This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
21 submissions to PaddysPub
13 submissions to Woodworking
10 submissions to voatdev
5 submissions to fitness
5 submissions to Weightlifting
This user has so far shared a total of 115 links, started a total of 14 discussions and submitted a total of 463 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 2571 and downvoted 988 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 1031 and downvoted 656 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
NHS pressured our kids to change sex: Transgender backlash as desperate parents accuse overzealous therapists of 'blindly accepting' children's claims to have been born in wrong body, submitted: 10/29/2017 2:48:43 PM, 90 points (+90|-0)
Debate erupts in Halifax over whether the word marijuana is racist, submitted: 10/29/2017 2:17:07 PM, 53 points (+53|-0)
I Like This New Theme. Send It, Ladies., submitted: 10/27/2017 1:52:14 PM, 50 points (+61|-11)
Afrikaner familys refugee application deemed ""racist propaganda"", submitted: 10/20/2017 8:54:21 PM, 46 points (+46|-0)
SF Now Has Highest Per Capita Property Crime Rate In The US, submitted: 10/28/2017 3:30:58 PM, 42 points (+43|-1)
5 lowest rated submissions:
Ezra Levant: Jail for graffiti, but not rape?, submitted: 10/16/2017 5:02:45 PM, 0 points (+2|-2)
New Fitness Trend Sweeping the Industry: Jawzrsize, The Ballgag Facial Toner - Gimp Suit Sold Separately, submitted: 10/27/2017 6:35:15 PM, 0 points (+1|-1)
Curvy Memory Frame for Woodworkers Fighting Cancer - krtwood, submitted: 10/29/2017 11:37:41 PM, 0 points (+1|-1)
Brett Gibbs - 832.5kg/1835lb Total Raw at 86.8kg, submitted: 10/29/2017 4:04:38 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Anyone care to explain what a scientific theory actually is?, submitted: 10/26/2017 11:26:28 AM, 1 points (+4|-3)
3 highest rated comments:
jcal22x 1 points 78 points 79 points (+79|-1) ago
This is child abuse.
jcal22x 4 points 51 points 55 points (+55|-4) ago
While I do not in any way condone the topic of this guy's tweet, I must support his right to say it without retribution. Any attack on free speech must be contested. How many of us here hold controversial opinions? Simply because he supports the other side of the aisle, does not mean that he does not deserve the same protections that we all are afforded for our opinions. They are words, mere words.
Now, if he had gone into his classroom and said this to his students, that would be a different story. Just like if I came to work and walked around calling everyone a niggerfaggot all day. Obviously, I can't do that at work, but off the clock, away from work, I can say whatever the fuck I want. This guy is no different. He wasn't saying this in his classroom. He didn't tweet out from some public UT twitter. He was off the clock, away from work. He can say whatever the fuck he wants.
jcal22x 0 points 33 points 33 points (+33|-0) ago
There's no such thing as "hate speech."
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. TAM CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 15–1293.
Argued January 18, 2017—Decided June 19, 2017
The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
-Justice Samuel Alito
The First Amendment guards against laws “targeted at specific subject matter,” a form of speech suppression known as content based discrimination. ... This category includes a sub-type of laws that go further, aimed at the suppression of “particular views ... on a subject.” ... A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.”
-Justice Anthony Kennedy
3 lowest rated comments:
jcal22x 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Freedom of speech is an unalienable right. That means it is not to be separated, given away, or taken away. It is not capable of being repudiated. I don't have rights because the government says it's okay for me to. The government was created to protect my rights that already existed, and should they fail in this matter then
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
jcal22x 1 points -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
First of all, this guy works for a state university so they aren't exactly private citizens, but I'll leave that aside.
Suppose that I worked for the National Science Foundation, then suddenly one day I found God and started tweeting a bunch of spiritual shit about the earth only being 6000 years old on my private account. A case could be made that my religious opinions are harming the NSF since they claim that the earth is 3.5 billion years old. Would it be legal for them to fire me for my new found religion? Of course not. These are both first amendment issues.
jcal22x 1 points -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Your mechanic would not be fired for his religion. He would be fired for failure to perform his duties. This is a different situation and so is the hypothetical science guy. I never said that his opinions would effect his job function. The same can be said for the professor in question. His opinions, while they may be controversial, should not effect his ability to perform his job. I don't know what this guy teaches, but he should still be able to give a lecture without bring up Hurricane Harvey or violating any company policies.