It's not an order. It's a question and a request. Stop projecting your fascist authoritarian self on to others. I'll ask again. Once in your life where the Liberal Thought Police suppressed your freedom of speech and a quote from me suggesting that it ought to happen. Good luck. Such an abundance of them according to your perception so it ought to be easy.
If anyone is projecting their fascist authoritarian self onto others here, it is you and not me. FYI, I am not available to be cross-examined, bullied or harassed into compliance by you, regardless of whether you resort to the tactics of bearing false witness against me, calling me names or any of the other tactics that leftists routinely use these days. Once again, I refer you back to the entirety of this thread, starting at the beginning, for all the examples that any intelligent, open minded person could possibly require to establish this pattern and practice of behavior. If somehow that is not enough for you, then you are the problem here, not me.
I was referring to the part "allow him to be assassinated" We are talking about a decade where the best protective service in the world lost a president and had another one shot at close range 20 years later. See that was the point of the post I quoted. Did you read that post or? If you can find stats for college educated African American males born in 1929 please post them. I posted the closest actual number I could find. I would be surprised if an education extends expected lifetime by 40+ years but will await your information.
Like I said before, post evidence. There is no authoritarian request. It's up to you. I'll keep on asking the question where the answer YOU ADMIT is VERY easy to find yet you refuse to answer out of some false outrage of it being so easy that the burden isn't on you to provide evidence of your assertion. I'm not going to buy it. No rational person is going to buy it. You have a ****ing claim, the onus is on you to provide ****ing evidence. It's really that simple. You aren't legally obligated. The only thing that'll suffer is my opinion of you and other posters' opinions of you who you obviously don't agree with. I'm quite confident you don't value my opinion of you. So how am I being authoritarian? Do you need a safe space where only certain questions are asked to you? Stop being a ****ing child. And no, that wasn't an authoritarian request unless you believe I have power over you. I keep on doing this because a common problem with these internet discussions are people beating up straw men PRECISELY because people refuse to provide explicit evidence such as quotes with context. This allows the individual who is committing the fallacy to speak in platitudes without evidence like YOU DO ALWAYS. So I'll ASK again. Give me an anecdote of the liberal thought police suppressing your freedom of speech AND a quote from me expressing my desire to suppress your freedom of speech.
If it really is just a request and it really is up to me, then you will refrain from trying to force me to comply with your wishes any further. This thread documents all the evidence you could possibly want or need, if you were sincerely curious, as you say you are, ans if you were even reasonably open minded to the truth and the facts. However, as you people have demonstrated time after time, again and again and again, the truth and the facts are like kryptonite to you. You are impervious, rigidly devout to the tenants of political correctness, whatever those happen to be at that moment, whimsically malleable though they tend to be over the longer term. You say you are just asking, just making a request and that my response is up to me. Well, prove it then. You have all the answer from me you are going to get. Either respect that, or out yourself as the double-talking liar that you currently appear to me to be.
Why is me not respecting your inability to provide evidence for your claims 'authoritarian'? So again, provide a quote where I suggested that your freedom of speech ought to be restricted because of 'pc reasons' or any reason for that matter? You make claims about 'my type' oppressing you. I want evidence. Hey, maybe I'm completely oblivious to how I'm suppressing your rights and you need to be explicit with me. If you have a legitimate problem with me and other posters here or 18 year old humanities majors suppressing your rights, you need to express your concerns more explicitly. Instead you rant on with these platitudes. If I have a problem in suppressing the rights of others it would help if you can explicitly show me where so I can correct myself. Help me? At this point my curiosity shifted from wondering how you have been oppressed to why is it so difficult for you to provide any modicum of evidence when you self admittedly stated how easy said evidence is to find.
Other than all the examples documented in this thread, you mean. I am not going to be bullied or controlled by you. Say what you want to in reply, you are not in control, you are not in a position to make demands, and you are not going to be able to weasel your way out of this.
For someone who I'm going to assume rags on 'safe spaces' you sure seem like the type that really needs one. This is an internet message board. You can COMPLETELY IGNORE me. I can't ****ing prosecute you. I'll ask again. If you don't want to answer, you don't have to keep on responding with pathetic excuses about my authoritarian ways. Just don't respond. Provide a quote of me desiring to suppress your freedom of speech. Provide an anecdote of how liberals have suppressed your 1st amendment rights. It's very simple. I have the right to keep on asking you this question and you have the right to ignore it. You also have the right to answer it. You also have to right to keep on deflecting. Weasel my way out of what? Did you even ask me a question? What am I weaseling out of? MojoMan needs a safe space subforum where no on can ask him to provide evidence for pretty severe accusations.
This whole thread is full of examples and you have chosen to ignore them. Your ignorance is willful, no question about it. I and others here have provided you with all the evidence that you could reasonably want or need, if you were open minded to it, which you obviously are not. I refuse to comply with your efforts to force me to conform to your will. That is an affront to your notions of political correctness, I have no doubt. Nevertheless, that is your problem, not mine. In any case, it is clearly pointless to pursue this with you any further. So I will leave you to flail around in the proverbial wind in this as it amuses you to do so. You are on your own.
MojoMan CHOOSES DEFLECT Bold move Mojoman... bold move. So you make a claim about 'my type' suppressing your rights... a fairly harsh accusation wouldn't you say? The accused is asking for evidence, but the accuser keeps on deflecting. That's basically the gist of this page and half of poo flinging.
Hoover's red-baiting obsession with MLK was the single most embarrassing thing the FBI ever did. Historians refer to the worst of the "anonymous" letters they sent, along with incriminating audiotapes of his sexual indiscretions as "the suicide letter" and it was certainly interpreted at the time as a coercion to him to kill himself. The letter ended with: "King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is ... You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." They never found any smoking gun connecting him with the KGB, just a few old radicals that were among his followers. All they had on him were extra-marital affairs. The most common conspiracy (believed by many, including Jesse Jackson) is that the US government conspired to kill him and that James Earl Ray was some kind fall guy in an elaborate scheme. I don't think there's any merit to that, but there's no damn way Hoover's FBI would have broken a sweat trying to save him. I'm not the one making a claim here that Martin Luther King's lifespan would have been the same as the average African American in his time and your "what if" speculation is not the sort of thing that requires primary sources to cast a shadow of doubt upon it. He and his wife were middle-class, college-educated, physically active people and there's no reason to think he wouldn't have managed to live long after the short 39 years he did had he not taken a hit from a .30-06.
Serious question: when did contemporary American conservatives turn into a pack of whiners? Somehow in the past years, the American right has re-cast disagreement as oppression. It's bizarre. Actual suppression of free speech would involve government suppression of a free press, and prosecution of individuals and groups over their exercise of free speech. If this has happened at any point recently, somebody please show me a link, because I can't find anything. We have a new generation of thin-skinned wimps who claim that lefties are being so, so mean to them and that meanness is oppression, darnit. Don't tread on me! [sob] News flash, conservavictims: This is America. You're free to keep on saying whatever you've always said, and others are free to react and call you names or ignore you or whatever. Having a leftie tell you that you're wrong or call you names or whatever gets your panties twisted is not oppression of free speech. A private company recommending language to their employees is nothing new. Somehow I doubt y'all would bat an eye over a church doing the same thing. Let's get past the distraction of this non-issue and get to the core issue; we disagree over right and wrong. Being told that what you are saying wrong is not the same thing as being legally restricted in your speech. If you want to find a group in America that really wants to impose its morality on the rest of America through actual legislative action that would take people's freedoms away, take a look at the religious right.
The problem with this is the conservative promotion of hate speech as a freedom of speech issue. This is the periphery of alt-right politics. They somehow believe they are due a safe space to introduce hate politics into universities. The resistance to that is now fascism and an attack on freedom of speech when it's actually a revulsion to hate politics. Earlier in this thread MojoMan posted an article claiming some colleges had banned the word man. Of course this is nonsense and if MojoMan had a clue he'd know that the US Marines Corps recently removed the word man from many of their job titles. MojoMan would have you believe it's evil liberal political correctness but rather it's the realization when you need women to be part of the Marines Corps that gender neutrality is a good way to show they're welcome. The Marines will remove the word 'man' from these 19 job titles Thousands of Marines serving throughout the infantry and in other key positions are about to get new gender-neutral job titles, but the service's top leaders are pushing to leave the word "man" in some of its most iconic occupations. In all, the Marine Corps plans to rename 19 of its military occupational specialties, or MOSs, as the result of a months-long review mandated by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. A service-wide message announcing the changes is expected to be published within the next few days. The terms "rifleman" and "mortarman," are among those that remain untouched, according to a list — obtained by Marine Corps Times on Monday — of 33 MOSs that were reviewed. And that was by careful design, said a Marine official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Names that were not changed, like rifleman, are steeped in Marine Corps history and ethos," the official said. "Things that were changed needed to be updated to align with other MOS names." In most cases, the word "man" will be replaced by Marine. Those changes are as follows: Basic infantry Marine. Riverine assault craft Marine. Light-armor vehicle Marine. Reconnaissance Marine (to include three other recon-related jobs that include the word "man"). Infantry assault Marine. Basic field artillery Marine. Field artillery fire control Marine. Field artillery sensor support Marine. Fire support Marine. Basic engineer, construction and equipment Marine. Basic tank and assault amphibious vehicle Marine. Armor Marine. Amphibious assault vehicle Marine. Amphibious combat vehicle Marine. The field artillery operations man MOS is expected to be changed to field artillery operations chief, since that position is typically held by a Marine in the rank of staff sergeant or above. The anti-tank missileman MOS is the only position that will pick up the word "gunner" in place of "man." Others on the list — like manpower officer or vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle specialist — will still include the word "man" because it's part of a word that doesn't describe the Marine doing the job. In addition to the service-wide message that will address the changes, the Marine Corps plans to update its MOS manual, the official said. The full review included more than 33 MOSs, but many weren't affected because they already include gender-neutral descriptors like "specialist" or "chief." Mabus directed the Marine Corps and Navy to review its job titles and descriptions in January, a month after Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that all military jobs would open to women. "As we achieve full integration of the force ... this is an opportunity to update the position titles and descriptions themselves to demonstrate through this language that women are included in these MOSs," Mabus wrote in a January order to Commandant Gen. Robert Neller. "Please review the position titles throughout the Marine Corps and ensure that they are gender-integrated as well, removing 'man' from the titles." The Navy’s review has broadened beyond its original mission of removing the word “man” from as many as 21 job titles and rating names. That review could ax newer titles like aircrew survival equipmentman, as well as timeless ones such as corpsman and yeoman — even seaman. As of late June, no decisions had been made. The Navy has called for a second review of the proposals, a process likely to take a few months. The move has proved unpopular with many Marines and sailors, with several branding it political correctness run amok. "We have reached peak crazy," one reader commented on an earlier story by Marine Corps Times about this topic. "If a woman isn't going to consider making the Navy her career because she is called a fireman or a corpsman, then I don't think she was going to make the Navy a career period," another reader commented on a Navy Times story. "We don't need [people who are easily offended] like that clogging up the institutions that protect our country."
It's his life whatever he want to do. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kJa2kwoZ2a4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The only speech that requires protection is speech that is controversial or offensive in the eyes of some people. It is for the right to utter this kind of speech that we have a specifically defined right to free speech included in the US Constitution. Otherwise, there would be no need for it. As far as a safe space for free speech, the entire United States was a safe space for that from its inception until Barack Obama took office. Now we have universities and other places trying to impose speech and also effectively thought codes, which are obviously being dictated according to leftist ideals of political correctness. It is political and it is being dictated and supported by the left. The hate politics is obviously yours (the left's), with the constant name calling, antagonism and harassment of people who dare to express values and beliefs which defy the "politically correct" thought and speech codes of the left. This even extends to the point of getting them fired from their jobs, destroying their careers, ruining their lives, and threatening to harm or even kill them. This is what the left stands for these days, and if you don't like having leftists who conspire together to engage in this sort of behavior being compared with fascism, then you and others of your political tribe should take steps to stop this hateful behavior. The hatred by you people is positively vitriolic. It is you that needs to voluntarily stop the hate speech, if you really are so opposed to it. If only that were actually the case. The Marine Corps has had this political correctness garbage rammed down its throat by the Obama regime. In fact, quite a few generals and high ranking officers who have tried to resist this vile crap have been fired, pushed out or just so demoralized that they have decided to call it a career and leave the military. Once again, we see the Obama regime putting their political correctness agenda ahead of our national security. So as you can see, it is not the Marine corps that decided this was a good idea. This was not any sort of unbiased apolitical exercise. It was purely political, purely from the left, and it has caused enormous harm to our military and our ability to defend ourselves against the actual enemies of our country, who Obama and his crew in many cases appear to be running interference for. Also, as long as we are removing the name "man" from words and phrases, what about the word "woman"? I have not heard about it yet, but surely you people have an agenda in the works to retire that word. As preposterous as it sounds, that is just the sort of thing that leftists seem to think is a priority these days.
I laughed pretty hard at mojo "man"'s last post above. Obama is to blame for pc?? The military changing names to reflect a changing diversity in its ranks is pc? Who are the thought police and where are they? These liberal boogie... Where are they? Or are you criticizing people who exercise their freedom of speech by saying what they want as being authoritarian? Seems like mojo wants it his way or the highway... He's scared of change and that the direction of the country is one he doesn't like. Too bad he doesn't respect freedom.
The irony of MojoMan's rants sounding so similar to the college kids he rails against is delicious. I say this even as someone who thinks much of the safe space talk on campuses is ridiculous.
If the question is whether hate speech is protected speech, my answer is yes. Of course it is. Right-wingers, alt-, paleo, fellow traveler or otherwise, are right to be defensive about it. America is not even close to the freest press in the world, and irrational fear of sardonic right-wing youtube bloggers is not reason enough to piss on the First Amendment. I would even go as far to say that media consolidation is a greater threat to freedom of expression than either the regressive/SJW/freespacer set or their analogue Internet trolls on the alt-right. I think many here would agree that things like this are alarming, but unfortunately the resident conservatives here often turn what might have been perfectly good arguments into the ridiculous aburdity that threads like this one has become.
