(07-18-2019 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (07-18-2019 06:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (07-18-2019 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Interesting observation - just noticed that Tanq relies heavily upon the law in his responses. He talks about what is legal, what the Supreme Court has ruled, etc., regardless of whether or not the legality of an issue is of concern. This is a perfect example - we’re talking about a topic that is more concerned with ethics and morality, as opposed to legality. No one is saying that people should be held criminally liable for these chants, using a racial slur in the work place, etc., yet Tanq is relying on the legal system as a way to push back. But society has decided, mostly, that there are plenty of things that are legal, but not necessarily moral or ethical, and speech really falls in that category.
I think that is often where a lot of these disagreements come from.
Mainly because progressivism is fundamentally built on the foundation of enforcing a 'rule de jour' by coercion.
Rule de jour is the tool of despots, whether in the criminal realm, the civil law realm, or in private realm. I am using the Supreme Court case as a tool for those who dont understand the concept of 'vagueness' to do so.
I suggest you read a little more carefully, since none of my comments dealt at all with criminal law, but that is seemingly the crux of your pushback. Pretty much a strawman there, son. The issue I am trying to make isnt that the Supreme Court 'ruled x' or 'ruled y', but to point out the thought process that steered them that way. ANd how the thought process on the subject mirrors our discussions here.
If you think I am saying 'well the Supreme Court said x was legal and it should be applied by rule of law', then that is a very shallow level of that.
But that theory that “rule de jour” is a worthless and evil idea completely ignores societal progress. Based on that theory, it should still be socially acceptable to use a whole host of slurs to describe minorities and be overtly racist, sexist, etc. so long as you don’t discriminate. Those actions have become socially stigmatized but are still, as you would call them, a “rule de jour.” There is a benefit of having a societal “rule de jour” that is not codified in law, but rather by ethical and moral standards.
Quote:All of your comments are built on the foundation of them being legal actions or being supported by Supreme Court precedent, and you always completely ignore the societal implications of one’s actions.
For example, it’s not illegal to pick your nose and eat your boogers, but the “rule de jour” makes it so that people are shunned for doing it in public. This isn’t to say that all these types of societal norms are correct, as I mentioned, it used to be acceptable to be racist. But it is saying that the you ignore a hugely beneficial aspect of the “rule de jour” idea, and how it benefits society.
What is confusing about 'using the Supreme Court's actions as a guide' seems to escape you here? I could care less what the mores are, they are mores.
The idea that someone who picks their boogers and eats them should not be subject to organized castigation that seems the ideal of the organized left.
Think racist thoughts? FU, you shouldnt be allowed to work.
Replace 'racist' with any ******* societal 'line' that the left draws like an enraged ADD kid these days.
If *you* dont want to hire a racist -- I'm perfectly okay with that.
But when *you* start a fing 'Society for the Advancement and Prohibition Eating Boogers in Public' with the stated goal of isolating them until they stop, well you just entered the Progressive nanny-ism realm, son.
That is the teaching of the 'Slants' case. Too fing bad it is a legal case, but the instructions on the organized policing (an intentional active verb there, son) by the USPTO to shut down a message based on viewpoint are wrong -- and thus found at law to be so.
You want to go out and arrest and publicly chastise in an organized way public booger eaters? Go there, try it, and come back and tell us how that went.
Me, I have no problems with each individual approaching their own view on public booger eating without having to worry about a ******* organized mob whose apparent mission in life is to shut down public booger eating.
So cut with the 'aw tanq always reverts to legalistic ****' -- this one was provided as 'gee maybe the SCOTUS view on using the word SLANTS, or COONS, or WOPS as a name is not best left to organized efforts to shut it down.' If you didnt read it that way, my apologies on this end for whatever I might have done or not done that creates that miscommunication. I would hazard a guess that the miscommunication just *might* be a fing two way street. Just maybe.
But, if you really look at the message, you just might see that there. So try that --- go back to my SCOTUS post, read it to see if the message above might be in there, and tell us the results of that re-read.
