-->
@Greyparrot
It would be very easy to get corporate America to agree as it falls on a Sunday
Praise corporate America!
Anyone that thinks white people shouldn't say the N word, don't be a hypocrite
Posts
Total:
90
-->
@Greyparrot
we should change Mother's day into Corporate minion day.
Yes!
-->
@TheUnderdog
The law will enforce or deny rights and freedom based on speech for the good . So much for freedom being inherently good.
As far as so called whites saying what they wish to say , I don't think they'll have a problem with a system behind them working for them ultimately benefiting and privileging.
Why don't you guys just start saying it?
-->
@ludofl3x
Because black people tend to beat up white people when white people call black people niggers.
Also, I am a taoist. My goal is to not contend, especially not with whatever is currently popular.
Humans teach their kids bad lessons such as "be unique, dont blindly follow others".
Thats wrong. You shouldnt be unique. You should blindly follow whatever is popular and just try to change the world with insignificant personal example while not opposing to anything that is popular.
Various words and deeds which are generally deemed offensive are nonetheless protected speech under the 1st Amendment— protected from governmental punishment, that is. However, the national zeitgeist is such that an offender will get fired from their job for one type of offensive speech but not another type:
“While I personally would not have engaged in an action that I feel is hurtful to people I respect, it would be wrong to retaliate against anyone for actions that are fully legal and protected under the First Amendment of our Constitution — our 'free speech' amendment," Weissmiller wrote in the post.
Perhaps the difference is if the act is committed at work or outside of work?
-->
@FLRW
Welcome to FLRW's Greater Than 140 Group !!!
Thanks.
The average IQ in the USA is 98.
True, but this website contains people who take pleasure in debating; so I would assume the average IQ on this website is higher than the national average. Your typical American doesn't like their views changed. I would assume the people here are more willing to learn and have their minds changed than the average American even though it's still unlikely. You ask the typical person in real life, "Should abortion be legal?" regardless of how they answer, they won't defend their view as well as if you ask someone that question here.
People that come here, stay for 2 weeks and leave don't count. People that have been here for a while and are established; they count.
-->
@Mall
The law will enforce or deny rights and freedom based on speech for the good . So much for freedom being inherently good.
I believe freedom is inheritely good; not unconditionally good.
As far as so called whites saying what they wish to say , I don't think they'll have a problem with a system behind them working for them ultimately benefiting and privileging.
It is merely possible white privilege exists, but to believe this I think requires evidence that is more than something that can be explained by omitting variables. I do think white names have a higher chance at getting jobs than black names (assuming qualifications are the same), but the way I would address this is I think a company should only be allowed to ask (wrt names) the first 2, middle 2, and last 2 letters of your name and it should be combined into a code.
Lets say your name is JA-WA-LA. I can't tell if the first name is Jamal, James, or Jack. Lets say it is TY-WA-LA. I can't tell if that's Tyler or Tyrone. JE I can't tell if it's Jerry or Jerome. Do this and get rid of diversity quotas while also making it illegal to refuse to hire based on any RSG (Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender) characteristic. I also think a company shouldn't be allowed to fire you for not being vaccinated against COVID as the disease just isn't a threat anymore.
Why don't you guys just start saying it?
Because we don't want to be cancelled by the 30%. The 30% needs to become significantly less common before I feel comfortable saying it; maybe at 5% I will feel comfortable saying it. Only around 3% of straight men are willing to date a trans woman, and that is enough for most vocal transwomen to at least concede that it's ok for a straight guy to not want to date them for being trans (including Samantha Lux who is not on the left). If that figure was 40%, then Samantha Lux would say any straight man that doesn't want to date transwomen is transphobic. But if it's 3%, she can't get away with saying that without alienating a lot of people.
-->
@Best.Korea
Humans teach their kids bad lessons such as "be unique, dont blindly follow others".Thats wrong. You shouldnt be unique. You should blindly follow whatever is popular and just try to change the world with insignificant personal example while not opposing to anything that is popular.
By you making this argument, you are being unique.
I would tell people who have opinions they know are very unpopular, use your judgement for if you state those views or keep them to yourselves. I don't know your life or beliefs, but you make the call whether to fit in or be authentic.
-->
@TheUnderdog
By you making this argument, you are being unique.
I know, my bad, but I am just saying its wrong to be unique. Everyone should try to follow popular opinions and if you have your own thoughts, you shouldnt try to force them on other people. You shouldnt even talk about your own thoughts in most cases.
-->
@Best.Korea
And what is the version of that word for white people?
i saw a documentary about california prisons where they addressed this, and the term was "pecker head"
“PEOPLE GETTING FIRED FOR REFERRING TO THE N-WORD - ACTIVISM OR PERFORMANCE ART?” by John McWhorter
-->
@Benedicta
@<<<Amber>>>That was a rhetorical question,
No, it wasn't. There were two distinct questions followed by sophomorically banal drivel.
for the sake of clarity a rhetorical question is meant to provoke thought and emotion rather than generate a response
Wrong.
"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in which a question is asked for a reason other than to get an answer—most commonly, it's asked to make a persuasive point."
//Yes, I think even white people should use the word. I mean if we are going to make such words a societal norm we might as well slap equal rights on to of it. Isn't that what we always do, this human race?//
You hardly made any point here, much less a 'persuasive' one.
"...even white people..." "...make such words..." "...a societal norm..." "...slap equal rights on to (sic) it..." "...what we always do..." "...this human race?"
All of the "snippets" = pure childish drivel.
but I guess my rhetorical questions provoked so much emotional response (sic) for you that you forgot your debating etiquette.
Debating etiquette? LOL!!! Says the little one who doesn't even understand what a rhetorical question actually is then has the audacity to lecture me on yet another term they clearly have no conceptual idea thereof. LOL!!!
What do I mean by this? Yeah (sic) it is true according to the 1st Amendment swearing is a right. However (sic) it is a right with boundaries as it can not (sic) be used in certain contexts or cases as the following; (sic)1. **Obscenity**: If the swearing meets the legal definition of obscenity, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Obscenity is determined by community standards and must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Wrong again.
Swearing or swear words are words indicative of rude or offensive language that someone uses, especially when they are angry. All swearing is an inalienable right protected by the 1st Amendment.
Obscenity, the state or quality of being obscene, is to be disgusting to the senses - repulsive. In other words, abhorrent to morality or virtue.
Swearing =/= Obscenity.
2. **Fighting Words**: Speech that is likely to incite immediate violence or constitute "fighting words" is not protected. This category includes language that is intended to provoke a violent reaction.
Swearing =/= Fighting words.
3. **Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions**: The government can impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, provided these restrictions are content-neutral and serve a significant governmental interest.
There is no such thing where the language of swearing is concerned.
4. **Harassment or Threats**: Swearing that constitutes harassment, threats, or other forms of unlawful conduct is not protected.
Swearing =/= harassment or threats.
I hope I filled the portholes of intellectual bankruptcy your mind.
Well, you certainly exposed the 'portholes' in your mind whereas Constitutional Law and general legalities that you are so abhorrently ignorant if are concerned
.
2 posts and you're already off to an extremely rocky start; but you're doing an incredibly bang-up job exposing your lack of intelligence on the aforementioned subjects.
Angry Amber.
-->
@Benedicta
This Human Race?
Yep.
Crazy, organic structures with an amazing self programming onboard computer, composed of grey mush.
Allowing us to internally perceive simulated sensory images, sounds and experiences.
All aboard a tenuous speck of cosmic dust, being flung around a star, being flung around a galaxy, whizzing along a universe to who knows where.
Going on about melanin levels.
-->
@TheUnderdog
"I believe freedom is inheritely good; not unconditionally good."
This doesn't make sense to me. It appears it's a convoluted way to saying that freedom is actually neutral.
-->
@TheUnderdog
If I cite that poll, then most black people who take serious issue with it will accept it.
I agree, go for it, if anybody has a problem with it just tell them about the poll and everything will work out just fine.
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
-->
@Mall
If there was a law that said everyone must wear an orange shirt, then that law helps and harms nobody, but it's a bad law because it reduces freedom.
Freedom therefore is a good thing that should be balenced with other variables like saftey, economic security, pain reduction, and more.
-->
@Sidewalker
I've done that with minorities before and they are fine with it.
-->
@TheUnderdog
The law says do not murder which reduces FREEDOM to murder. But wait , freedom is good. That's bad because freedom was reduced.
We can both pick adverse or favorable circumstances because freedom is NEUTRAL. It depends on how the freedom is used .
Drop the conventional thinking on this.
You saying it should be balanced out is a roundabout way of saying good or bad can be done with freedom so just balance out the reduction in freedom here and a necessary increase over there to adjust what amounts to good or bad.
Slavery falls in line the same way because there's a balance there too if you want to continue to use the word "balance ".
If the law doesn't harm , then there be nothing that isn't good or what you call bad which leaves the statement "freedom is good" baseless in context of that harmless law.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I've done that with minorities before and they are fine with it.
I'm sure, maybe you can start a trend with your amazing convincing skills.
Make the n-word great again!
-->
@Mall
The law says do not murder which reduces FREEDOM to murder.
The right to murder does not outweigh the right to not murder.
It depends on how the freedom is used .
This is correct.
$1 is good, if you gave me $1, then that would be good. If you burned down my house and paid me $1, then that would be bad because $1 is not worth the right to burn down a house.
Freedom is good if it's the right to not wear an orange shirt ($1). It is not good if it's the "right" to commit homicide (burning someone's house down and paying them $1).
My moral ethos isn't pro liberty absolutism, it's LUSHOOTY absolutism (Liberty Unless Significantly Harming Others Or Too Young). Murder significantly harms somebody else, so it should be illegal. Same thing with the R word. Refusing to wear an orange shirt, or choosing to smoke weed if old enough harms nobody else to a significant degree, so it should be legalized. A campfire produces smoke that travels around and harms other people nominally, but since the harm is very minimal, it should be legal to start campfires in an area where there is no plausible risk of forest fires.
-->
@Sidewalker
Gradually; it's not like I can talk to 40 million black people at once.
-->
@TheUnderdog
It depends on how the freedom is used .
"This is correct."
I think you agree and follow what I'm talking about. You just have your way of explaining the nature of freedom.
Anyway it's the same with the dollar example. It depends on how you use money.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Freedom therefore is a good thing that should be balenced with other variables like saftey, economic security, pain reduction, and more.
Structural integrity = 12 degrees of freedom that stabilize a sphere{?} from torque, spin etc. See link of twelve tension wires that stabilize
Sphere = bubble?
Systemic sphere of society influence is flex-able, within what is socially allowed.
Economic spheres inflate and eventually burst/disintegrate into non-existence.
Universal spheres of influence have inherent/apriori, limited cosmic principles and physical laws ergo, were back to structural and systemic pattern integrities.
Universal spheres of influence have inherent/apriori, limited cosmic principles and physical laws ergo, were back to structural and systemic pattern integrities.
Humanity--and or the individual human-- is allowed{ free } to destroy itself intentionally, or incidentally, due to poor lack of mindful management.
Woman most complex individual entity > then man > then > cetaccean{?} > ?
Woman most complex individual entity > then man > then > cetaccean{?} > ?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Gradually; it's not like I can talk to 40 million black people at once.
But the point is, you get to use the N-word, that is huge, it is certainly something to be proud of, who knows, once everyone is aware of your accomplishment, you could get a statue.
You have risen above the oppression of those who would rob you of your God given right to use the N-word.
Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty you are free at last.
Congratulations.
17 days later
-->
@Amber
Gosh, how long ago was this almost a month? Hadn't had much time to care anyway for an adult you are pretty narrow minded. Please do us both a favor and actually read the law before you quote it. Anyway,how,very you been? Tried reading a book for once?
-->
@Benedicta
-->@<<<Amber>>>Gosh, how long ago was this almost a month? Hadn't had much time to care anyway
Then why the hell did you even register/sign up here?
If you do not "care anyway," then go pound sand.
for an adult you are pretty narrow minded.
Says the child who cannot refute anything I rebutted you with in my previous reply.
You got nothing. Go away.
Please do us both a favor and actually read the law before you quote it. Anyway,how,very you been? Tried reading a book for once?
Practice what you preach with all that ridiculous sophomoric psychological projection.
I read the law, I know the law, you do not. Obviously.
I also read a lot. I wager I have read more than 100 books than you have.
Go away, child.