Is Harassment of Public Figures Acceptable: Your Sincere Opinion

[Amarok]

I'll read yours with an open mind. I invite you to do the same with this article: Quillette

You an open mind don't make me laugh .And more political bunk.Dog whistles exist and the right uses them .

---

"Any statement about a member of group, whether positive or negative (let alone accurate or inaccurate), made by someone suspected of being racist (i.e., anyone on the Right), may be demonstrated, after sufficiently imaginative interpretation, to have associated categories with each other in an implicitly racist, dog-whistling way. Praising a particular black man as hard-working, for example, could be uncharitably interpreted as a subtle invocation of stereotypes that black people are lazy. With enough bad faith, anything is possible." - Bonevac, Association Arguments: Dog Whistling in the Dark

And this is a made up definition 

And that "bad faith" is exactly how the Left formulates their false charges of racism against their opponents. If Trump has succeeded at anything at all, he has made the smear tactics of the Left clearly apparent. Your race cards have expired. Ordinary Americans in "fly-over" country are sick of your slander.

And this is a bombardment of fake outrage of being called out and twisting it into your loony right wing persecution complex  .Your called racists because you are and you don't like us reminding you .That's it .

---

People who look for hidden meanings in everything end up wearing tinfoil hats, Khem. The Left has gone insane, paranoid of its own bigoted shadow.

^that's exactly the bait-and-switch tactic that dogwhistles allow you to perform. Besides, did you even read what I posted yesterday? Here, I'll copypaste the link for you: https://www.thenation.com/article/exclus...-strategy/

Dog whistles are a legitimate political tactic that has been used by the american right in the past 50 years if not more. Oh, and also, more recently, by alt-right fascists:


ETA: A higher resolution version of the above screenshot

Yup there denial changes nothing

---

So should people be able to demonstrate dislike of a person in political office was the point of this thread.

It said "harass" but refusing to serve someone is not harassing them, it is refusing to serve them and is neither threatening or disturbing..

Southern businesses and blacks... Christian bakers and gay weddings... the people not served frequently find it disturbing and upsetting.

---

As i said yes 

He didn't.

He already said he would not vote for a racist and did not vote Hilary

Yep, but he wouldn't say it's morally unacceptable to do so, as he would then either need to defend Hillary, or he'd be calling all the Hillary voters here immoral.

Lol you are deluded

---

I've seen you tangle with Shell, and seen her also call out your bullshit sophistry.

So what is shell the arbitrator of truth 

If you're saying that all the people who voted for Hillary are immoral, then fair enough.

Now eat crow 

Seems pretty stupid though. If all the moral people abstain, then the immoral people get to make the decisions. Go figure

If the moral people vote in an immoral way they are no longer moral

---

That's just her job.

Yup and she choose that job and bares the consequences .

---

Of course I love it. If my opponent in a chess game makes a stupid play that costs him a piece, I love it.

To9o bad some of us don't view democracy as a game 

If he just doesn't show up and forfeits, that's even better!  

That says agreat deal about you and none of it's good