I dunno, freedom of speech seems a very political discussion to me. We have hit so many different discussions in this thread, I'm frankly pretty excited to see what kind of discussions we have yet to cover.
I always thought one was supposed to burn the flag when its time had come. Does Trump want us to throw our tattered flags in the trash?
No you get to trade it in for an official Trump Brand American Flag.
Made from the strongest polyester and nylon fibres, Trump flags can stand up to any punishment nature can throw at them and they are guaranteed for life, or a replacement Trump flag will be issued.
Trump American Flags can only be found at the Shaper Image. You know they are authentic because each star on the Trump Flag is embossed with a golden T, so you know Trump quality when you see it.
Start making America great again. Head to the Sharper Image today and trade in that tattered star spangled banner for a greater one. Trump Brand American Flag.
Trump doing that flag thing would be a massive conflict of interest. To be fair, I really don't think Trump really thought out the rammifications of him becoming President. Then again, I don't think Trump really believed that he would become President. I think he just wanted to stir the pot, but then the pot upended itself on him. It is kinda funny, when you think about it.
And to be fair to him, he was probably responding to videos of protestors burning the US flag and meant it in that context, not in the context of getting rid of an old, worn out flag.
And just because he won the election does not mean it was not rigged. It just meant he won DESPITE it being rigged, which actually HELPS his legitimacy.
I wish certain groups would stop trying to put everything out of context just for political point scoring and defaming others. It is wearisome.
And to be fair to him, he was probably responding to videos of protestors burning the US flag and meant it in that context, not in the context of getting rid of an old, worn out flag.
And just because he won the election does not mean it was not rigged. It just meant he won DESPITE it being rigged, which actually HELPS his legitimacy.
I wish certain groups would stop trying to put everything out of context just for political point scoring and defaming others. It is wearisome.
First of all, no one is taking him out of context, we're quoting him practically VERBATIM. Secondly, there not only wasn't millions of fraudulent votes, there is no evidence of ANY voter fraud at all. There never has been. None, zero, zilch, nada. Like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, it DOESN'T EXIST. This idea that there are millions of people running around voting twice (risking serious jail time) to add one vote to a pool of 140 million or so would be like me spitting into the ocean and thinking I was affecting the tide.
And last, yeah, he's responding to people burning the flag in protest. The idea that you would JAIL someone for this is nothing less than the criminalization of dissent, and an absolute assault on the 1st Amendment. Quite frankly, the same people who always argue about political correctness and being able to say anything you want end up being the same people who have no problem passing a law that says you can't burn a piece of cloth if you fee like.
People have a right to comment on hot topics. But as @semiticgod has mentioned several times already in this thread, you can't descend into personal attacks.
Also, the site rules don't tolerate insults, direct or indirect, towards people or groups of people.
The term "SJW", which you use, is a pejorative term, often used as an insult towards those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism (wikipedia).
In order not to insult groups of people, please, don't call them SJWs.
Does it need to be a term? When I describe a certain group of people, or certain individuals, I don't need to use a term. Putting an emotional emphasis into a term just when I'm discussing facts is not something I would like to do.
Well, let's look at it. It's off-topic, but it needs to be explained because it's a major issue.
"Michael Moore read it right when he said, "Trump's election will be the biggest f-you ever recorded in human history." It is a f-you to the chattering classes, to the media bullies, to the SJW arrogant jerks, to all those intolerant people who went around lecturing others and bullying them and shutting them down and assaulting them, all because those others did not agree with them. No free speech warriors those. Oh no. Not fans of freedom or democracy either, those SJWs. What they want is the peace of the jailhouse, and by electing Trump, the Americans basically told them to go to hell."
Say, do you really think this paragraph need the SJW remarks? Completely undeeded. The same thought could be said in other words.
"Someone did stand up for their convictions. The SJWs beat her up. It is cute how blind the SJWs are of their own side's intolerance, hate, violence and criminal activities. It is even cuter how outraged they get about why they are getting a pushback."
Could just call them - like the article calls - an anti-Trump crowd.
"Like charity, when forced, political correctness is meaningless. Something that the SJWs don't get.
They are also so blinded by the halo of their own self-righteousness that they simply don't see that bullying others, calling them names, attacking them, shutting them down, trying to humiliate them, all actually makes people mad. The SJWs believe that their victims should be grateful to be taught a lesson instead. The SJWs believe they are Lawful Good, whereas they are the epitome of Lawful Stupid, and are hated for practically the same reasons."
This time, it's difficult for me to understand what in particular is meant to be said here. I just see a rant that is mentioning a certain group of people and calling them using a pejorative term.
I think it is important to note that flag desecration, including burning, was illegal in this country for a long time, for 30 (correction edit:) 20 years. Before it was made illegal in 1968 in response to Vietnam War protestors, I doubt anyone even considered it except for perhaps torrorist groups and echoing confederates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
Trump is not proposing something new, he is bringing up a very old debate and choosing a side. In 2006, the Flag Desecration Amendment, the most recent of several attempts to amend the constitution/bill of rights that would permit legal action to be taken against those who burned the flag, failed to pass congress by only one vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment
I personally think people should be allowed to burn the flag, and that it should never be made illegal; allowing that freedom is what gives our country its potential for greatness. But I do find it eerie that, especially in recent years, the majority of flag burning seems to be done or spurred on by people who have absolutely no idea of the privilege they have to live in this country.
Expression of free speech is absolutely important, and burning the flag is one such example. But there are two very strong sides to this debate, and dismissing Trump's stance as arrogance or even insanity is incorrect. He is choosing the side that most accurately represents the views of those that support him, and even many of those who don't support him.
*sigh* The choice for Treasury Secretary is another big bank alumnus and the person who bought IndyMac (formerly a large California mortgage lender) just before it failed back in 2008. The choice for Commerce Secretary has a history of buying bankrupt companies and flipping them (buy them distressed, clean them up a little, then sell them quickly for a modicum of profit) to overseas investors. Joy--more industry insiders, just what we needed.
A coalition of fast-food workers, child care providers, janitors, and airport workers just held their rallies in an attempt to finally realize their dream of earning $15 per hour. You will *never* be paid $15 per hour for working in fast food--the chains will opt to install self-serve kiosks and maintain only kitchen staff. The minimum wage is not supposed to support a family; instead, it is meant for teenage workers, college students who are working their way through school, or as temporary work in between more long-term jobs for adults. Anyone who thinks that "minimum wage" is meant to support a family has no idea about budgeting or improving their life situation. If you want to earn more money then take some college courses to get a degree, take some sort of skill enhancement/job training course, or obtain some computer certifications. Community colleges offer these sorts of programs and they are low-cost alternatives to name-brand, four-year universities which are financially out of reach even for most middle class families.
I don't know about fast food jobs, but I think a lot of minimum wage jobs would stick around even after a jump to $15 an hour. The reason why many jobs pay so low is not always because the companies are only willing to pay $15 an hour--it is often because they can pay $15 an hour, and people will still work there because they either don't have (or don't know how to find) many alternatives. A corporation nearly always has a stronger bargaining position relative to non-union workers.
Does it need to be a term? When I describe a certain group of people, or certain individuals, I don't need to use a term. Putting an emotional emphasis into a term just when I'm discussing facts is not something I would like to do.
In a discussion labeling your opponent is important in so far that you do not need to explain yourself anymore.
If I say you are an SJW (for example) then I make everything clear by that one statement. By saying that, I let you know that you are inferior to me for the obvious reason that you belong to a group whose members are inherently inferior to other people.
From your inferiority I then infer that your opinion is also inferior to mine.
So why should I discuss anywith you in the first place? I can just call you an SJW and everyone will know why discussing anything with you makes no sense (unless I am an SJW myself).
That's at least how I understand labeling your opponent. You can show your opponent's inferiority without having to explain yourself.
And a label sticks. Crooked Hillary. Just call her that often enough and people will start to remember that label.
The same logic applies. There is no point in arguing with Hillary Clinton. She's crooked, the label says it all. Why should you want to discuss anything with her? Unless, you are crooked yourself of course.
This. Though mind you, I don't personally care what anyone calls me. I was labeled as one during the whole "Siege" flap before I'd ever even heard the term. Phrases like "SJW" and "triggered" are like water rolling off my back at this point. So people can call me whatever they want. Forum rules may dictate otherwise however.
People have a right to comment on hot topics. But as @semiticgod has mentioned several times already in this thread, you can't descend into personal attacks.
Also, the site rules don't tolerate insults, direct or indirect, towards people or groups of people.
The term "SJW", which you use, is a pejorative term, often used as an insult towards those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism (wikipedia).
In order not to insult groups of people, please, don't call them SJWs.
With all due respect, wasn't it an employee from this company that categorized herself as an SJW and said they where proud of it.
It's just like the flag burning, freedom of speech or the right to express yourself. I don't see how GGers or SJW's hurts anyone if they are terms used to describe a group or social stance of certain people. Like Communist, Nazi, Murderer etc. As long as they are not racial in context I don't see a problem with them.
But then again I might be totally wrong.
The only thing I know with utmost certainty, is that I know nothing
As it follows from that wikipedia article, the term SJW can be used in positive and negative meanings. This is why the context is needed. What I've seen in this thread is nothing but a deliberate use of a pejorative term. The same ideas could be expressed in other words, so that it didn't insult any group of people.
Higher on this page you can see an illustration of how it worked from @Shandyr.
Anyway, this is my last remark in this thread on this problem. If you have other questions, feel free to PM me.
I cannot even recall the last purely political strike (vs one to dispute conditions of work), but respect to Kesko's (big food retailer) warehousing union section!
They announced potentially organising one to defend press freedom today.
It's our PM Sipilä, who presurrised our statefunded national boardcaster Yle to drop a story - sending 17 annoyed e-mails to a journalist, copying her boss, because he got negative citizens' feedback. And the story was dropped.
NB: FI has been number one in press freedom index of Journalists without Borders five years running. And I want us to remain there.
Annoucing this intention has been wonderful in drawing attention to the questionable actions of Sipilä.
Comments
Made from the strongest polyester and nylon fibres, Trump flags can stand up to any punishment nature can throw at them and they are guaranteed for life, or a replacement Trump flag will be issued.
Trump American Flags can only be found at the Shaper Image. You know they are authentic because each star on the Trump Flag is embossed with a golden T, so you know Trump quality when you see it.
Start making America great again. Head to the Sharper Image today and trade in that tattered star spangled banner for a greater one. Trump Brand American Flag.
He also delegitimized the election he just won, rigged.
And just because he won the election does not mean it was not rigged. It just meant he won DESPITE it being rigged, which actually HELPS his legitimacy.
I wish certain groups would stop trying to put everything out of context just for political point scoring and defaming others. It is wearisome.
And last, yeah, he's responding to people burning the flag in protest. The idea that you would JAIL someone for this is nothing less than the criminalization of dissent, and an absolute assault on the 1st Amendment. Quite frankly, the same people who always argue about political correctness and being able to say anything you want end up being the same people who have no problem passing a law that says you can't burn a piece of cloth if you fee like.
People have a right to comment on hot topics. But as @semiticgod has mentioned several times already in this thread, you can't descend into personal attacks.
Also, the site rules don't tolerate insults, direct or indirect, towards people or groups of people.
The term "SJW", which you use, is a pejorative term, often used as an insult towards those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism (wikipedia).
In order not to insult groups of people, please, don't call them SJWs.
"Michael Moore read it right when he said, "Trump's election will be the biggest f-you ever recorded in human history." It is a f-you to the chattering classes, to the media bullies, to the SJW arrogant jerks, to all those intolerant people who went around lecturing others and bullying them and shutting them down and assaulting them, all because those others did not agree with them. No free speech warriors those. Oh no. Not fans of freedom or democracy either, those SJWs. What they want is the peace of the jailhouse, and by electing Trump, the Americans basically told them to go to hell."
Say, do you really think this paragraph need the SJW remarks? Completely undeeded. The same thought could be said in other words.
"Someone did stand up for their convictions. The SJWs beat her up. It is cute how blind the SJWs are of their own side's intolerance, hate, violence and criminal activities. It is even cuter how outraged they get about why they are getting a pushback."
Could just call them - like the article calls - an anti-Trump crowd.
"Like charity, when forced, political correctness is meaningless. Something that the SJWs don't get.
They are also so blinded by the halo of their own self-righteousness that they simply don't see that bullying others, calling them names, attacking them, shutting them down, trying to humiliate them, all actually makes people mad. The SJWs believe that their victims should be grateful to be taught a lesson instead. The SJWs believe they are Lawful Good, whereas they are the epitome of Lawful Stupid, and are hated for practically the same reasons."
This time, it's difficult for me to understand what in particular is meant to be said here. I just see a rant that is mentioning a certain group of people and calling them using a pejorative term.
30(correction edit:) 20 years. Before it was made illegal in 1968 in response to Vietnam War protestors, I doubt anyone even considered it except for perhaps torrorist groups and echoing confederates.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
Trump is not proposing something new, he is bringing up a very old debate and choosing a side. In 2006, the Flag Desecration Amendment, the most recent of several attempts to amend the constitution/bill of rights that would permit legal action to be taken against those who burned the flag, failed to pass congress by only one vote.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment
I personally think people should be allowed to burn the flag, and that it should never be made illegal; allowing that freedom is what gives our country its potential for greatness. But I do find it eerie that, especially in recent years, the majority of flag burning seems to be done or spurred on by people who have absolutely no idea of the privilege they have to live in this country.
Expression of free speech is absolutely important, and burning the flag is one such example. But there are two very strong sides to this debate, and dismissing Trump's stance as arrogance or even insanity is incorrect. He is choosing the side that most accurately represents the views of those that support him, and even many of those who don't support him.
In TrumpAmerica(tm), Constitution burners hide behind the flag.
A coalition of fast-food workers, child care providers, janitors, and airport workers just held their rallies in an attempt to finally realize their dream of earning $15 per hour. You will *never* be paid $15 per hour for working in fast food--the chains will opt to install self-serve kiosks and maintain only kitchen staff. The minimum wage is not supposed to support a family; instead, it is meant for teenage workers, college students who are working their way through school, or as temporary work in between more long-term jobs for adults. Anyone who thinks that "minimum wage" is meant to support a family has no idea about budgeting or improving their life situation. If you want to earn more money then take some college courses to get a degree, take some sort of skill enhancement/job training course, or obtain some computer certifications. Community colleges offer these sorts of programs and they are low-cost alternatives to name-brand, four-year universities which are financially out of reach even for most middle class families.
It's just like the flag burning, freedom of speech or the right to express yourself. I don't see how GGers or SJW's hurts anyone if they are terms used to describe a group or social stance of certain people. Like Communist, Nazi, Murderer etc. As long as they are not racial in context I don't see a problem with them.
But then again I might be totally wrong.
The only thing I know with utmost certainty, is that I know nothing
Higher on this page you can see an illustration of how it worked from @Shandyr.
Anyway, this is my last remark in this thread on this problem. If you have other questions, feel free to PM me.
Crooked Hillary
Little Marco
Lyin Ted
Mexican Rapists
And many more:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/crooked-hillary-marco-donald-trumps-nicknames/story?id=39035114
He even had a few for himself.
John Baron and John Miller when he was posing as his own publicist
I lost it a couple of pages back...
As for flags... I like to waterboard them, add a few flakes of washing detergent and hang them out to dry...
I'm cruel... but some ones gotta do the dirty work...
Mwhahaha!
They announced potentially organising one to defend press freedom today.
It's our PM Sipilä, who presurrised our statefunded national boardcaster Yle to drop a story - sending 17 annoyed e-mails to a journalist, copying her boss, because he got negative citizens' feedback. And the story was dropped.
NB: FI has been number one in press freedom index of Journalists without Borders five years running. And I want us to remain there.
Annoucing this intention has been wonderful in drawing attention to the questionable actions of Sipilä.