You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Posted automatically (#17502) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
There is the concept of non-overlapping majesteria. It's why people can live their life believing there is an immortal being in the sky while acting sane in other areas of life.
[–]LoveArchive0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I'm not particularly sure, it's a good question. What does the Constitution say, and what about the Supreme Court? There's an upcoming case on this here, since I take it you're referring to deplatforming and financially destroying us for disagreeing with foundational beliefs about race.
I'm pretty sure the answer you're looking for is "no." The founders set up this country in the 1700's, they would probably have been more explicitly nuanced about this stuff had they known about stuff like private monopolies and social media. Really what we're talking about when we discuss free speech, practically, not denotatively, is whether your hated, unpopular, and "dangerous" ideas have the ability to destroy powerful institutions. Like, whether you're able to speak freely about your unpopular ideas and use them to change minds. When you allow people to get ruined over their ideas, the people whose free speech actually matters is threatened because they will be forced to be quiet in order to preserve their livelihoods. The people who get real hard-up on technicalities and definitions are simply people who want to censor people they don't like or find dangerous. Everyone says they like free speech until they encounter their enemies. THEN it's an exception to the rule.
Furthermore, the fact that racist speech is being negotiated reveals the nonexistence of white supremacy in society. Imagine if Hitler had to "dogwhistle" to his supporters. Imagine if the Armenians tried to pass laws banning anti Armenian speech in Turkey. It's fucking retarded. Brown people aren't oppressed, and being called a low IQ nigger is about as damaging as being called a fragile white person who needs to stop breeding. They are just crybabies who use anecdotes and stories to make psychologically damaged whites advance their racial interests. That's why they flock here and then immediately complain about how white people treat them.
If they're and engineer there's lots of things they could be doing where it'd have no bearing on their job at all. Now if they were hired to work on a spacecraft and it'd interfere with their work, maybe yeah. You'd need proof they couldn't do their work to prevent paying out unemployment or getting sued though.
Sort: Top
[–] quasimotor 0 points 23 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago
Planetary shape is a spectrum, bigot. Sometimes Earth identifies as flat. Get over it.
[–] SearchVoatBot 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This comment was linked from this v/verybestofvoat submission by @andrew_jackson.
Posted automatically (#17502) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
[–] fuspezza 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
Have you looked in to common Core that should scare the shit out of you
[–] HaHawk ago (edited ago)
What about it in particular?
[–] fuspezza 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Here you go it's a Facebook link but it gets the job done lol https://www.facebook.com/100002661298108/posts/1876818702416821/
[–] fuspezza ago
It's just bullshit
[–] MaunaLoona 2 points 6 points 8 points (+8|-2) ago
There is the concept of non-overlapping majesteria. It's why people can live their life believing there is an immortal being in the sky while acting sane in other areas of life.
[–] Buhbuhbuh 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
Or why athiests can acted morally despite their self confessed lack of belief crippling their ability to derive an ought from an is.
[–] heckingbozo 3 points -3 points 0 points (+0|-3) ago
Hi I'm blind and I can't see this thing you call colour, therefore it doesn't exist dummy.
Hi I have functioning eyes and can see this thing called colour so it exists trust me dummy even though you're blind.
You are double as retarded as both of these hypothetical people combined.
[–] offender 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Um sweaty being a flatearther should be illegal. Yeah.... not okay
[–] antistatist 2 points 2 points 4 points (+4|-2) ago
It's the employer's decision.
Your question implies you're thinking of regulations to be enforced by violence. Only primitives do that. Stop thinking like that and evolve.
[–] poolofenergy [S] 3 points -2 points 1 point (+1|-3) ago
not an argument
[–] antistatist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Did you think I was trying to argue? Are you looking to get into an argument? Is that why you're here?
If I was the employer I probably wouldn't hire a flat-earther, but I have the right to make that decision myself.
[–] LoveArchive 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'm not particularly sure, it's a good question. What does the Constitution say, and what about the Supreme Court? There's an upcoming case on this here, since I take it you're referring to deplatforming and financially destroying us for disagreeing with foundational beliefs about race.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck/
I'm pretty sure the answer you're looking for is "no." The founders set up this country in the 1700's, they would probably have been more explicitly nuanced about this stuff had they known about stuff like private monopolies and social media. Really what we're talking about when we discuss free speech, practically, not denotatively, is whether your hated, unpopular, and "dangerous" ideas have the ability to destroy powerful institutions. Like, whether you're able to speak freely about your unpopular ideas and use them to change minds. When you allow people to get ruined over their ideas, the people whose free speech actually matters is threatened because they will be forced to be quiet in order to preserve their livelihoods. The people who get real hard-up on technicalities and definitions are simply people who want to censor people they don't like or find dangerous. Everyone says they like free speech until they encounter their enemies. THEN it's an exception to the rule.
Furthermore, the fact that racist speech is being negotiated reveals the nonexistence of white supremacy in society. Imagine if Hitler had to "dogwhistle" to his supporters. Imagine if the Armenians tried to pass laws banning anti Armenian speech in Turkey. It's fucking retarded. Brown people aren't oppressed, and being called a low IQ nigger is about as damaging as being called a fragile white person who needs to stop breeding. They are just crybabies who use anecdotes and stories to make psychologically damaged whites advance their racial interests. That's why they flock here and then immediately complain about how white people treat them.
[–] heckingbozo 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Don't talk so gay and maybe I might give you an honest answer gayboy.
[–] lanre ago
If they're and engineer there's lots of things they could be doing where it'd have no bearing on their job at all. Now if they were hired to work on a spacecraft and it'd interfere with their work, maybe yeah. You'd need proof they couldn't do their work to prevent paying out unemployment or getting sued though.