his house while you sang his praises, but you wanted the freedom to die.

Quarantine is so old the name actually comes from the Latin. When done right it stops disease on its tracks. But we can never count on Americans to do anything that isn’t selfish.

Glad you brought up quarantining. Up until Covid, for millennia, we only quarantined the sick. Now we’re forcing quarantining of the healthy?

Funny how you bring up churches, but completely ignoring the million and millions of protesters that somehow were exempt from Covid restrictions.

So much science. Anyway, our memories are long and this is about misbehavior that we are now gleefully reporting for those who violate our rules.

WTF? Nobody ever said protesters were "exempt" from ANYTHING - show me an ordinance or other document proclaiming this.

Also, they were OUTSIDE ffs. Not indoors, elbow to elbow breathing the same stale stagnant air that the person next to them just breathed out.

They were, how do you think they organized, you think they only were hanging out outdoors? A whole bunch of young people desperately cooped up especially in the cities and in NYC in particular where mortality rates were the highest were released on the streets and were told it was righeous, do you think they didn't later gather indoors, hooked up, drank, smoked, whatever? Please. Get a brain.

At the same time our CHILDREN were banned from every outdoor recreational activity. PLAYGROUNDS were closed. Skate parks, even half of the beaches in NYC vast public shore were closed, cramming everyone (how "sciencey" of them ) into the few stretches of sand to be as close to each other as possible. They drew stupid circles on public grass lawns for people to distance outdoors, While BLM protests with people shouting and screaming into their useless cloth masks and marching shoulder to shoulder were not only allowed but encouraged. Criminal thugs were allowed to run free and loot and terrorize business owners, who stood in the doorways with baseball bats. I have seen this with my own eyes while you (judging by your clueless replies) were lounging in your nice neighborhood suburban home. Our cities turned into the movie sets for post apocalyptic sci fi with the entire streets of stores boarded up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

I started to reply to this, point-by-point. But damn, there is not arguing with delusional people.

It’s a solid wall of crazy.

It is! And such a huge divide in this country. The right can’t even hear what the left is saying. Sad.

Not really. Most of us agree on most things (check the issue polling).

It’s just that the extremists have the (virtual) megaphones and vote disproportionately in primaries.

Eff the nutter Rs and the progressive left.

THIS. Thank you.