(March 27, 2015 at 5:49 pm)FateTits Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 5:46 pm)dyresand Wrote: What is this the 1950's NO hate speech and racism should not be protected. People need to be held accountable for what they say.

How should they be accountable for it, and more importantly; why should they be?

So NOT a good way to start off in this forum. Three posts and wow. How about some netiquette and going over to the introduction threads and telling us a bit about yourself first.

Huggies must be proud. Another thread fully de-railed and made all about him.

---

(March 27, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 5:49 pm)FateTits Wrote: How should they be accountable for it, and more importantly; why should they be?

So NOT a good way to start off in this forum. Three posts and wow. How about some netiquette and going over to the introduction threads and telling us a bit about yourself first.

I'm pretty sure FateTits is a sock.

(March 27, 2015 at 4:57 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 4:44 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Maybe the Colts can be the team to go to the city no one wants to move to. Los Angeles Colts, maybe? Of course, it would depend on the owner's take on the situation. Here's hoping they're not bigoted fucktards.

Indy would lose HUGE money if their pro team started bailing out.

I love the LA Colts idea- huge fan! I'd actually get to go to games sometimes (I really dislike going to Chargers games), because as it stands right now, Indiana is a state only to be driven through, not actually visit. It scares me there.

As others have said, there is no way the bill will stand. I think it will only take one lawsuit for it to get shut down.

In my opinion, the farther out west they go, the better.

The bill will get quashed right soon I hope. If not, this sets a very damning precedence for other states to follow suit. I just don't understand how it could have passed getting out of a committee in the first place. Did no one see the absurdity of it to begin with? Guess not since it actually passed.

On a note of curiosity, I would really be interested in seeing some stats such as which members voted for this bill and what their ages were. There's a reason I want to know.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:26 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: I'm pretty sure FateTits is a sock.

Nah. Just asking the hard questions. If you try to answer the question I've asked, you may come to new finding that change your stance on these things.

Truly, in what way should someone account for speech. How do we mete out punishment for speech?

And ultimately, why? If someone says something and some people take offense to it, where is the interaction that makes the speech worthy of punishment on the speaker?-

What is the nature of offense; Can something be offensive, or can something only be a thing that some people hold offense for?

SalesForce, which is kinda a huge deal in tech, made a strong statement about the Freedom to Discriminate bullshit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/201...t-bigotry/

The lesson is this: bigots are gonna bigot all they want, but they can't expect others - those who provide goods, services, and jobs - to want to continue correspondence with them. So, the conservatives will need to ask themselves if this is the hill they want to die on.

(March 27, 2015 at 5:46 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 5:37 pm)FateTits Wrote: Hate speech and racism should be protected, whether under religion or not. Hate speech is such an absurd concept. First, it's completely and utterly subjective. Second; the one thing objective about it is that it puts the onus of violence on someone who didn't necessarily commit violence - and that's illogical. Free speech and hateful speech are co-dependent; you can't have one without the other, and that's fine.

What is this the 1950's NO hate speech and racism should not be protected. People need to be held accountable for what they say.

Freedom of speech is intended to protect unpopular speech. If it doesn't do that, it's pointless.

---

(March 27, 2015 at 6:20 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 5:49 pm)FateTits Wrote: How should they be accountable for it, and more importantly; why should they be?

Lets see shit like that catches up with you like Paula Deen.
Anyways its called being a shit person because were all literally the same.
Its called be a fucking decent human being its not hard.

You should consider educating yourself about our rights before opining about them.

(March 27, 2015 at 5:46 pm)dyresand Wrote: What is this the 1950's NO hate speech and racism should not be protected. People need to be held accountable for what they say.

It should absolutely be protected. Free speech means anyone gets to say what they want provided they don't cause harm or danger to another person in doing so.

Hurt feelings don't count as harm.

However, everyone should be held accountable in the public sphere for the things they say and do. So if you say gay people should not have the same rights as everyone else, I get to respond to that. And so does everyone else. Just like if you say you hate black people or Asians.

---

(March 27, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 5:49 pm)FateTits Wrote: How should they be accountable for it, and more importantly; why should they be?

So NOT a good way to start off in this forum. Three posts and wow. How about some netiquette and going over to the introduction threads and telling us a bit about yourself first.

Wait.... calm down. I've read the four posts for this person, and s/he seems pretty reasonable. I agree they should create an introduction thread, but slow down. It's okay to nicely ask people to do that just so we can get to know them. We can't be antagonistic to every person that joins until we get to know them.

This person hasn't been rude or disruptive. If they are a sock, the mods will discover that. Take a deep breath.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:34 pm)FateTits Wrote: [quote='SnakeOilWarrior' pid='909272' dateline='1427495200']I'm pretty sure FateTits is a sock.

Nah. Just asking the hard questions.

We'll see. You're style seems very familiar though.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:34 pm)FateTits Wrote: If you try to answer the question I've asked, you may come to new finding that change your stance on these things.

Truly, in what way should someone account for speech. How do we mete out punishment for speech?

And ultimately, why? If someone says something and some people take offense to it, where is the interaction that makes the speech worthy of punishment on the speaker?-

What is the nature of offense; Can something be offensive, or can something only be a thing that some people hold offense for?

Honestly, I don't much agree with prohibiting speech, even hateful speech, as long as it doesn't lead directly to harm (incitement to riot, falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded place, etc...). Of course, that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. Here we're discussing bigotry and specifically Indiana's enshrinement and protection of religiously based bigotry.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: that would be the gold chains and rims part...

What does that have to do with race? I've seen people of at least four different races into those sorts of trappings.

What race do you associate with these sorts of things? And why?

Everyone likes fried chicken too, But that doesn't stop people from using it as a racist stereotype.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I hope you're not serious....

So by your statement of "I hope you're not serious...." you are now giving anyone reading this the impression that while it's okay for YOU to be offended by a series of words strung together to form a few sentences, no one else is allowed to be?

Truly, you've officially gone over the top and have entered into an entirely different dimension of crazy.

What makes it okay for you to rant over several different threads about how offended YOU are but when you do something similar to someone else, it's okay? Nope. NOT okay. You just insulted the ETHNICITY of someone on here.

Pot meet kettle.

What are you talking about?

Do you know the difference between nationality and race?
Australian is a NATIONALITY, not a race....
Therefore, the comment of "I'm giving you a pass because you're Australian..." isn't racist.
SMH

(March 27, 2015 at 7:13 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 27, 2015 at 6:10 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: What does that have to do with race? I've seen people of at least four different races into those sorts of trappings.

What race do you associate with these sorts of things? And why?

Everyone likes fried chicken too, But that doesn't stop people from using it as a racist stereotype.

(March 27, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: So by your statement of "I hope you're not serious...." you are now giving anyone reading this the impression that while it's okay for YOU to be offended by a series of words strung together to form a few sentences, no one else is allowed to be?

Truly, you've officially gone over the top and have entered into an entirely different dimension of crazy.

What makes it okay for you to rant over several different threads about how offended YOU are but when you do something similar to someone else, it's okay? Nope. NOT okay. You just insulted the ETHNICITY of someone on here.

Pot meet kettle.

What are you talking about?

Do you know the difference between nationality and race?
Australian is a NATIONALITY, not a race....
Therefore, the comment of "I'm giving you a pass because you're Australian..." isn't racist.
SMH

No. It's just as insulting.