LOL

Its illegal to announce that you want to kill the President of the United States

>>87409649
It should be illegal to release webcomics of this low of quality.

>>87409628
>1st Amendment
>Bill of Rights
>Others infringing on your rights
?

>>87409684

http://murrlogic1.deviantart.com/gallery/ Like these?

>>87409649
but it's okay to make a movie where you assassinate Kim Jong Un or have Saddam Hussein gay for Satan

>>87409649
Not as satire, or fiction. Declaring your intent to assassinate a head of state is admissible evidence of conspiracy.

>>87409628
The Court of Appeals in the 9th Circuit in its ruling in Teixeira v. County of Alameda, a 2nd Amendment case but one that used precedent applying to 1st Amendment cases, stated that, “where a right depends on subsidiary activity, it would make little sense if the right did not extend, at least partly, to such activity as well.”

Reminds me of this time I called my friend an asshole for being shy.

Was he called a cuck? Because man after seeing the same response over and over again after this is a little much.

>>87409628
I usually hate xkcd but this comic is 100% right. nothing more pathetic than watching dumbasses complain that their freedom of speech is being impeded by getting banned from some place on the fucking internet.

>>87410382
That was a fun thread.

File: solace.jpg (186KB, 800x220px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 800x220px

>>87409628
lol

>>87409628
He's right you know.

>>87409649
Yes specific threats or incitement of criminal acts are not protected speech.

No one has a right to an audience

File: pix_plz[1].png (79KB, 517x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 517x720px

>>87410665
>le white knight meme
At least the three out of 1700+ strips Randall made about feminism are actually funny, unlike that tantrum.

>>87409649
I don't think that's not specific enough. If you said you were GOING to kill the president, that might be another matter, especially if you had even more detail like, "This thursday I'm going to hang out on a roof with a sniper rifle and try to assassinate the leader of the free world".

>>87409649
No. It is not illegal to say you want to kill the President. It's not even illegal to say that someone should kill the President.

It absolutely is illegal to say, "Let's kill the President now!" to a crowd with the actual intent of following through. Or "I plan on shooting the President," in a way which is clearly non-satirical, illustrative, or otherwise obviously conveying a message besides an actual intent to carry out an assassination attempt.

Look up the phrase "clear and present danger" for further clarification.

File: WVGF9.jpg (35KB, 900x308px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 900x308px

>>87409628
this is still his best joke(I am aware that this is an edit)

>>87413127
If legbeards force themselves to laugh at that retarded regressive hypocritical shire then I feel sorry for you

>>87413218
Literally big bang theory tier reddit-bait humor

>>87413127
Hey thick meaty vagina, if you actually read xkcd you would be aware that the feminist dude is a trolling creep. He is a satire of white knights here, people who believe they can pass judgement over others regarding non-issues that don't even concern them. Also notice that in this """"""feminist"""""" comic, the woman does not speak a word. She's literally part of the background

>>87413216
Neat. Has there ever been any precedents worth mentioning for what constitutes as fiction and what doesn't in the context of threats or similar?

>>87413127
Also
>>as someone who likes nerdy girls

Could the white knight satire be more obvious? Are you cunts actually as retarded as the alt-right says you are?

>>87409628
Even if the message of the comic is 100% correct, it could be condensed to the first, second and fifth panels, and be even funnier.

>>87415674
Yes, if someone say to you. Stop talking about Bon Jovi, you should.

>>87410702
Fuckin' Bolk, man.

>>87409720
Are you defending Saddam and Kim Jong Un?

>>87409649

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY

>>87415702

it sounds like randall

>>87410735
He is legally right, but he's not defending anyone in a court of law. It's absolutely valid to criticize censorship, particularly in allegedly unbiased services, even if it's legal. Assuming you don't like censorship of course.

>>87409649
Making threats is considered an act of verbal violence. Congessing to crimes will get you arrested.

>Randall "my fedora tips itself" Monroe

FTFY

>>87415661
>thick meaty vagina

Dodoria?

>>87416123
Oh man, you guessed it

>>87410452

This. We used to laugh about arbitrary, cruel, or well-deserved bans on 4chan. And half the forums I was on in the 00s and every chat I was on in the late 90s would ban people for good reason (or no reason at all) anytime they wanted. I'm not sure when nerds decided they got to shit up whatever space they were in without the banhammer ever coming down, but it's fucking annoying and embarrassing.

That faggot Milo actually bitched about his fucking Twitter checkmark at the fucking White House. That's where we are now: a whiny faggot crying to the press secretary about a 140-character shitposting network taking his privileges away.

>>87416223
What would you say if someone cut your phone service for supporting wrong political ideas?

File: hKf6eUi.png (277KB, 540x403px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 540x403px

>>87416164

>>87416242

Setting aside the fact that faggot got de-checked and then banned for bending and breaking the rules in their TOS, I'd call it false equivalence, because that's what it fucking is.

Unless you decide Twitter is an essential communication service instead of a shitposting network, and thus give credence to every whiny faggot talking about cyberbullying on it, then no, there's no equivalence at all between having your phone service taken away and not being able to retweet Pepes.

>>87416242
I would go to another phone provider.

>>87413084
So why isn't hate speech illegal

>>87416281
Either way, twitter can keep banning people and people are free to call it shit for it, what's even the problem?

>>87409649
I want to kill the president of the United States.

>>87416242
>forcing privately owned bakeries to bake cakes for gay couples even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs is wrong! is duhgenerate librul gubmand tyranny!
>forcing privately owned websites to provide service to everyone, even if it conflicts with their political beliefs or terms of service is the right way to go! is freeze peaches!
el ehm ayy oh

>>87416336

People are free to call it shit for it, but if you try to take the moral high ground and say free speech is in danger because you, say...tweeted a pic of a cum-covered gorilla to the gorilla from Ghostbusters and got banned, you're a fucking faggot.

>>87416223
And yet /co/mblr is willing to report people who simply disagree with their views.
There's a difference between being banned for cp and being banned for trying to discuss perfectly valid issues that directly affect our pop culture ethos. You clearly despise nerds and despise our mentality that all things deserve discussion as long as they are interesting and thoughtful

One of the main problems regarding third-wave feminism is that it is no longer interesting or fun. It's all herd mentality and propaganda and cheap shots at people willing to argue with your views and discuss them. You have descended to the same level as /pol/

>>87416372
I don't believe public platforms should be criticized for having TOS, but I do think criticising them for bias is valid. Having conservative notions suppressed while #KillAllMen is trending on a platform that is not explicitly political (ie not HillaryClinton.org) is worthy of condemnation.

If someone says something is morally wrong, legalese is not a valid rebuttal, unless it's happening in the court of law.

>>87416502

>You clearly despise nerds and despise our mentality that all things deserve discussion as long as they are interesting and thoughtful

I keenly remember things getting thrown at me while I tried to read sci-fi from the library and secondhand comics under a tree in recess, anon, so no, I don't despise nerds. I despise entitlement and self-importance. If someone was shitting up the lunch table of me and my only two friends, we told them to fuck off. It's like putting up with a sperg customer at your LCS who won't stop bitching about your taste in every single book you pick up and expects you to listen to him.

>>87415661
That's actually pretty deep

Now I don't know if Randall is feminist or anti-feminist

>>87416295
Because saying "I hate niggers" Is different to saying "I'm gonna kill you nigger!". Both would be considered hate speech but only one is a threat of bodily harm.

>>87415661
He doesn't care what real women want or think and stick up for them at slightest provocation.

It might be a satire but real feminists would see nothing wrong with it.

File: 1476950759926.jpg (14KB, 199x274px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 199x274px

>>87416372
Because being isn't a conscious decision dumbass.

>>87416853
*Being gay

>>87416550
That's not the point
I'm sorry you had a shitty middle school but all I'm saying is that contemporary social media feminists have developed a knee-jerk reaction to all, even well-meaning criticism. It means we have viewpoints forced down our throats. Just because someone said the Thor gender flip was clickbait-bait, doesn't mean that person is bigoted misogynist scum. Maybe that person just *gasp* cares about Thor more than gender issues. People don't want to discuss only one set of issues their whole life, and they shouldn't.

>>87415819
Was hoping someone would post that.

>>87416367
HE ACTUALLY DID IT

File: picard_grumpy.png (177KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 500x379px

>start LOL thread with the same strip every time
LOL

>>87416694

Neither
His only agenda is trying to appear nerdy and hip

>>87416367
That's alright, it won't matter in a couple of days.

>>87409628
I'd rather be an asshole than be afraid to speak my mind.

>Who needs Free Speech? We need to socially ostracize and punish anyone who says things we disagree with because it's 2016!

>>87416372
>is freeze peaches
I'm not arguing with you just curious about this strange peach comment

>>87418393
I mean...yeah? That's how society has been, since forever. If you say things, that I don't approve in a private website/area I could just kick you out. If you say something stupid outside, people have the right to call you out on your bullshit, or even just NOT talk to you.

>>87418422
>Freeze peach
>Free speech

It will never fail to amuse me how much this strip triggers /co/.

File: IMG_20161102_094539.jpg (19KB, 273x361px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 273x361px

>>87409628
TRIGGERED

>>87416373
>tweeted a pic of a cum-covered gorilla to the gorilla from Ghostbusters and got banned
Now who's using false equivalence, asshat?
You shouldn't be banned from speaking for an opinion on a forum. Otherwise it turns into a circlejerk. Why do you think we hate Reddit so much?
>inb4 4chan's a circlejerk too
Yes, but it's because of our own volition, not because some assmad mods decided they didn't like other opinions.

>>87416372
Nobody bitches about the cake shit on 4 chan. Your strawman is wrong. 4chan was a fairly liberal until modern liberalism shifted into maximum over retard in the last couple of years.

This is terrible.

>>87409628
He's technically right yet still misses the point.

Which I think is Randall's problem with politics. He's clearly intelligent in a scientific, logical way, but he doesn't really appreciate nuance. So when he's talking on subjects that aren't in his area of expertise, he comes off like a condescending jackass.

File: freespeech.png (81KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 566x577px

>>87409628

>>87410643
yeah

Anyone who speaks out against free speech, even the most repellent, evil, sick and weird speech, is not a liberal.

>>87420827
You did not just compare the massacre of Charlie Hebdo to you being pissed at that someone deleted your comment on a website you don't own, asshole?

You actually did, didn't you?

No, sir. someone telling to can it when you are in their home is not the same as barging into a redaction and killing people.

This is the most awful attempt at comparison and you are a shit person.

>>87421450
by the way you post youre either a woman or a fucking faggot cuck either way opinion invalidated

>>87421450
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME

>>87421580
You are actually proud to make an Ad hominem fallacy, aren't you?

and no, I am a straight man. you have a clealry broken gaydar.

>>87421692
oof, cringey reply the buddy

>>87421760
I don't even know what you mean.

>>87409628
So, this cuck is defending sjw attacks on rallies and speeches?

>>87420827
>>87421450
I'm a pretty hard free speech supporter, but you're right. Comparing literal murder to someone booting you off a service is ridiculous.

That being said, I do think that those services can still be criticized for kicking people off for reasons that seem invalid. Not Milo, because he was trying actively to bait controversy, but a lot of moderate/secular/ex-Muslim voices (for example) get kicked off social media sites for very little reason beyond voicing their disagreement with conservative Islam and thus getting a lot of butthurt Saudi's complaining to Facebook/Twitter/etc about Islamophobia.

Ironically, a lot of neofascist pages that do genuinely promote anti-Muslim sentiment get to stay up.

Basically, Randall's argument is valid, but there's also the valid counterargument that complaint against unfair or unreasonable dismissal from a service is often very warranted.

Basically, it's the difference between soft and hard attacks on free speech.

>>87422036
Thanks god for your answer. I actually feel a bit better.

>>87422077
my god are you a fucking faggot holy shit

>>87422959
no.

>>87421450
If Carl the Cuck were a 4chan post, this is exactly what he would look like.

>>87424451
You don't know what cuck means, don't you?

>>87424451
Not really.

Carl seems like the kind of guy who would say that the Charlie Hebdo guys had it coming to them.

That post is just saying that people should have some perspective.

File: Oh Wait, You're Serious.jpg (132KB, 625x538px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 625x538px

>>87421450
Cry some moar you dumb nigger
After all this bullshit about freedom of speech, you're gonna give us shit about it?

>>87421925
Man, all these posts that seem to, not only miss the point, and purposely try to strawman the shit out of everyone.

>>87425480
What? Are you retarded? Are you confused? Free speech dosesn't protect you from being called out on your retarded shit, and even the OP's image doesn't even imply that.

File: 6GEIUBw[1].jpg (62KB, 625x482px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 625x482px

>>87410452

>>87421450
Why not? The muslims that killed him weren't a government, so their attack on freedom of speech isn't a problem.

>>87427241
>The muslims that killed him
There was more than one death at Charlie Hebdo.

>so their attack on freedom of speech isn't a problem.
Them killing people IS a fucking problem.

>>87427400
To silence speech they found offensive. It is an extreme example, but a very strong one when it comes to civilian attacks on unpopular speech.

>>87427446
I don't even know the point you are trying to make.

I don't even know at what you are saying "why not"

>>87409720

there was also a movie where the heroes killed Obama and no one complained. Well, I'm sure someone complained but it wasn't a big deal.

>>87413218
Philosophers don't belong there. Making shit up that you never have to prove isn't science.

>>87427446
>It is an extreme example, but a very strong one when it comes to civilian attacks on unpopular speech.
Oh, fuck I think I get your point and you are completly wrong.

NO, telling someone that are on your own personal place to shut up IS NOT the same as Someone going to someone else place to kill them.

There is a sense of property and how it is being used, there. It's understandable that one isn't allowed to use your own yard as a soap-box to express thoughts you disagree with. And it is not comparable with you going to someone else's house to kill him because you disagree with thought he expressed on the public place, with his own means.

>>87427636

There wouldn't be science without philosophy.

>>87409720
You are confusing piece of fictions and actual genuine threats.

>>87421450
You have hatred of free speech in common with fanatical terrorist organization's. Good job.

>>87427675
There would be no chemistry without alchemy. That doesn't mean it's still usefull.

>>87427669
No one cares if you ban someone from your penis admiring website. It's when the government makes saying mean things illegal that it's a problem.

I fully accept that Facebook are free to ban people from their site which is why I stopped using it.

>>87427776
>You have hatred of free speech
wrong. I don't know where you got that from, but nothing of what I said imply that in any way.

>>87427836
Good to hear you on board. Nigger.

>>87427832
We are not disagreeing on anything, there.

What I find unacceptable is when some moron try to say someone deleting your comment on his own website is similar to an extremist killing cartoonist. That is pure bullshit

>>87416123
God damn it, I just got finished with Xenoverse 2 for the day.

>>87416281
>phones are essential

k

>>87410735
Unfortunately, the people who wave it around fail to understand freedom of speech as a legal right, and freedom of speech as a virtue. And he's not helping the situation any.


>>87416694

His spin state is dependent on the observer. He's quantum feminist.

File: XS5LK.gif?noredirect.gif (883KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

883KB, 500x269px

>>87415743

>>87427241
>The muslims that killed him
>him

You do know Charlie Hebdo is a magazine, not a person, right?

>>87427809
Alchemy doesn't provide direction, though. Philosophy does that. Science, in a vacuum, is meaningless without some sort of direction to the application of discovery.

>>87427636
don´t, just don´t

>>87427241
Clear it up dude. The logic goes,

>The Charlie Hebbo mass murders while criminal, are not an attack on freedom of speech, because the people who did it are not government.

>>87427832
I think facebook is free to ban people, but there are consequences to that. It means that they've got some sort of editorial process and they need to own up for it and take responsibility for it.

Being a common carrier like the phone company, that makes little or no editorial decisions is a very useful thing to have.

>>87418688
It's weird, I thought this was common sense.

File: IMG_2774.jpg (42KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 960x960px

>>87421450

>>87422036
>Not Milo, because he was trying actively to bait controversy,
Baiting is the foundation if the internet
There are plenty of sjws who bait

Thay being said I think it's any private service's right to deny people for whatever reason, I even think being black/gay/whatever. Bevause if it's not literally anything than it should be nothing

>>87431444
And honestly, I wouldn't cry so much if those SJW's got banned from Twitter too.

Really, I don't think Milo should have been banned because it was obviously what he wanted anyway.

>I even think being black/gay/whatever. Bevause if it's not literally anything than it should be nothing

Yeah, but banning people for being black/gay is literally banning people for shit they can't control.

I'm not saying that banning people for having/expressing opinions is good, but at least it's based on a modicum of choice

>>87431219
And I would think the opposite, with how big the Comics code was.

>>87409628
>the 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences
>or consequences
It does actually. Why do SJWs have a hard time understanding the LEGAL aspect of free speech?

Americans care more about the 2nd Amendment than the 1st and that's a problem.

>>87409628
A society that doesn't respect the freedom of speech is one that wont have it for very long.

>>87433430

Right now if its seems we care more about the second it's because it's the under fire far more than the first is. The first has more or less been settled. America has some of the most strenuous protections on speech in the world. People don't try to get books banned or people arrested for speech. They just try to sidestep the issue and fuck you in ways that don't involve the government. Depending on where you live the second might not be as voraciously fought for. With certain states and municipalities invoking laws that are in fact defacto violations of the second amendment. What is more troubling is that almost nobody goes to bat for the fourth. That one is getting stepped on constantly but generally has very few advocates.

>>87409628
It's nice that he has an unassailable platform in which to express said views.

>>87433430
I think the Second Amendment is just as important as the First.

This thread is fucking cringey. All these ugly cunts whoring themselves for attention. Seriously, you're as bad as those neckbeards

>>87409628
I remember this shitty comic. It was about Brendan Eich. Founder of Mozilla and created an entire programming language that's used everywhere in less than 2 weeks. It was right when Mozilla was going downhill and someone needed to step up and fix it. He was appointed CEO, but then fags found out he donated to prop 8, and complained that personally he wasn't on board with their degeneracy (that some fag judge abused his powers to overturn). People were complaining that fags shouldn't be attacking a man's job and career (and the company shouldn't have fired him) because of his personal beliefs, and Randell was all for defending those people.

>>87429708
What are engineers?
Or do you mean social "sciences"?

>>87436745
>What are engineers?
Dumb assholes, that's what they are.

>>87429708
Are you some kind of idiot? There is no science without a problem to solve, science needs direction before even starting.

>>87433430
Because the second amendment protects the first.

>>87433308
So, if a restoration owner say something most of his customer disagree with, he shouldn't suffer from the consequence of losing them?

>>87436671
see>>87437542

>>87437553

If a restaurant owner insults his customers or plays loud rap music during business hours or leaves a TV on in the waiting area that plays a channel people don't like or has the menu printed in comic sans or puts up ugly wallpaper in the restaurant or runs an ad for his restaurant that someone finds offensive he should expect to lose customers.

It's really none of the customers' business what the restaurant owner does when he goes home after work though.

>>87436671
I will always be weirded out by this logic, I met a lot on the internet, that if someone think some group should be oppressed, it's unfair for them to be oppressed about it.

Like "respect my freedom of not wanting to allow other people to have freedom"...

Wait didn't the puritan fled to America because they felt oppressed in their own country? Oppressed to not be allowed to oppress other religious group. Maybe there is something, there.

>>87437573
>It's really none of the customers' business what the restaurant owner does when he goes home after work though.
But if the customers find out he expressed some view most of them disagree with, even if it was outside of work (we assume the right to privacy of the owner wasn't breached), aren't the customer allowed to express their disagreement by not going to the place anymore?

Or are they still under the moral duty to keep eating there and ignore the owner's known view because he didn't express those view at his business place?

>>87437585

He was oppressing people by supporting legislation that would keep them from getting married. He was oppressed by being forcibly removed from his job. Seems a bit asymmetrical to me.

What you need to do though, is look at this devoid of context and think about the precedence it sets. Yes, it's easy to think he had it coming if you disagree with his values. Yes, he's Branden Eich, so "losing his job" simply means he went from being CEO of Mozilla to CEO of something slightly less well known and slightly less lucrative. In this case, it's easy to decide that what happened wasn't so bad.

But what about the next Eich? Essentially, a man lost his job for having the wrong political opinions in private. This isn't something we should want to normalize or encourage.

>>87437633
>But if the customers find out he expressed some view most of them disagree with
>(we assume the right to privacy of the owner wasn't breached)

Resolve this paradox first.

>>87416853
>>87416873
Dumb.

>>87416372
>freeze peach
So you're admitting you're from tumblr?

>>87436671
Companies need to just tell reactionaries to go fuck themselves (actually just do nothing until it blows over). Chic-fil-A is the textbook example on how to do it right. Internet activists will forget about it in a week and find something else to bitch about.

>>87437660
-The owner of the restaurant made a tweeter post to someone else and he didn't made private
-They found an old interview he made at the opening of his restaurant and confronted to it doesn't change his mind
-Someone he frequent outside of work repeated something he said (actually not illegal, unless you are under a professional oath of secrecy) (still a bit of a dick move, though) and he didn't try to deny it
-He made a whole internet rant on someone else's website and claimed to all who he was.

there is plenty of way to know someone's opinion outside of his work life while it still being legal. A public life exist outside of work and most use it to communicate idea and give opinion. Your work isn't supposed to not be affected by the opinion and view you purposely release for other to know. Unless there is a legal bound to secrecy, the privacy of what you express is only bound by the discretion of the one you confide to and the mean you use to communicate.

>>87427636
>Nuclear Winter
>Drake Equation
No, science never makes up anything it can't prove.

>>87437724
I get what your saying Anon, but with the Twitter example, wouldn't the "restaurant" be Twitter and the "patrons" be the user of Twitter? Would it be okay for a restaurant to refuse service to someone based on their beliefs? I guess that ties into the gay bakery thing too...hmmm free speech is trickier than I thought.

>>87437649
>He was oppressed by being forcibly removed from his job. Seems a bit asymmetrical to me.
Well, yeah, he wanted something that would affect plenty of people and in counteract, only he was affected.

>What you need to do though, is look at this devoid of context and think about the precedence it sets.
There was precedent way before that. Do you really think he is the first guy to lose a job because he had unpopular opinion?

>But what about the next Eich? Essentially, a man lost his job for having the wrong political opinions in private. This isn't something we should want to normalize or encourage.
Like I said, not the fist, not the last either. There is a saying people can vote with their wallet, well they can judge to. Opinion can sway the course of thing and it can be for good cause as well as bad cause. Only time can really tell if an emotional reaction of the public mass was going in the right direction or not.

I seriously think this is something to be accepted. What we say and do have consequence and the freedom of speech do not means you can say whatever and never get it fire back to you. It ensure there will be no fallback to you, but freedom of speech do not bend the will of the public either. Freedom of speech protect you from legal consequence, the right to safety protect you from aggression and cyberbullying for saying what you think. Right to privacy protect you form people getting into your house to annoy the hell out of you because you said something they didn't like.

But Free speech doesn't protect you from every consequence ever.

>>87437724

I feel like 1 and 4 would be instrinsically tied to his professional identity. Like if Ronald McDonald has a twitter account, of course everything he says on it is going to reflect on McDonald's.

2 is an interview that directly relates to his business, so it doesn't even count as "after he goes home from work."

3 I don't see as being very likely to affect sales.

File: 1477890427368.gif (3MB, 540x513px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 540x513px

Aren't there laws against people attacking other people in mobs over opinions?
I thought that was how we had peaceful protests that don't devolve into french style guillotine revolution

>>87437786
>Would it be okay for a restaurant to refuse service to someone based on their beliefs?
First he'd need to know his beliefs.

And apparently, it's okay for a wedding cake maker to refuse to sell his products to gay couple who are about to get married. So I'd say the answer to your question is yes.
>guess that ties into the gay bakery thing too...hmmm free speech is trickier than I thought.
well you made the connection before I did, apparently.

>>87437815
Isn't getting fired over political leaning explicitly illegal?

>>87416223
The internet in the early 00s and late 90s was not nearly as concentrated as it is now. Wider adaptation and corporate interest led us to this place.

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but you're really underselling the reality of the situation.

>>87437815
>not the fist, not the last either

I realize. At one point in time in America we had this thing called the House Un-American Activities Committee which led witchhunts on suspected communist sympathizers. Their activities led to a blacklist of over 300 celebrities from Hollywood, some of whom had to leave the country to find work. It's pretty much unanimously agreed that this was a Bad Thing and a black mark on American history.

I don't think that having a modern day blacklist for people who aren't politically correct enough or too conservative or on the wrong side of history would be a step in the right direction.

>>87437824
> Like if Ronald McDonald has a twitter account, of course everything he says on it is going to reflect on McDonald's.
That's a business twitter. People who run a business can have a twitter account (or facebook, or whatever) without it actually being tied to his business. If he mostly use it to post emoji, cat picture and tell about how he has bought a new book, it can't be considered as a twitter account being tied to his business.
The the
>2 is an interview that directly relates to his business
What if he was interviewed because he belonged to a chess club and that was the matter of the article. It doesn't need to tie to his business.
>3 I don't see as being very likely to affect sales.
If it get to be known, and most of his customer disagree with, it will.

>>87437876
>I don't think that having a modern day blacklist
People don't need a list to disagree with other.

File: 1475382941666.png (30KB, 384x240px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 384x240px

>americans dropping the fact that they're a republic to go full on mob rule democracy, not just legally, but socially too

Holy fuck what is wrong with you burgers, your constitution was explicitly made to avoid this hit and you still blew it

>>87437906

Televised interviews and Twitter are still "in public" and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy regardless.

Still not convinced that #3 would have a big effect.

>>87437936
"Burgers"?

>>87437923

Yeah, agreed. If I have a list of people with the wrong opinions and all of them get fired, the fact that a list was involved is approximately 0% of the issue. The issue is getting fired over having the wrong opinions.

File: iggy-catalp-duckman-2.92.jpg (18KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 210x240px

>>87437941
You heard me, you fat whopper faggot

>>87437936
Show me where in the Constitution it requires private citizens to host the views of others they disagree with. "Congress shall make no law". It's meant to set clear limits on what governments can do, not how you the citizen have to react to someone else's speech.

>>87437938
>Televised interviews and Twitter are still "in public" and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy regardless.
That's my point. The initial conundrum of >>87437573
was that someone's view should only affect that person if he express them at work.

My counter point was that public life exist outside of work and that what you tell to someone you consider close still count as public life.

>Still not convinced that #3 would have a big effect.
don't underestimate word of mouth.

>>87437959
Don't have the wrong opinions then and before spaz out, that means don't spread hate.

>>87409628
He's right.

File: 1463942823048.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>you can get a mob to ruin your life if you have the wrong and unpopular opinion

America
Land of the (((free)))

>>87437959
>The issue is getting fired over having the wrong opinions.
But that is the whole thing, people aren't under the obligation to monetary support someone they disagree with.

>>87437973
I'm legit curious as to where in the world you are posting this from. I've never heard that used as an insult.

>>87437977
>private citizens
Non american here, what the fuck does that mean?

>>87437941
>>87438002
Spend more time on this site without posting. Jesus Christ.

>>87437936
People petitioning for requiring someone be demoted is not a mob.

File: 1477195518488.png (14KB, 340x236px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 340x236px

>>87437986
That's so fucking subjective thst you could apply it to fucking anything.
People already apply it to anything and crucify people over fucking microagressions.

You cantf ucking half ass it, either everything is fine and fair game, or we set some fucking rules in stone so people know what the score is. Either you set up free speech ot censor things, but don't half ass and mix the two, or you get something worse than both of them

>>87437982
>My counter point was that public life exist outside of work

We aren't talking about public life though; we are talking about privately held opinions.

>>87438006
Someone not a part of the government. Someone who is not prevented from doing the things the laws prevent the government from doing. If you host a forum that you host on a website that is privately owned, the laws don't prevent you from setting speech rules in the context of that website.

>>87438010
...did you just tell me to lurk more because I was curious as to where your odd insult originated?

I'm fascinated.

>>87438046
Fuck off you baconator

>>87438046
I'm not even the one who called you a burger, but yes, I am telling you to lurk more if you don't know what he means in context.

File: 4lwjCtf.gif (2MB, 416x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 416x320px

Personally, I don't think you should be allowed to ban even hate speech, unless you ban ALL of it. You cannot be biased and, personally, the government should strip you of that ability. If you want to ban the KKK from making racist comments, you have to ALSO ban every single anti-white or anti-hispanic sentiment, group, and post at the same time. It doesn't matter if privilege comes into play,you get rid of all of it, or you leave it alone. It's this blatant excusing of double standards that causes the biggest problems in society.

>hey hey hey don't say the N word please. This is a safe space and the people of color might be offended
>HAW HAW STUPID WHITE PEOPLE I HOPE YOU DIE #KILLALLMEN #SMASHWHITEY

Now, if you ban one, why won't you ban the other?Who are you to decide when something stops being hate speech?

>>87438001

Yes you are because you literally will disagree with everyone you will ever do business with on SOMEthing.

>>87437986
>Don't have the wrong opinions then

President Obama was against gay marriage before 2012. Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage until 2013. The "wrong opinions" change by the year; it's literally impossible to never have the "wrong opinion," especially politically.

File: 1463875633494.gif (499KB, 387x305px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 387x305px

But what if you make hate speech into a religion? AND get all the exemption laws that go with it?

now that, my friends, is shadilay

File: so smug.jpg (20KB, 267x179px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 267x179px

>>87438071

it's called Islam

>>87416367
The absolute madman!

>>87438045
>Someone not a part of the government. Someone who is not prevented from doing the things the laws prevent the government from doing.
That's fucking retarded, are you telling me in America if you own land/website whatever you can do what you want even if it's illegal?

>>87438071
>But what if you make hate speech into a religion?
Mormonism. They literally have a Racial hierarchy baked into their creation myth. It's pretty fucked up.

File: 1232255108963.jpg (72KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x450px

>>87438057
>>87438056

File: picard facepalm.jpg (23KB, 921x606px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 921x606px

>>87438091
No, you idiot. It means the laws designed to restrict the government aren't applied to people that are not in a government position. If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law", and you're not a member of Congress, that rule isn't meant to restrict you. Where do you live that you have no concept like this?

>>87438043
>we are talking about privately held opinions.
They are no longer held private if you express them.

>>87438070
>Yes you are because you literally will disagree with everyone you will ever do business with on SOMEthing.
I am talking in relative, not absolute. there are view you can tolerate, even if you disagree with, but everyone has a corssingline too.

>>87437977
>Show me where in the Constitution it requires private citizens to host the views of others they disagree with

The Constitution doesn't say so; common fucking sense does.

Your mom has opinons you disagree with, so does your best friend and so does your dog. Get the fuck over it.

>>87438122

Depends entirely on how you express them.

>>87438129

That line should be a bit farther out than "the other political party."

>>87438130
>Your mom has opinons you disagree with
Your mom can kick you out of the house if you call her a cunt though, as long as you're over a certain age. Is the goverment supposed to come in and say "No, you can't do that, he's got freedom of speech!" That's common sense to you?

>>87438165

Calling someone a cunt isn't a difference of opinion. If your coworker called you a cunt, that would be something they could get disciplined and possibly fired for. It's not in the same league as "I found out he voted fort he wrong guy," not even the same sport.

>>87438146
>Depends entirely on how you express them.
The privacy of the views you express is solely bound to the discretion of those you are talking to (unless they are professionally bound by secrecy).
>"the other political party."
It usually is. I mean, if you take the case of gay right, many people have now a line set at "don't try to forbid equal rights to gays". But that line isn't crossed if you are just republican or even Christian, as many Christians and republicans support the gays, nowadays. So being for one of the big two isn't usually considered the crossing line for many.

>>87438182
Okay? Now tell me how that relates to what I said.

File: 1478064909239.png (38KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 566x577px

>>87409628
fix'd

>>87438205
/thread

File: 1466638693787.png (291KB, 399x400px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 399x400px

>>87410735
Completely misses the point, when people speak up for freedom of speech they are not referring to the first amendment, they are espousing a principle, virtue.
These retards know this and are completely going around the point to because they are guilty often of trying not to have a debate or prove they are correct by finding ways within the law and everyday practices to silence, censor, blackball, slander or other such means to keep different ideas and viewpoints from being heard.
If you doubt this point, think of all the situations where they were called out for censoring, where any of the accusations of illegality and crime? Most likely not. Many of these hot topics are not being brought to court or decided there put in the public forum, which is why they so want to find ways to silence the other side. So this none argument that completely misses the point doesn't actually address anything and shows a complete lack of trying to understand other people.
That or they are just so stupid that they can't see how far off they are and think they are being clever.

>>87438205
Higky inacurate, seeing the amount of time people have reposted that comic and talked about how they don't agree with it.

People ignoring it and just letting go the issue without caring about it any more are not part of this thread.

>>87438187

And 5 years ago, both parties were against equal rights for the gays. Not only do you need to have the right opinions, you need to predict the future and know the right opinions half a decade in advance, maybe more.

Look at this divorced from the specific issue of gay rights for a second. Imagine a future society where anyone who isn't a vegetarian is considered a monster. And then someone digs up an old receipt you threw away from the Downtown Steakhouse back in 2016 and you lose your job over it. Or imagine in some possible future the US becomes a communist state and anyone who ever posted to 4chan saying that capitalism was good is now blacklisted from civilized society.

You might think that gay rights is a uniquely important issue and that makes it ok to do any and everything to punish those on the wrong side of it. In the future someone could say the same thing about an issue you're currently on the wrong side of. Once you normalize the practice of "well this issue is so important dissenters deserve that they get" you open yourself up to the same treatment from anyone who strongly disagrees with you.

>>87438197

False equivalence. Holding the wrong opinion and calling someone names aren't the same thing.

>>87438222
>, they are espousing a principle, virtue.
>These retards know this and are completely going around the point to because they are guilty often of trying not to have a debate or prove they are correct by finding ways within the law and everyday practices to silence, censor, blackball, slander or other such means to keep different ideas and viewpoints from being heard.
you are missing the point of the comic too. It's point is that no one is ought to listen to you, or host a site for you to express yourself. No one is under the obligation to financially support the expression of view you don't agree with.

That's the point of the comic. Not censorship, but the right to not support view you don't agree with.

>>87438266

You don't agree with anyone 100% though, so good luck surviving out in the wilderness on your own.

>>87438282
And yet there are plenty of sites that limit what users can say to other users on their site, and news agencies with a clear ideological slant, and they do okay.

>>87438242
>And 5 years ago, both parties were against equal rights for the gays.
I am quite certain Democrats started to support gay right earlier than that.
>you need to predict the future and know the right opinions half a decade in advance, maybe more.
Actually, no, you don't need that, quite on the contrary, it's political suicide (or political break if you can pull it out), it's a risk most politicians don't take.

>And then someone digs up an old receipt you threw away from the Downtown Steakhouse back in 2016 and you lose your job over it.
That's not how it work. The guy could have stayed at his job if he had changed his mind since. And once again, customer aren't under the obligation to support views they don't agree with. It doesn't mean you are forced out of job either.

But it doesn't mean it's forbidden either to support those views. Look at Chick-fill-a. They have clearly made their point, lost customer (and gained some), they have made their choice and stick by it. You also have to get the backbone of your opinion.

Maybe in one 100 years eating meat will be considered awful, but that doesn't meat eater will stop having job.

Having a conviction also means you are ready to face the adversity of having those opinions.

>>87438282
Again see >>87438129
And we were talking about rights, not surviving the wilderness.

>>87438248
So how does that relate to the larger concept of private vs government censorship? It kind of seems like you're quibbling.

>>87438266
No, it's assuming that people are claiming it's a violation of the first amendment when they are removed from sites.
No one makes that argument ever. People rarely bring up the first amendment unless it involves public protests.
So I did not miss the point, the comic is trying to claim that people getting banned don't understand the difference between the first amendment and private services being allowed to do as they wish.
It's a red herring, people that bring up the first amendment always use it as a reason why it's okay to do what they did, when no one is arguing that they can't but that they are thin skinned and often have weak arguments, just like that comic.

>>87438242
>And 5 years ago, both parties were against equal rights for the gays.

If you're going to comment on politics, at least try to know what the fuck you're talking about. Democrats have been pro-gay rights since at least 2000, probably earlier if you want to count times they were all subtle and sneaky about it.

Hell, Dubya probably won re-election because he attacked Kerry so hard on the gay marriage issue, at a time when it was still really unpopular.

> And then someone digs up an old receipt you threw away from the Downtown Steakhouse back in 2016 and you lose your job over it.

Nothing like this is happening. Occasionally people get fired for being really racist while on the job in the PRESENT, but no one's employer gives a shit about what they did 20 years ago, unless it was an actual crime (in which case you probably aren't getting hired in the first place.)

This is not a problem that exists in real life.

>>87438349
>No, it's assuming that people are claiming it's a violation of the first amendment when they are removed from sites.
No, it is telling that claiming for free speech doesn't grant you the right to be hosted by those who disagree with you.

It's also saying that free speech in itself isn't an argument, but a way to convey your argument, if you haven't anything else than "free speech", well then you don't have an argument to actually defend our point.

It's right in all that.

>>87438349
>, when no one is arguing that they can't but that they are thin skinned and often have weak arguments
Having weak argument is precisely one of the point the comic bring.

File: The_Prophet_would_have_you_reconsider_your_blasphemy.png (115KB, 283x375px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 283x375px

>>87438071
>>87438083

How dare you, you filthy kuffar!
Insulting religion of peace is grounds for capital punishment!

>>87438071
That's the westboro church.

>>87438071
That is religion.

>>87438317
>I am quite certain Democrats started to support gay right earlier than that.

Some of them did, but the current President and current Democratic nominee (who also ran in the primaries back in 2008) didn't. I don't know who in the party is more representative than the guy nominated in 2008 for presidency and the woman who was almost nominated in 2008 but made it this time.

>>87438317
>That's not how it work. The guy could have stayed at his job if he had changed his mind since

So it's fine as long as you're perfectly willing to follow moral fashions, have no opinions of your own and simply believe whatever is most popular in contemporary society at all times. So I assume you are in favor of the Hollywood blacklists of the 50s.

>And once again, customer aren't under the obligation to support views they don't agree with

We aren't talking about customers not supporting someone; we're talking about being fired. If it was up to the customers, as you said, most likely on any given issue you would lose some and gain some others.

>Maybe in one 100 years eating meat will be considered awful, but that doesn't meat eater will stop having job.

It does if the "there are no bad tactics; only bad targets" mindset continues.

>>87421450
>OH NO MY PEDOPHILE WAR MONGERING PROPHET GOT SHOWN ON A FRENCH PUNLICATION

>>87438357
>Democrats have been pro-gay rights since at least 2000

see >>87438424

>>87438357
>Nothing like this is happening.

Scroll up, we were talking about Brandon Eich. He was fired in 2014 for privately supporting an anti-gay marriage bill in 2008. 2008, a year in which both Obama and Hillary were currently anti-gay marriage.

File: IsComics-20.png (798KB, 588x644px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 588x644px

>>87438427

Fuck, we need to have a storytime /co/ thread of "Mohammed's believe it or else!" at least once.

>>87409628
But Randy, what if I think you're an asshole and I want to show you the door?

>>87438370
>>87438370
>No, it is telling that claiming for free speech doesn't grant you the right to be hosted by those who disagree with you.
I know, that's what it's saying but I'm telling you no one disagrees with that, that point is a complete red herring, it's arguing a point no one is making, it's implying that people who disagree with heavily censored forums don't understand the law, therefore wrong and don't understand the situation.
I don't even know how to be more clear in what I'm trying to say but you yourself are doing just that, you just keep reiterating a point I'm not disagreeing with and not grasping what I'm telling you.

>>87438332

how does your mom kicking you out of the house relate to being fired from your job? Make a decent analogy and then maybe I can respond to it.

>>87438330
again see

>>87438146

>>87438424
>So it's fine as long as you're perfectly willing to follow moral fashions,
you keep sliding the point at every post.

Your initial statement was about why one should suffer economical fallback for something he said year ago, I replied to you he doesn't have to.

But as for what you are asking right now, it's not about following moral fashion, it's about understanding that people not agreeing with you aren't under the obligation to financially support you. He doesn't have to change his mind if he doesn't want to. But then it is not about an opinion piece made several years ago, but about what he think right no. Either he stand on his ground and does what Chick-fil-A did, or he change his mind. But people disagreeing with him aren't unde the obligation to support his business.

>e're talking about being fired. If it was up to the customers, as you said, most likely on any given issue you would lose some and gain some others.
But it is at the core of it, isn't it? It's customer outcry that caused the job loss. He wasn't actually fired, but handed his demission, because he knew he couldn't do the job anymore.

>It does if the "there are no bad tactics; only bad targets" mindset continues.
in the end we thrive for justice, try to do what is right. we are all prone to mistake, but that's the part of evovling as a society. Finding the compromise between personal freedom and the consequence of living t

>>87438603
>Finding the compromise between personal freedom and the consequence of living t
of living together.

>>87438569
>it's implying that people who disagree with heavily censored forums don't understand the law, therefore wrong and don't understand the situation.
Anon, I have some bad news for you. There are people who literally think that that is how it work and it is precisely those kind of people this comic was aimed at.

>>87438587
>That line should be a bit farther out than "the other political party."
And I have already sated that this line is actually farther than politcal line and that it is not the corssing line for most people, something you didn't disagree with. So my point remain.

People tolerate view they don't agree with, but there is a point where there is a line beyond which they can't endure anymore. and for the vast majority, that line is quite far enough.

>>87438603
>Your initial statement was about why one should suffer economical fallback for something he said year ago, I replied to you he doesn't have to.

But he did. Fired in 2014 for something that happened in 2008.

Both statements still hold. No one should be fired for opinions the held in the past, especially if those opinions were incredibly common and accepted then. AND no one should be force to apologize and follow moral fashions.

>But people disagreeing with him aren't under the obligation to support his business.

Agreed, but that'snot the issue. I'll get to that in a minute.

>It's customer outcry that caused the job loss.

It was a twitter mob, not a majority of customers. Since you made the comparison to chick Fil-A let's follow through. Earlier this year Chick Fil A announced it was discontinung the spicy chicken biscuit and people on Twitter complained about it in droves. Did this cause them to change their mind? No, because angry twitter mobs don't represent the consumer base, and ultimately it was deemed that continuing the sandwich would be unprofitable. Eich getting fired was the equivalent of listening to the twitter complainers and bringing back an underperforning sandwich just to quiet them. When you claim Chick Fil A did the right thing in standing their ground you are simultaneously making the point that Mozilla did the wrong thing when they kowtowed to whiners on the internet.

>because he knew he couldn't do the job anymore.

In 2008, Obama was anti-gay marriage. Did that keep him from performing his job? Should Obama have lost his job over having the wrong opinion? Tell me, why is it more important that our CEOs are on the right side of the current issues than for our President?

>in the end we thrive for justice

So you do seriously support the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" thing. Now I feel bad typing this up. I really am wasting my time.

ITT: /co/ is triggered

>>87438636
>And I have already sated that this line is actually farther than politcal line

I guess you're going to need to substantiate that a bit more. according to http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/Congressional_Marriage_Positions_Senate_By_Name.pdf almostallRepublicans and even a couple Democrats in Congress are opposed to gay marriage.

According to Pew and Gallup about 37% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

>>87438684
>But he did. Fired in 2014 for something that happened in 2008.
>. No one should be fired for opinions the held in the past
And again, he wasn't fired for what he was thinking back then, but what he was thinking now.
>AND no one should be force to apologize and follow moral fashions
But you can still get consequence from the view you hold now.
>Agreed, but that'snot the issue. I'll get to that in a minute.
It's the very issue of it.
>It was a twitter mob, not a majority of customers. You don't know what a mob is.
Going "we will no longer support this product if you keep supporting this view" is not a mob. There can be a lot of whinning added to that, it will still not be a mob.
> Did this cause them to change their mind?
For some business it can. But Chick-fill-a has already been established as not following the crowd, nothing new, there. It' snot a mob either.
>Eich getting fired was the equivalent of listening to the twitter complainers and bringing back an underperforning sandwich just to quiet them.
1. I wouldn't compare not wanting to deal with someone who want to forbid rights to gays to desiring the return of an underperforning sandwich.
2. In the end, in either case, it's a business decision. and in either case it is not a mob. but people expressign displeasure with business practices/choices.

>In 2008, Obama was anti-gay marriage.
False, he didn't express opinon about it, or considered it was a state legislature issue. that is not the same as being anti-gay.

>So you do seriously support the "no bad tactics, only bad targets" thing.
No. I don't. I am saying that it's so much as there is a "moral fashions" as there is rahter a will to progress and make thing fairer to everyone.

THERE IS bad tactics, I simply stated that customers expressing their displeasure with a business for views that have reached the public ear is something, in itself completely legitimate. Not only that, but that is how things have been doing for years.

>>87438715
How does any of that disproof that the crossingline is farther than you think?

>>87438752

Now you're resorting to outright lies.

>he wasn't fired for what he was thinking back then, but what he was thinking now.

Wrong, it was all over someone digging up a contribution he made back in 2008.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-brendan-eich-prop-8-contribution-20120404

>But Chick-fill-a has already been established as not following the crowd

It's not about Chick Fil A being rebellious and nor caring what the customers think;it's about them realizing that despite the high volume of tweets, the sandwich was only selling a tiny amount.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2016/07/28/why-did-chick-fil-a-kill-the-spicy-chicken-biscuit.html

>False, he didn't express opinon about it

Absolutely,unambiguously wrong.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1598407/barack-obama-answers-your-questions-about-gay-marriage-paying-for-college-more/

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage" --Barack Obama, 2008

>Going "we will no longer support this product if you keep supporting this view" is not a mob


sure thing

https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/583792067156946944

>>87438762

Either you were trying to say that most republicans support gay marriage now, or you need to be clearer.

also I'm not familiar with the term "crossingline" so I might be completely misinterpreting what you mean.

also here's a nice excerpt from employment law in California

>1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

>>87438752
>I don't. I am saying that it's so much as there is a "moral fashions" as there is rahter a will to progress and make thing fairer to everyone.

How does getting Brendan Eich fired help the cause of gay rights? How does it do anything for anyone except punish someone for being wrong? You think there was some disenfranchised gay couple out there saying to themselves, "well, we still can't get married but thing god the twitter warriors pressured a man out of his job on our behalf."

>>87438834
way to misuse that Obama quote about gay marriage, his literal next sentence is him saying that the right should still be there

>>87438834
>Wrong, it was all over someone digging up a contribution he made back in 2008.
>http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-tn-brendan-eich-prop-8-contribution-20120404
I am not lying, but we clealry have disagreement on how opinion. Work. I do not consider opinion have expiration dates. You can change your mind, but a view you had in the past and on which you haven't expressed disagreement later on is a view you still hold.

If Reich expressed an opinion years ago and never expressed a change of mind, then it means that it is his opinion RIGHT now.

Saying that an opinion you had several years ago now don't count without ever actually coming back to it is at best cowardish.

>It's not about Chick Fil A being rebellious and nor caring what the customers think
Never said tat, but it's clear they aren't easily sway in their opinion.
>it's about them realizing that despite the high volume of tweets, the sandwich was only selling a tiny amount.
Being able to tell if a public outcry reflect the majority or not is not always easy. there is no clear sure rule about that. In the end, like I said, it's a business decision.
>Absolutely,unambiguously wrong.
You would have been more honest posting the whole quote
>"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."
I didn't knew about this quuote, so thank you for posting it. He is basically going politically sleezy about it trying to say he is for and against it at the same time and failling at that.

Mind you to come back on my previous point, it's an opinion he clearly changed on later on, becoming a clear pro-gay marriage.

>https://twitter.com/brendaneich/status/583792067156946944
That's not a mob, it's an internet argument.

>>87438895

His next sentence is that he doesn't think the constitution should be what decides on it. That doesn't mean he supports it;it means he thinks it shouldn't be a constitutional amendment.

>>87409628
I think having your show cancelled qualifies as a freedom of speech violation. A gallery took money from Breitbart, then refused to host their pro-Trump art show when they found out it wasn't satire. Sure, they refunded the money, but the point is that they cancelled it not because of the actual content, but because of who the people involved were.

>>87438851
>Either you were trying to say that most republicans support gay marriage now, or you need to be clearer.
I wans't. I was saying that you could be republican AND still support gay mariage (or even be gay). Saying you are republican doesn't make most people equal you as being anti-gay.
>also I'm not familiar with the term "crossingline"
It mean that people are ready to actually support a lot of shit, but there is a point where enough is enough, a line has been crossed.

People are ready to tolerate a lot of opinion they don't agree with, but there is a point when they can no longer support someone they disagree with if one of his view is something they just won't let pass.

>>87438887
>How does getting Brendan Eich fired help the cause of gay rights?
I couldn't say for sure. But again, it's more about customer who have the right to not support view they don't agree with.

>>87438926
>I think having your show cancelled qualifies as a freedom of speech violation.
It really isn't.
>Sure, they refunded the money,
then it's not even thievery. It's like a baretneder allowed to not serve customer. Same case.
> not because of the actual content, but because of who the people involved were.
You just stated it was because of the actual content.

>>87421450
The way you write is so Tumblry.

>>87438957
>You just stated it was because of the actual content.
>when they found out it wasn't satire

>>87438977
My dear, I have basically learned English arguing on 4chan since 2007.

Tumblr is a place I have basically never gone (except for porns).

>>87438988
>>when they found out it wasn't satire
Yes indeed, it's about the content. As you said.

>>87438911
>Reich

heh

>If Reich expressed an opinion years ago and never expressed a change of mind, then it means that it is his opinion RIGHT now

He expressed that opinion by donating money to a campaign at a particular time. Did he need to donate an equal amount of money to an opposing campaign to effectively prove he changed his mind?

Or would a statement fromEich suffice?

"I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.
You will see exemplary behavior from me toward everyone in our community, no matter who they are, and for those who use our products. Mozilla’s inclusive health benefits policies will not regress in any way. And I will not tolerate behavior among community members that violates our Community Participation Guidelines or (for employees) our inclusive and non-discriminatory employment policies."

>Being able to tell if a public outcry reflect the majority or not is not always easy

It's pretty fucking cut and dry in the example provided. The sandwich represented less than half a percent of all breakfast sales. Looking at the numbers, it was incredibly easy for them to tell the complainers were a tiny minority, no guesswork necessary.


>But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them

That's not the same as saying "I support gay marriage." That's him saying he doesn't see a constitutional amendment as the RIGHT way to oppose gay marriage. I'm not surprised you don't see the difference since this is the main thing you continually fail to grasp. Obama is making the same point I've been trying to make this whole time, that having the right opinion doesn't mean you get to force it any way you want.

>>87438926
>>87438957
>>87438988
>>87438995
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/pro-trump-art-show-cancelled-thanks-to-leftist-threats/
Actually, the show in question was cancelled because the people organizing the event were worried about domestic terrorism.

>>87438943

This wasn't the market deciding though; it was a vocal group calling for his resignation.

This isn't about not wanting to do business; it's about actively trying toget someone fired.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html

Direct quote: "Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them."

>>87439003
>Or would a statement from Eich suffice?
Of course.

>"I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion.
You will see exemplary behavior from me toward everyone in our community, no matter who they are, and for those who use our products. Mozilla’s inclusive health benefits policies will not regress in any way. And I will not tolerate behavior among community members that violates our Community Participation Guidelines or (for employees) our inclusive and non-discriminatory employment policies."
Uuuuh... where is the part where he say he is not against gay marriage? I mean, you know that was the whole issue and what the campaign was about, right? I don't see him expressing a different opinion, there.

>It's pretty fucking cut and dry in the example provided.
No, you provided an example where a business didn't follow public outcry and got good out of it,but there are also case where they ignore it and go under for it (Take Nintendo and how people complained naming it Wii U was confusing, Nintendo sstick to their gun and now it's one of their biggest flop).

Telling when public outcry reflect majority or not IS NOT EASY. There is no safe formula.

>That's not the same as saying "I support gay marriage."
Like I say, he went sleazy at attempting to say yes and no at the same time and failed. I never said he was saying he supported gay marriage in this quote. what I aid is that he actually changed his mind later on.

>>87438934
>I was saying that you could be republican AND still support gay mariage (or even be gay)

You can but the vast majority of the party still doesn't.

>Saying you are republican doesn't make most people equal you as being anti-gay.

It should make them substantially increase their estimation of the chances that you are anti-gay.

>but there is a point where enough is enough, a line has been crossed

Yeah, and that point should be somewhere a bit further than nonviolently donating to a political cause. The government we have in this country, for better or worse, is the legitimate mechanism we have for enforcing policy. Brandon Eich might hold the wrong views, but he was participating in the system in good faith, nonviolently, supporting his personal views. People should be allowed to do this and be wrong. When that happens, the right ideas win, and the wrong ideas fall aside.

When we go out of our way to punish people for holding the wrong ideas, we end up with shit like the "culture wars" when in reality the legitimate systems in place to solve all this shit work relatively well. Guess what, Prop 8 was overturned. Guess what else, there were other people from Mozilla whose donations against prop 8 completely overshadowed the $1000 that Eich donated. This is how the process was supposed to work. He supported the side he agreed with, and he lost. End of story. No need for retribution or witch hunts. No need to attack anyone's livelihood.

>>87439024
And again, the reason he was fired was because it was considered they reflected the majority of their customer.
>This isn't about not wanting to do business; it's about actively trying toget someone fired.
Did they do anything illegal to make that? Did they put false evidence to make him fired, or did they simply expressed their displeasure with this guy's opinion.

It's only the last one. they basically say the guy had awful opinion and that's all it took.

> "Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them."
Did the guy come to the direction and forced them to fire him.

Like I said, in the end it was a business decision.

>>87439069
>Like I say, he went sleazy at attempting to say yes and no at the same time and failed

No he didn't; he was saying he doesn't support gay marriage but he doesn't think an amendment is the right way to oppose it. That is all. In other words, there are bad tactics even when you have the right ideas.

>(Take Nintendo and how people complained naming it Wii U was confusing, Nintendo sstick to their gun and now it's one of their biggest flop).

Yeah, the name was the problem with the Wii U, not the fact that it has like 2 worthwhile games and the casual market that drove Wii sales moved on to smartphone games.

>Uuuuh... where is the part where he say he is not against gay marriage?

Why does it matter? You claimed earlier that he couldn't do his job properly. I thought that was the whole issue.

>>87439116
>Did they do anything illegal to make that?

see

>>87438858

>>87439099
>It should make them substantially increase their estimation of the chances that you are anti-gay.
You don't judge an individual using stats, but by actually listening to what he says.
>Yeah, and that point should be somewhere a bit further than nonviolently donating to a political cause.
Wrong. in this case, wrong, especially as you are not describing what actually happened. Because the cause was not a general politic cause in which there is a mixed bag of thing you can't really be picky on.

It was a very specific policy. A very precise legislation, not a whole politcal position. A policy that wanted to forbid rights to some citizens. For very precise policy, you judge it for its actual content. and yes some policy can corss the line and that's very valid.

You can't go "yeah, the guy is anti gay, but he has a good fiscal policy and the other guy is dishonest and incompetent" for that. It's a policy, not a whole political view.

>When we go out of our way to punish people for holding the wrong ideas
Expressing disagreement on twitter isn't "going out of your way to punish". They rely on the first amendment as much as the first guy.

>>87439123
>Yeah, the name was the problem with the Wii U, not the fact that it has like 2 worthwhile games and the casual market that drove Wii sales moved on to smartphone games.
Other complain Nintendo didn't listen to. the name was just one of the example.

My point stand, it's difficult to judge when or not public outcry reflect majority.

>Why does it matter?
Well, it does matter because that's the very reason he was fired for. That' like, the very fucking core of the whole issue, there.
>You claimed earlier that he couldn't do his job properly
He couldn't do his job properly because he had become a customer repellent.

>>87439130
People on twitter aren't employer.

File: jspowerhour.jpg (375KB, 834x842px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 834x842px

LEL

>>87439153
>Expressing disagreement on twitter isn't "going out of your way to punish"

Except that's not what happened. I already linked two examples of people saying they were glad that a man was unemployed because he held an opinion they disagree with. how may more do I need to provide? This wasn't an expression of disagreement; it was an expression that this man deserves to lose his job. Forcing him to resign was the intended purpose. And again, how does this advance gay rights?

>For very precise policy, you judge it for its actual content. and yes some policy can corss the line and that's very valid.

And the proper thing to do when a proposed policy crosses the line is to vote against it. Prop 8 was overturned. The system that is already in place to determine policy worked, if you care about gay rights. no one needed to lose his job over it. Once again, step outside this particular issue for a moment. We don't seriously want to support reprisals for supporting the wrong political ideas, do we? What if the TPP passes and everyone who was against it is blacklisted? What if someone later decides that child labor is the most important issue in the world, and leads a campaign to punish everyone who owns a smart phone? We want people with the wrong ideas to get outvoted and have those ideas fall away. Why would we want people with the wrong ideas to be punished for it? You could have a wrong idea right now and not even know it!

>>87439178
>>87439189

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/454807391511396352

>>87415702
it was made long before white knighting became taboo among male feminist orbiters

>>87421450
dont look out the window

>>87421450
>>87421692
you're a fucking faggot
t. gay male

>>87439288
>Except that's not what happened. I already linked two examples of people saying they were glad that a man was unemployed because he held an opinion they disagree with.
That's exactly what happened, that's the very definition to people expressing their disagreement.
> it was an expression that this man deserves to lose his job. Forcing him to resign was the intended purpose. And again, how does this advance gay rights?
No, it's an expression that people aren't under the obligation of supporting people they disagree with. And they have the right to complain about someone's else opinion too.

>And the proper thing to do when a proposed policy crosses the line is to vote against it.
Democracy isn't just about voting.

> Why would we want people with the wrong ideas to be punished for it?
He wasn't punished. no legal sanction was held against him. He simply faced the consequence of his position, Like Chick-Fil-a did. Like said initially, free speech doesn't means there is no consequence.

>>87439387
> I resigned on 4/3.
So he wasn't actually fired.

>>87421450
>This is the most awful attempt at comparison
Wait till you see our food analogies!

>>87439497
>So he wasn't actually fired.
>>87439497
>coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees

>that's the very definition to people expressing their disagreement.

No it isn't it's possible to disagree with someone without wanting him to lose his job.

>it's an expression that people aren't under the obligation of supporting people they disagree with

I have not made the case that any customers were obligated to support him. Quit forcing this. Your Chick Fil A example proves why this isn't the case, since we already have an example handy of a company not caring that people disagree politically and still going strong in business.

>And they have the right to complain about someone's else opinion too.

A right to complain, not to form a mob and demand resignation.

>He wasn't punished. no legal sanction was held against him.

Legal punishments aren't the only kind that exist. He absolutely was punished.

> He simply faced the consequence of his position, Like Chick-Fil-a did

Do an apples-to-apples comparison, since Eich is a man and CFA is a company.

>CFA CEO Dan T. Cathy is anti-gay
>people complain on Twitter, threaten to boycott
>CFA keeps Dan T. Cathy as CEO
>business still going strong

>Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla is anti-gay
>people complain on Twitter,threaten to boycott
>people within Mozilla complain and "ask" him to resign
>he resigns a week later in shame

The ONLY difference in the two scenarios is how people WITHIN the company handled it.

>>87439580
>>coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees

supposed to link to >>87438858

>>87439580
>>coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees
Again, Twitter poster aren't employer.

>No it isn't it's possible to disagree with someone without wanting him to lose his job.
It's possible, but it is also allowed for a customer to not want someone to run a business they are client of.
>I have not made the case that any customers were obligated to support him. Quit forcing this.
But that's the very core of it. There was public outcry about someone's opinion. There was rallying cry to boycot someone's business, something customer are allowed to do.
> Your Chick Fil A example proves why this isn't the case, since we already have an example handy of a company not caring that people disagree politically and still going strong in business.
And I already explained to you that whether or not public outcry reflect majority is a difficult thing to tell and even gave you example of it.

>A right to complain, not to form a mob and demand resignation.
And again, like I have said, this has never been a mob, It's people disagreeing with someone's opinion, it's as much exercising right to free speech.

>Legal punishments aren't the only kind that exist. He absolutely was punished.
He wasn't. He resigned.
>Do an apples-to-apples comparison, since Eich is a man and CFA is a company.
but it's an actual CFA's CEO's opinion. He is an actual person.

>The ONLY difference in the two scenarios is how people WITHIN the company handled it.
No, the difference is that Mozilla couldn't have faced the potentail loss of buyer basse. I can assure you that if CFA had been faced with he same number, Dan T wouldn't have remained either.

>>87439580
>The ONLY difference in the two scenarios is how people WITHIN the company handled it.
Mozilla/FF been going to shit ever since and loosing marketshare.

>>87438858
Also, in this case Riech IS the employer. He was not fired by his boss he WAS the boss.

I don't know if this California law apply to shareholders.

>>87439656
>Again, Twitter poster aren't employer.
see >>87439387

>it is also allowed for a customer to not want someone to run a business they are client of.

You can take your business elsewhere but it's not your call as a customer who to fire.

>But that's the very core of it. There was public outcry about someone's opinion. There was rallying cry to boycot someone's business, something customer are allowed to do.

Yes, and public outcry doesn't mean loss of sales, as the CFA example illustrates.

>this has never been a mob

I already gave a link to an article rallying people to do the same to other prop 8 supporters. he even refers to using pitchforks.

>He resigned.

After being pressured to from within the company. There's not much functional difference between that and firing.

>No, the difference is that Mozilla couldn't have faced the potentail loss of buyer basse

Show your work. What exactly makes you so confident that the demographics that eat Chick Fil A and browse using Firefox are so radically different that the outcome wouldn't be the same?

>whether or not public outcry reflect majority is a difficult thing to tell and even gave you example of it.

The nintendo example? Were there a bunch of twitter warriors calling for a boycott of nintendo due to homophobia? Because as far as I can tell you provided an example where people complained about a subpar product, which resulted in a loss of sales. Not the same as people complaining about the morals of the CEO.

>>87439656
>being under intense duress until you resign is totally different from being fired!
wew lad, I sincerely hope you're only pretending to be retarded.

>>87439679
>>87439679
>Mozilla/FF been going to shit ever since and loosing marketshare.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/03/04/mozilla-firefox_chrome_internet-explorer_browser_market_share_february

That was happening before Eich took over as CEO but nice try.

>>87438977
Welcome to /co/mblr.

>>87438943
>But again, it's more about customer who have the right to not support view they don't agree with.

So instead of using platforms other than Mozilla/Firefox, they choose to have a guy fired instead?

>>87437815
>I seriously think this is something to be accepted
what the fuck?

>>87410346
That can mean anything, really.
You need specific rulings as to when and how far these apply.
You can't force the papers to print your letters, for example.
Youtube does not owe you a channel.
Private universities can permit you entry to their grounds or not, depending on how they like you.
The only thing you have an actual right to is standing on a street corner with your soap box and declaring your opinion to passersby.
Nobody can be forced to tolerate you on their platform.
Just like you can be banned from every shooting range in the state.
You can have your gun just fine. But nobody has to let you on their property.
You can speak your mind just fine. But nobody has to hand you a microphone or listen.

>>87436796
>There is no science without a problem to solve, science needs direction before even starting.

Exactly, and philosophy provides that direction. How do you decide what a 'problem' is without some sort of philosophy? How do you decide which problems are more worthwhile to solve?

File: free speech society.png (27KB, 1727x182px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1727x182px

Reminder

>>87438046

Fuck off, you reek of new