Good thing we’ve stopped watching domestic terrorists and their ilk.
10 bomb threats against Jews in a single day. But this is fine.
Jesus this pisses me off. WTF is antisemitism doing in America? How does this make sense at all?
It sounds horrible but at least I can understand anti-Islamic sentiments in a contemporary context. I mean how can anyone be antisemitic in American since Jewish people have done nothing at all to anyone? It’s like … I dunno, anti-Zulu racism or anti-Bulgarianism or something. It just seems so left field.
The same way a white supremacist on the NSC makes sense. Every racist, bigoted, antisemitic asshole is coming out of the closest, because why not?
Because they killed Jesus. Also banking or something.
Honestly, I’ve never understood antisemitism on any level, but that’s probably because I’m not an idiot.
Just remember that a vote for Trump was a vote for all of this, and you should better understand how to engage with Trump supporting shitfucks, both here on Qt3 and out there on the world!
It’s not like it’s new or anything. Back when the KKK was all the rage in middle America during the 20s, one of the big selling points was that it was also anti-semitic and anti-Catholic, so that you could join in the mass hate even if you didn’t actually have any brown people living nearby.
None of this is new. KKK, antisemitism, white supremacy, Know-Nothings, anti-Catholicism, anti-Irish, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, pro-eugenics – all as American as apple pie.
It would be nice to think we’d outgrown all that.
It would be nice.
Still worth it to have Freedom of Speech, no?
As long as we can agree that bomb threats aren’t speech.
Yes. Freedom of Speech but not Freedom from consequences of that speech. These people losing their jobs and sponsorship are not being hauled off to federal jail… they’re just getting backlash for saying horrible things. They’re free to keep saying it.
Well, then you really do not have freedom of speech - if people will lose their work, house, etc when someone takes offence and energizes a media frenzy against said person (far outweighing the initial statement and whatever “limited” impact it may have had).
Whatever happened to just arguing against said statement, or even better, ignoring them for whatever shit they are - thereby rendering them powerless; neither as a martyr or as a magnified call to action (like how the Media magnified Trumps reach during the election campaign).
"You have a right to say what you want, but if I disagree with it, I wont argue against, I’ll instead find what makes you vulnerable (like money) and attack that; thus your fear of no longer being able to work (unless you run for president in the US) for example will ensure that you no longer voice a dissenting oppinion, and I will have won the argument without ever debating against you. " Which basically means that; If you’re filthy rich, you are allowed to express your opinion, and if you’re not - you better not go against the collective.
So; Freedom of speech only for the rich is what people want?
People need to hit MUTE more and not worry about other peoples opinions to such a degree that they organize campaigns to make them lose their job over it.
Maybe there’s a happy medium between the recent fad for destroying people over ill-advised tweets, and something more liberal. But in a general sense, people cannot be expected to have immunity from the consequences of their speech. I don’t even know what that would look like in terms of social interaction.
This is false. Freedom of speech is freedom from the law being used against you for speech.
Not freedom from consequences of said speech. People have freedom of association and you can’t demand they hang out with you. If a company has an employee that offends the public they should be allowed to respond in accordance with their bottom line. They are not obligated, legally, in any way to fire those people.
Freedom of speech was never meant to protect you from the public; it protects you from the government. It still does.
Bingo.
So: the concept (not whatever law there is) of ‘free speech’ is only true for those who have nothing to lose, willing to lose it all, or those who have so much that it doesn’t matter. Everyone else will have to follow the herd - and when it attacks someone, it is best to follow lest their eyes turn to you.
In a sense, before the rise of “social media” you had a higher chance of being able to “attain” freedom of speech. Even though your broadcast range most likely would be smaller, so would whatever reactions (or overreactions and magnification) be. Guess we really are moving backwards again.
You make it sound like this is new. People, rich or poor, have been taken down by their peers since we started worrying about something more than just food, shelter and warmth. Nothing has changed here. Sure some people get a bigger reach, but the real issue is when some people are given a microphone, they turn their world into their social media diary. There are consequences for that.
When you speak out about something controversial, there are risks. There has always been risks. The group that spoke for LGBTA rights before they were more socially acceptable could just as easily be fired. People who supported blacks prior to Civil Rights could also be ousted… does the term nigger lover mean anything to you?
Right now we have this group, largely due to the "say it how it is’ spiel falsely believing they can say what’s on their mind and be protected… when that doesn’t happen they use the same social media that got them in trouble in the first place to scream about freedom of speech showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what freedom of speech actually is.
If you choose to put yourself in the public eye, then prepare to be judged by the public and face the consequences.
If you don’t want to be judged by the public, then don’t broadcast your musings to the teeming millions. Delete your Twitter. Problem solved.
The only thing that’s changed with rise of social media is that you can choose whether to engage with whole world at once. In the past, only a privileged few had that option. But nobody has ever had the option to make their voice heard everywhere yet escape any social repercussions for what they say. And nobody ever will.
And the same group might not have voted for Trump, or there might not even have been one such as he, had they felt free to voice their ‘dissenting’ opinions at a much earlier stage, before they were balcanized and perhaps feeling pressured to only interact with like minded people that help reinforce whatever views (erroneous they might be) they have?
Could be that their ‘screaming’ about freedom of speech is their belief in it as a concept instead of as a legal ‘framework’ limiting the governments actions - which I guess is better than nothing?
Social repercussions (i.e. organized/bandwagon blow-back) is basically just a modern day equivalent to witch burning - there’s something we disagree with, destroy it.
You’re trying to merge issues. These people are not being fired because they voted for Trump. None of these high profile cases has a single sentence that says: “I voted for Trump” and then all shit broke loose.
Despite what one group wants to believe. the law isn’t what you believe it is, it is what it is. No one is being hauled off to Federal Prison here. You might think that’s a minor point, but I don’t. They’re protected from the government… that’s it.