What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

You can't ignore these racist curs. Discredit, disrupt, disinfect.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Handyman said:
I want to feel bad but I dont. Elections have consequences and they willfully chose to vote for someone who would rather watch poor people die than actually help them out. They thought he was one of them...he would sooner shoot them than actually have to deal with them.
Click to expand...

Twas ever thus with the working class and their Republican and Evangelical despots. Those who back them are fed along with their children right back into the meat grinder of war, poverty, and deregulation.

Darwin aint pretty.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Drew S. said:
This is great news. I hope it is a one off though and the definition of 'hate speech' isn't broadened.
Click to expand...

One person's definition hate speech is dismissed by another as being politically correct. It was not long ago that many of the bile things that these morons said was just politically correct speech.

Which is a big problem.

And now we have dump, who freely insults a lot of people, and complains that it's just politically correct nonsense.

In other words, I'm 100% sure that some of what I would consider hate speech, you would not. So who gets to decide?

It's funny, as words become "hate speech"- those are the same times in history that actual rights are reluctantly given to the people being "hated".
 
alfablue said:
One person's definition hate speech is dismissed by another as being politically correct. It was not long ago that many of the bile things that these morons said was just politically correct speech.

Which is a big problem.

And now we have dump, who freely insults a lot of people, and complains that it's just politically correct nonsense.

In other words, I'm 100% sure that some of what I would consider hate speech, you would not. So who gets to decide?

It's funny, as words become "hate speech"- those are the same times in history that actual rights are reluctantly given to the people being "hated".
Click to expand...

It seems to me you're discounting the possibility that 'normal speech' could be labeled 'hate speech' in order to suppress it. I think we're better off allowing more than less, except in cases like this one where there is basically universal agreement that it is hate speech.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Drew S. said:
It seems to me you're discounting the possibility that 'normal speech' could be labeled 'hate speech' in order to suppress it. I think we're better off allowing more than less, except in cases like this one where there is basically universal agreement that it is hate speech.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. It was not long ago that many of the racial slurs that we spoke of African Americans were just part of 'normal speech'. What we consider "universal" now wasn't always- it's evolving as more and more people are included fully into society. Heck, the words that the morons spoke with the tiki torches were pretty common back in the 30's, and widely accepted.

Again, what you consider normal may be very hateful to someone else.

One key think that you want to dismiss is that WORDS MATTER. dump is a great example of that- since he's such a great hypocrite for words- he slings them but can't take them. Words mean that you don't want to accept someone as an equal, and that's bad.

(and yes, I am aware that I'm a hypocrite, calling the neo nazis morons and the president dump. But the goal IS to be non-respectful. If the goal is to be respectful, is it so hard to just be nice?)
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

The first time I heard anybody use the term "political correctness" it was to complain they couldn't drop the "N" word anymore, even when and I quote "they weren't around." :rolleyes:
 
alfablue said:
No, I'm not. It was not long ago that many of the racial slurs that we spoke of African Americans were just part of 'normal speech'. What we consider "universal" now wasn't always- it's evolving as more and more people are included fully into society. Heck, the words that the morons spoke with the tiki torches were pretty common back in the 30's, and widely accepted.

Again, what you consider normal may be very hateful to someone else.

One key think that you want to dismiss is that WORDS MATTER. dump is a great example of that- since he's such a great hypocrite for words- he slings them but can't take them. Words mean that you don't want to accept someone as an equal, and that's bad.

(and yes, I am aware that I'm a hypocrite, calling the neo nazis morons and the president dump. But the goal IS to be non-respectful. If the goal is to be respectful, is it so hard to just be nice?)
Click to expand...

I'm not talking strictly about racial stuff. What if anti-trump was considered hate speech or things like that? My point is we should keep a close eye on it and make sure it doesn't creep into other areas.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Drew S. said:
I'm not talking strictly about racial stuff. What if anti-trump was considered hate speech or things like that? My point is we should keep a close eye on it and make sure it doesn't creep into other areas.
Click to expand...

Why do you consider the line for hate to be just about race? There is more to an individual than just their race.

MY point is that what you consider non race based politically correct speech can STILL be hate speech to someone else.

And that you don't get to be the moderator.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

trixR4kids said:
Such as? I feel like that's been the go-to for people who bash Bernie supporters.
Click to expand...

Remember, everyone who raised an objection to Hillary was a SEXIST!!! Even the women, heck, especially the women. Dear Leader can never fail, She can only be failed.

And I'm sure that knee jerk college sophomore identity shtick didn't turn off moderate people one bit... :rolleyes:
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Pretty much a guarantee that in a few weeks we'll read a leak of Trump ordering the IRS to review these charities' tax status.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

trixR4kids said:
Such as? I feel like that's been the go-to for people who bash Bernie supporters.
Click to expand...

Madame Defange and Tracey Flick were two that he used. I'll let him fill in the rest. I don't think those were terms of endearment
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Rover said:
Madame Defange and Tracey Flick were two that he used. I'll let him fill in the rest. I don't think those were terms of endearment
Click to expand...

Defarge.

Tracy Flick is the most on-point description of Hillary Clinton that's ever been made. It's up there with Biff Tannen as Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top