40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

[UK2K]

For the older ones on here, I apologize for my generations own stupidity.


American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data on free speech and media across the globe.

We asked whether people believe that citizens should be able to make public statements that are offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups, while 58% said such speech is OK.

Interestingly, the older you go, the less likely one is in favor of enabling government to ban speech.


Even though a larger share of Millennials favor allowing offensive speech against minorities, the 40% who oppose it is striking given that only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) and roughly one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.

Also interesting, Millennials in Germany and Spain are the opposite of those here:


In contrast with American Millennials, those ages 18 to 34 in Germany and Spain are more likely to say people should be able to say things offensive to minorities compared with those ages 35 and older.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

What say you? Do you believe government should be allowed to restrict hate speech? Or is that restricting free speech? Well, it is restricting free speech but also hate speech. The problem is here in America, EVERYTHING will turn into hate speech. Just like everything has turned into a racial issue, and everything had turned into a discrimination issue. Everyone is fighting to be the victim.

[Nick Young]

the worst generation

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah honestly that's not okay.

No one has the right to "not be offended". No one. I don't care if you're a minority or not.

[Akrazotile]

I feel like a lot of these kids that answer 'yes' to this question will probably understand it better and rethink it as they get older. If you gave them specific examples I think a lot of them would end up siding with free speech. Putting a general question like that to a young kid in America puts a lot of pressure on them to give the 'expected' answer that they've all been trained to give, which is that minority feelings are America's top priority over anything else.


The sad thing is that even full grown adults like deucewallace and ridonks actually agree with this shit. There are a LOT of betas in older generations who are desperate to be heralded for bleeting the sensitivity dogma. It's usually the awkward, insecure, confused, issue-riddled, effeminate pansies of society, and sadly there are many. This shit gives them some way to counter the 'good ol' boys.' Gives them a way to differentiate themselves and make women and minorities think theyre cool. If you remove PC sheep bleeting, they have absolutely nothing that makes them stand out or be admired in any way. It's a convenient thing for losers to latch on to.

[dkmwise]

This is one of the most troubling and dangerous things going on right now, it is truly a scary trend.

Don't some of these people see, they are protesting to limit other people's free speech, once the free speech starts going away, you can't have these protests anymore.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I think the key to notice is with less education, comes more people who say you should censor speech

[NumberSix]

Make no mistake about it. "Offensive speech" is a code word any speech that is not extremely left wing.

[DeuceWallaces]

So the majority of your generation are cool with being offensive to minorities. What's your point?

[BasedTom]

what even defines millennials

I feel like half the people bitching about them would be considered millenials themselves. It's honestly a retarded and arbitrary designation. A person born in Eastern Europe in the 80s has nothing to do with some kid born after jordan's last championship and who cannot conceive of a world before smartphones and twitter...yet they're somehow part of the same group?

[iamgine]

Sometimes it's about how they're asked.

Asking:

"Should someone like Hitler be able to give hate speech about Jews?"

is not the same as:

"Should someone be able to criticize a minority group, even if it might be offensive?"

Even though it's essentially the same.

[Akrazotile]

So the majority of your generation are cool with being offensive to minorities. What's your point?


This picture is so perfect you'd almost think I personally made it specifically for you, when in fact I simply saw it on the internet and found it appropriate.




Here's the picture:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EI3rK8r-EMo/hqdefault.jpg

[NumberSix]

Oh, so that must be why so many comedians and television shows have to appologize for offending people daily... Since so many creatives in Hollywood are republican.

Get f*cked. This isn't about your stupid ass left/right bullshit.
Left = Extreme left. Don't play dumb.

[Dresta]

Well, i think it's pretty obvious that young people, taken as a whole, are extremely stupid, and prone to be captured by fads tinged with fanaticism (see the youth as the driving force behind Communist dogma in Eastern Europe, read pretty much any Milan Kundera novel, and the message is the same: that the young are petty tyrants who are not to be trusted, and when swept away by ideological mania, they become its most ardent and despicable disciples).


I think the key to notice is with less education, comes more people who say you should censor speech
I just don't think this is true at all. One of the places where you are least able to speak your mind, and most beset on all sides by all sorts of conformity and showy moralising, is on a University campus. There might be uneducated blacks now upsetting free speech and disrupting rallies, but most of the impetus of this movement is coming from privileged, pampered, and over-educated (or perhaps poorly educated) white brats. To be honest, the uneducated seem far more likely to break these taboos than the educated, based on my experience - that is part of the problem ('they are stupid and intolerant so it is our right to shut them up') - maybe it starts that way, but it always ends up with the censoring of minority opinions. Hence why UCLs student union bans its Nietzsche society for 'fascism' or 'right-wing opinions' - while knowing nothing about the philosopher or the society, and allowing at the same time a thriving Islamic society that segregates its audiences in public debate, and whose former President tried to blow up a plane (and was known to encourage such acts while he was President of said society).

A large part of the problem seems to be a public education system is set on imbuing a sense of guilt into the population, probably because guilt is a useful mechanism of control, and can easily be used to manipulate people, their sentiments, allegiances, and opinions. Masochists always need the state to protect them, not just from others, but from their own weaknesses too.

This is simply totalitarianism dressed up as tolerance, but as it has become a kind of state ideology (supported by the 'educated' minions of the state - the young and dependent and indebted, those who will never receive social security themselves, but are the most willing defenders of it! Irony!), it isn't much regarded.

[TheMan]

For the older ones on here, I apologize for my generations own stupidity.



Interestingly, the older you go, the less likely one is in favor of enabling government to ban speech.



Also interesting, Millennials in Germany and Spain are the opposite of those here:



http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/




What say you? Do you believe government should be allowed to restrict hate speech? Or is that restricting free speech? Well, it is restricting free speech but also hate speech. The problem is here in America, EVERYTHING will turn into hate speech. Just like everything has turned into a racial issue, and everything had turned into a discrimination issue. Everyone is fighting to be the victim.
Come on dude, relax.

The gubment ain't gonna take your right to call Jews *****, blacks ******s, latinos *****, chinese ******, gays ******s etc etc...

So go ahead and use those words to your racist little heart's content. Just know that if you want to practice your right to free speech by calling me a wetback in person, don't act surprised if I respond by kicking your ass.

BTW, I don't agree with the government regulating that but as civilized persons (I would hope, though I'm not sure about the OP), we shouldn't go around in real life acting like the idiots most of us act like here (I'm talking to you Chewing).

[TheMan]

I feel like a lot of these kids that answer 'yes' to this question will probably understand it better and rethink it as they get older. If you gave them specific examples I think a lot of them would end up siding with free speech. Putting a general question like that to a young kid in America puts a lot of pressure on them to give the 'expected' answer that they've all been trained to give, which is that minority feelings are America's top priority over anything else.


The sad thing is that even full grown adults like deucewallace and ridonks actually agree with this shit. There are a LOT of betas in older generations who are desperate to be heralded for bleeting the sensitivity dogma. It's usually the awkward, insecure, confused, issue-riddled, effeminate pansies of society, and sadly there are many. This shit gives them some way to counter the 'good ol' boys.' Gives them a way to differentiate themselves and make women and minorities think theyre cool. If you remove PC sheep bleeting, they have absolutely nothing that makes them stand out or be admired in any way. It's a convenient thing for losers to latch on to.
Every chance you get, you always try and insult those guys :oldlol:

That's the very definition of "rent free", lmao

And I really don't care for those two but you're one to talk, in your 30s, still unmarried and living off your folks...a real winner :coleman:

[UK2K]

Come on dude, relax.

The gubment ain't gonna take your right to call Jews *****, blacks ******s, latinos *****, chinese ******, gays ******s etc etc...

So go ahead and use those words to your racist little heart's content. Just know that if you want to practice your right to free speech by calling me a wetback in person, don't act surprised if I respond by kicking your ass.

BTW, I don't agree with the government regulating that but as civilized persons (I would hope, though I'm not sure about the OP), we shouldn't go around in real life acting like the idiots most of us act like here (I'm talking to you Chewing).
I find your post offensive. I'm reporting you to the government.

Good luck.

But seriously, what words would you make illegal? You make up your list, and I will make up mine, and Chewing can make up his list, and you, and you, and you.... Obama can come up with his list... We'll throw them all in a hat.

Let's see how many words we have left that are not offensive to anyone.

[UK2K]

So the majority of your generation are cool with being offensive to minorities. What's your point?
^^ didn't read the article cause every generation believes the same.

It's actually my generation that is the LEAST cool with being offensive to minorities.

[DeuceWallaces]

I read it. If 40% aren't OK, then 60% must be OK with being offensive. Correct?

[Town's Town]

People act like small limits in freedom of speech would make America crumble. Plenty of countries make it illegal to use hateful language and they run fine.

[HitandRun Reggie]

And people used to laugh when they said, after leftists destroy the 2nd Amendment, they'll be coming for the 1st.

[Town's Town]

And people used to laugh when they said, after leftists destroy the 2nd Amendment, they'll be coming for the 1st.

Righties are going after Muslims. I'm pretty sure they have the same rights as Christians, but the rights don't care.

[imdaman99]

So let me get this straight, you think it's ok for the public to say offensive things but then you and your ilk want to make threads over people getting offended by "I WILL NOT SELL TO A MOZLEM!" "ID BADGES ON EVERY MOZLEM HEHE" campaigns? :oldlol: Make up your mind.

I happen to think people can say whatever the hell they want, even if they are promoting hate. I also happen to believe people can get offended over ANYTHING as well. You want to have your cake, eat it, and then push my head in the cake after it.

[UK2K]

I read it. If 40% aren't OK, then 60% must be OK with being offensive. Correct?
Correct.

And if 15% of the older generation believe speech should be restricted, that means 85% must be OK with being offensive, correct?

So what point are you trying to make exactly?

[UK2K]

So let me get this straight, you think it's ok for the public to say offensive things but then you and your ilk want to make threads over people getting offended by "I WILL NOT SELL TO A MOZLEM!" "ID BADGES ON EVERY MOZLEM HEHE" campaigns? :oldlol: Make up your mind.

I happen to think people can say whatever the hell they want, even if they are promoting hate. I also happen to believe people can get offended over ANYTHING as well. You want to have your cake, eat it, and then push my head in the cake after it.
I've never made a thread about anyone who was offended.... and that was it.

I've seen threads made about people being offended, and then demanding ridiculous shit to 'make up for it'. Never seen a news report about anyone being offended and then saying 'oh well, I'll get over it'. Have you?

If you're going to try and throw out a strawman argument, at least your analogy needs to be somewhat related.

But it's not even about that. It's about government (whoever happens to be in charge at the time) determining certain speech is illegal. That, I do have a problem with.

[UK2K]

And people used to laugh when they said, after leftists destroy the 2nd Amendment, they'll be coming for the 1st.
It seems more and more, to your average American as well as every politician, that the constitution and the bill of rights are more like guidelines.

The argument will be "but the times have changed". Wait and see. They'll say things like it's an old piece of paper or now it's outdated. Slowly but surely, what those documents mean will change ever so slightly to the point where they are irrelevant.

[oh the horror]

Those kids apparently don't understand the concept of free speech and how asking the government to step in and limit things they deem as "offensive" is far more damaging than the offense itself.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Well, i think it's pretty obvious that young people, taken as a whole, are extremely stupid, and prone to be captured by fads tinged with fanaticism (see the youth as the driving force behind Communist dogma in Eastern Europe, read pretty much any Milan Kundera novel, and the message is the same: that the young are petty tyrants who are not to be trusted, and when swept away by ideological mania, they become its most ardent and despicable disciples).


I just don't think this is true at all. One of the places where you are least able to speak your mind, and most beset on all sides by all sorts of conformity and showy moralising, is on a University campus. There might be uneducated blacks now upsetting free speech and disrupting rallies, but most of the impetus of this movement is coming from privileged, pampered, and over-educated (or perhaps poorly educated) white brats. To be honest, the uneducated seem far more likely to break these taboos than the educated, based on my experience - that is part of the problem ('they are stupid and intolerant so it is our right to shut them up') - maybe it starts that way, but it always ends up with the censoring of minority opinions. Hence why UCLs student union bans its Nietzsche society for 'fascism' or 'right-wing opinions' - while knowing nothing about the philosopher or the society, and allowing at the same time a thriving Islamic society that segregates its audiences in public debate, and whose former President tried to blow up a plane (and was known to encourage such acts while he was President of said society).

A large part of the problem seems to be a public education system is set on imbuing a sense of guilt into the population, probably because guilt is a useful mechanism of control, and can easily be used to manipulate people, their sentiments, allegiances, and opinions. Masochists always need the state to protect them, not just from others, but from their own weaknesses too.

This is simply totalitarianism dressed up as tolerance, but as it has become a kind of state ideology (supported by the 'educated' minions of the state - the young and dependent and indebted, those who will never receive social security themselves, but are the most willing defenders of it! Irony!), it isn't much regarded.
The graph in the article is literally saying what I just said, so you're incorrect. Look at it. If you have a degree you are less likely to believe in censorship than if you have a high school diploma.

[Patrick Chewing]

I happen to think people can say whatever the hell they want, even if they are promoting hate. I also happen to believe people can get offended over ANYTHING as well. You want to have your cake, eat it, and then push my head in the cake after it.


Everyone has the right to get offended. But it is when you cross that line and attempt to stifle free speech that you then become an authoritarian asshole.

[UK2K]

The graph in the article is literally saying what I just said, so you're incorrect. Look at it. If you have a degree you are less likely to believe in censorship than if you have a high school diploma.

Per the Pew Research poll, this is correct.

Per the research, the more uneducated you are, the more likely it is you believe the government should be able to restrict free speech.

A young, female, democrat, uneducated hispanic is most likely to believe in curbing free speech, per their research.

[oarabbus]

So the majority of your generation are cool with being offensive to minorities. What's your point?


You agree with the 40%? You think speech should be censored? :biggums:

It's a loaded question in the poll (refers specifically towards minorities) designed to bait idiots.

[Patrick Chewing]

No point in talking to Douchewallace.

He hates himself, his skin color, his race, his whole ancestry. He wants to be conquered by another race and skinned alive.

[oarabbus]

As a millenial, reading that 40% statistic really bummed me out.

I'd much rather live in a world where Jimmy Bumfuc.k is allowed to slander my ethnicity publicly online than one where he gets locked up for it.

Under these asinine rules could a TV show or book construe 'offensive speech' against minorities and be banned? It actually boggles my mind that some people think (non-threatening) speech should be banned for any reason at all. What reason justifies it?

[NumberSix]

Per the Pew Research poll, this is correct.

Per the research, the more uneducated you are, the more likely it is you believe the government should be able to restrict free speech.

A young, female, democrat, uneducated hispanic is most likely to believe in curbing free speech, per their research.
This is why having a constitution is so important. Because the next generation who was born with rights given to them for free and don't value having them or the reasons why they have them are eager to vote those rights away.

[UK2K]

No point in talking to Douchewallace.

He hates himself, his skin color, his race, his whole ancestry. He wants to be conquered by another race and skinned alive.

I was just trying to figure out if he had a point to make or nah.

Guess he doesn't.

[BoutPractice]

The fact that education makes it less likely you'll want to control what people say does not take away from the overall movement towards more restrictions on free speech in universities.

This is especially true in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.

Liberal ideas and instincts - freedom and toleration as the rule, restriction as an exception to be justified through public reason; thought, speech and self-expression as human behaviours worthy of special protection; a defence of pluralism; a preference for conversation and debate over heavy-handed violence; open-mindedness and the willingness to challenge one's beliefs - are increasingly under threat from those who call themselves "liberal".

Of course, the bigger threat by far comes from those who seek to return us to the Middle Ages... but university liberals certainly aren't helping. At worst they even act as useful idiots on behalf of the destroyers of civilization.

[UK2K]

As a millenial, reading that 40% statistic really bummed me out.

I'd much rather live in a world where Jimmy Bumfuc.k is allowed to slander my ethnicity publicly online than one where he gets locked up for it.

Under these asinine rules could a TV show or book construe 'offensive speech' against minorities and be banned? It actually boggles my mind that some people think (non-threatening) speech should be banned for any reason at all. What reason justifies it?

The question I have is... if you believe in the government being able to ban speech, who do you trust to make the 'offensive' list? A council? One person? A 'Speech Czar'?

I mean, who do you believe is the right fit to determine what is offensive and what isn't? Because everyone has a different opinion.

Like someone pointed out earlier, its generally the stupid who believe speech should be restricted simply because, they don't know any better.

What people like DW don't understand (because he didn't read the article) is only 35% of Democrats agree that speech should be restricted. Even they aren't dumb enough to go down that road. Then again, you could also look at it as 35% of Democrats believe if they think something is offensive, you shouldn't be allowed to say it. Amazing.

[oarabbus]

The question I have is... if you believe in the government being able to ban speech, who do you trust to make the 'offensive' list? A council? One person? A 'Speech Czar'?

I mean, who do you believe is the right fit to determine what is offensive and what isn't? Because everyone has a different opinion.

Like someone pointed out earlier, its generally the stupid who believe speech should be restricted simply because, they don't know any better.

What people like DW don't understand (because he didn't read the article) is only 35% of Democrats agree that speech should be restricted. Even they aren't dumb enough to go down that road. Then again, you could also look at it as 35% of Democrats believe if they think something is offensive, you shouldn't be allowed to say it. Amazing.

As a democrat, who is going to vote democrat this election, the bolded IS how I think about it and it both shocks and saddens me. It's the first damn amendment.

And I agree to your point about who would control the speech... it's an extremely dangerous slippery slope. It's straight out of dystopian fiction.

Or a murderous regime like the Khmer Rouge.

[UK2K]

As a democrat, who is going to vote democrat this election, the bolded IS how I think about it and it both shocks and saddens me. It's the first damn amendment. And yes your point about who controls speech... it's literally straight out of dystopian fiction.

Or a murderous regime like the Khmer Rouge.

Honestly, I get the rationale behind it. You don't want people offended. In a Utopian world, that may fly, but in 2016 America, EVERYTHING is offensive.

Personally, I don't have any Nazi memorabilia laying around my house, but that doesn't mean I think it's right to ban the sell of anything with a swastika on it.

I saw today in France and Germany(?), they have bans on Burqas. Now, I don't own a Burqa, so I don't care one way or the other, except for the fact that I don't believe a government should have the right to restrict someone's personal freedoms like that. I think its wrong, and would argue against a similar measure here, but people have a tendency to want Big Brother to fix everything, which usually results in a complete **** up that instead of being corrected, is just accepted after so much futility. See: Obamacare, the postal service, SSI.

[Patrick Chewing]

As a democrat, who is going to vote democrat this election, the bolded IS how I think about it and it both shocks and saddens me. It's the first damn amendment.

And I agree to your point about who would control the speech... it's an extremely dangerous slippery slope. It's straight out of dystopian fiction.

Or a murderous regime like the Khmer Rouge.


You do know that by voting Democrat you're basically voting for the thing that shocks and saddens you, right??

Because nowhere on the Right do you hear about infringement of at least the first two Amendments to the Constitution. You only seem to hear that on the Left, and maybe not by the candidates themselves, but definitely by the party. Not trying to start anything with you about politics now, but it is because of this blind support that we have these types of issues today.

My vote will always be for the candidate who stands for less government and less intrusion in our every day lives. Let the community decide. The power of the people, not some politician that only represents half of the country.

[oarabbus]

You do know that by voting Democrat you're basically voting for the thing that shocks and saddens you, right??

Because nowhere on the Right do you hear about infringement of at least the first two Amendments to the Constitution. You only seem to hear that on the Left, and maybe not by the candidates themselves, but definitely by the party. Not trying to start anything with you about politics now, but it is because of this blind support that we have these types of issues today.

My vote will always be for the candidate who stands for less government and less intrusion in our every day lives. Let the community decide. The power of the people, not some politician that only represents half of the country.

I won't blindly follow party lines, and I don't like Hillary. I would vote for a Republican candidate if I felt they were the best outcome for the nation. At this time I think that's Sanders, but I don't think he'll win. I think both the left and the right tries to intrude, but in different ways.

But in 2016, Sanders gets my vote over Trump or Carson. If someone else (Rubio or someone... now sure how the polls are looking) takes the GOP lead I would consider their merits

[NumberSix]

As a democrat, who is going to vote democrat this election, the bolded IS how I think about it and it both shocks and saddens me. It's the first damn amendment.

And I agree to your point about who would control the speech... it's an extremely dangerous slippery slope. It's straight out of dystopian fiction.

Or a murderous regime like the Khmer Rouge.
Why does it shock you that they're attacking the 1st amendment? How long have they been attacking the 2nd?

[Norcaliblunt]

Cop Killa was a classic!

[NumberSix]

I won't blindly follow party lines, and I don't like Hillary. I would vote for a Republican candidate if I felt they were the best outcome for the nation. At this time I think that's Sanders, but I don't think he'll win. I think both the left and the right tries to intrude, but in different ways.

But in 2016, Sanders gets my vote over Trump or Carson. If someone else (Rubio or someone... now sure how the polls are looking) takes the GOP lead I would consider their merits
There's no hope for you.

[Norcaliblunt]

Cop Killa was a classic!

It's good thing old folks and republican's didn't try to censor and ban it.

[Akrazotile]

It's good thing old folks and republican's didn't try to censor and ban it.


I think the issue is that the speech was about killing a specific group of people, yes? Ice Cube made plenty of records saying "i hate crackers, crackers r stoopid!" with significantly less fuss. In fact they were mainstream.

But I guess youre tryin to equate speech that says "crackers r stoopid" or uses the words "wetback" or "coons" in an off-colored joke, to Ice T's record, distribted to the public about being a cop killer and glorifying killing a group of people?

Youre reachin for that analogy, apparently? And I dont even think the album should have been banned, but its got a much better argument than "speech offensive to minorities."

[oarabbus]

There's no hope for you.


Knew my Sanders inclination wouldn't be popular in this topic... and that's what makes this country a democracy.

So, who has your vote? Trump? :oldlol:

[ThePhantomCreep]

You do know that by voting Democrat you're basically voting for the thing that shocks and saddens you, right??

Because nowhere on the Right do you hear about infringement of at least the first two Amendments to the Constitution. You only seem to hear that on the Left, and maybe not by the candidates themselves, but definitely by the party. Not trying to start anything with you about politics now, but it is because of this blind support that we have these types of issues today.

My vote will always be for the candidate who stands for less government and less intrusion in our every day lives. Let the community decide. The power of the people, not some politician that only represents half of the country.


<spits out coffee>

Whaaaaaa????

http://fusion.net/story/202263/iowa-poll-majority-republican-voters-think-islam-illegal/

Banning religion? That's as unconstitutional as it gets.

There are more examples: Trump and his asshole supporters enthusiastically supporting a database to track Muslims? Not only is that morally repugnant, it's very clearly unconstitutional.

Kim Davis refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses? Unconstitutional.

Christian right-wingers trying to shove religion into our schools? Unconstitutional.

And on and on.

[Akrazotile]

Knew my Sanders inclination wouldn't be popular in this topic... and that's what makes this country a democracy.

So, who has your vote? Trump? :oldlol:


The thing is dude, Trump is a politician. It would be nice to have someone who is genuine and has the right ideas, but I would rather have a phony politician than someone who is genuine and has the wrong ideas. Which is Sanders. Trump will pander to whatever issues he has to during the election, but if he were elected he would just do regular shit. He's not gonna go crusading for the far-right. He's just gonna navigate it all and juggle it like a politician.

Sanders on the other hand is a nice guy and his heart is in the right place, but his head simply isn't. The stuff he proposes is appealing but doesn't make LOGICAL sense. He avoids the tough issues, he puts them off, he passes them on to the next generation. He has a short-sighted sense of immediate band-aids rather than cultural overhauls. He hasn't grown out of the classic "just got to college" liberal, "thinks any idea he comes up with while passing the blunt around is realistic" phase. It's ridiculous. I mean, there's a reason he's a hit with college kids and not grown adults.

[Patrick Chewing]

I won't blindly follow party lines, and I don't like Hillary. I would vote for a Republican candidate if I felt they were the best outcome for the nation. At this time I think that's Sanders, but I don't think he'll win. I think both the left and the right tries to intrude, but in different ways.

But in 2016, Sanders gets my vote over Trump or Carson. If someone else (Rubio or someone... now sure how the polls are looking) takes the GOP lead I would consider their merits


Ted Cruz actually sounds like the perfect candidate for you to tell you the truth.

The problem with Democratic candidates is that they are way too partisan nowadays. Just like Obama lectures to the other half of the country that does not agree with him, I fear Hillary and Bernie would do the same.

Plus, they have a fear of saying "Islamic" and "Terrorism" in the same sentence. They are Obama clones and that does not bode well for the future of this country. We are as divided as ever. Something that was not happening under George W.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Ted Cruz actually sounds like the perfect candidate for you to tell you the truth.

The problem with Democratic candidates is that they are way too partisan nowadays. Just like Obama lectures to the other half of the country that does not agree with him, I fear Hillary and Bernie would do the same.

Plus, they have a fear of saying "Islamic" and "Terrorism" in the same sentence. They are Obama clones and that does not bode well for the future of this country. We are as divided as ever. Something that was not happening under George W.

This division you speak of was created almost entirely by conservatives and their lemming voting base. Here's what GWB (with 90% approval ratings) said in a speech shortly after the 9/11 attacks:


These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

Picture a neo-con or tea party candidate in 2015 quoting the Quron..:roll: :roll:

But I get it. Back in 2001, it was important for the GOP to urge calm amongst the populace, not anarchy. They controlled the Executive Branch, after all. "Don't let the terrorists win, go about your daily lives" was the mantra after 9/11. Republicans AND Democrats promoted this message.

Now it's "databases for Muslims, surveillance on mosques, ban all refugees, attacks are imminent! Walls everywhere!!! Chaos chaos chaos, fear fear fear!" :lol

Why the shift from the GOP? Why the lack of solidarity? Oh right, there's a Democrat in the White House and election season is right around the corner. Fckers

[Norcaliblunt]

Girl we couldn't get much higher...

We're bigger than Jesus...

[Norcaliblunt]

I think the issue is that the speech was about killing a specific group of people, yes? Ice Cube made plenty of records saying "i hate crackers, crackers r stoopid!" with significantly less fuss. In fact they were mainstream.

But I guess youre tryin to equate speech that says "crackers r stoopid" or uses the words "wetback" or "coons" in an off-colored joke, to Ice T's record, distribted to the public about being a cop killer and glorifying killing a group of people?

Youre reachin for that analogy, apparently? And I dont even think the album should have been banned, but its got a much better argument than "speech offensive to minorities."


But old people and republican's have tried to censor speech before, have they not? It may be more justified in your own mind but it's still censorship.

[Akrazotile]

Girl we couldn't get much higher...

We're bigger than Jesus...


Commercial refusal to air speech is the same as government bans, is it?

Which side of the present issue are you on, if you dont mind my asking? That would seem to be more relevant than pointing out instances of commercial censorship from 1967.

[Akrazotile]

But old people and republican's have tried to censor speech before, have they not? It may be more justified in your own mind but it's still censorship.


Theyve tried to censor it in the private sphere, surely. Which is completely within their laws and rights. Have they tried to do so in the public/givernment sphere in the last 50 years? Not to my knowledge, altho maybe there are examples, I dont know.

[Norcaliblunt]

Commercial refusal to air speech is the same as government bans, is it?

Which side of the present issue are you on, if you dont mind my asking? That would seem to be more relevant than pointing out instances of commercial censorship from 1967.

I'm of the opinion that censorship has been American as apple pie and every generation you have idiots from each side of who get butthurtt and try and ban shit, left and right.

[Akrazotile]

I'm of the opinion that censorship has been American as apple pie and every generation you have idiots from each side of who get butthurtt left and right.


Should the government limit non-violent speech if it "offends" minorities?

Should a comedian be banned by law from saying "a towelhead, a ******, and a f@g walk into a bar..."?

Should a speaker at a convention?

What do you think?

[Norcaliblunt]

Should the government limit non-violent speech if it "offends" minorities?

Should a comedian be banned by law from saying "a towelhead, a ******, and a f@g walk into a bar..."?

Should a speaker at a convention?

What do you think?

Hell no.

Is there a percentage of libtard's out there that think we should though? Of mother****ing course.

Do you think rapper's should be able to say **** the police, die pig die? You probably do, but is there a percentage of idiot conservatives who would love to limit that shit given the chance? Of mother****ing course.

Censorship is bipartisan and ageless.

[Akrazotile]

Hell no.

Is there a percentage of libtard's out there that think we should though? Of mother****ing course.

Do you think rapper's should be able to say **** the police, die pig die? You probably do, but is there a percentage of idiot conservatives who would love to limit that shit given the chance? Of mother****ing course.

Censorship is bipartisan and ageless.


Surely, but I do think if you did a poll, the far-right would be much more likely to favor commercial bans and boycotting businesses that dont cooperate (which is really what youre supposed to do), rather than charge the task of banning to the government. Whereas I would bet the far left would be much more in favor of a government probibition.

[Norcaliblunt]

Surely, but I do think if you did a poll, the far-right would be much more likely to favor commercial bans and boycotting businesses that dont cooperate (which is really what youre supposed to do), rather than charge the task of banning to the government. Whereas I would bet the far left would be much more in favor of a government probibition.

Assumptions make an ass out of u and me.

Yeah that's like saying the left would be less likely to warmonger.Lol. Wake the **** up.

I'm out.

[gigantes]

isn't this a situation that basically polices itself?

if you slander / libel an individual, you have the potential to go to court. if you're offensive to a minority / whatever, the internet will typically rain down a shitstorm on your ass, you'll lose your job, etc etc.


so what new laws need to be enacted? what laws could possibly be enacted to control millions of peoples' reactions all over the world?

about the best i could see would be some kind of more handy arbitration process that could intervene in a job dispute. i.e. instead of firing, going to court, being sued, being reinstated, etc.

[UK2K]

Surely, but I do think if you did a poll, the far-right would be much more likely to favor commercial bans and boycotting businesses that dont cooperate (which is really what youre supposed to do), rather than charge the task of banning to the government. Whereas I would bet the far left would be much more in favor of a government probibition.
Absolutely.

Personally if I walk into a bar, with a black owner and black patrons, and he says to me 'no whites allowed'... guess what I'm doing? Leaving.

I'm not complaining about it, or protesting it, or trying to start a hash tag campaign. If he doesn't want my business, fine I'll take it elsewhere.

I think privately owned establishments should be able to refuse service to anyone they want. If you want to lose out on the business, more power to you.

Public companies are different, obviously.

What I won't do, which 35% of Democrats want to do, is run the the gubment and ask them to ban that bad man. I won't cry about it. It is what it is.

The sooner we all grow the **** up and stop acting like babies, the easier life will be for everyone. Unfortunately, it's my generation spreading the butthurtitus and sadly, people actually agree with it.

I wonder though, if Trump was in office, if the 35% of Democrats who believe offensive speech should be banned, would have the same opinion that they do now. I highly doubt it. It's cool to believe in censorship until your party is not the one in charge.

[sundizz]

Absolutely.

Personally if I walk into a bar, with a black owner and black patrons, and he says to me 'no whites allowed'... guess what I'm doing? Leaving.

I'm not complaining about it, or protesting it, or trying to start a hash tag campaign. If he doesn't want my business, fine I'll take it elsewhere.

I think privately owned establishments should be able to refuse service to anyone they want. If you want to lose out on the business, more power to you.

Public companies are different, obviously.

What I won't do, which 35% of Democrats want to do, is run the the gubment and ask them to ban that bad man. I won't cry about it. It is what it is.

The sooner we all grow the **** up and stop acting like babies, the easier life will be for everyone. Unfortunately, it's my generation spreading the butthurtitus and sadly, people actually agree with it.

I wonder though, if Trump was in office, if the 35% of Democrats who believe offensive speech should be banned, would have the same opinion that they do now. I highly doubt it. It's cool to believe in censorship until your party is not the one in charge.

That's such child like thinking. And you know it.

If you choose to go into business in AMERICA, where taxes pay for your infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc) you are benefiting from these people (through their taxes) that allow your business to exist. Yet, you feel because it is YOUR business you should be allowed to choose who you serve.

Likewise, those people that pay taxes should be able to choose how they are spent. And if they could i'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for anything that helps you out (e.g., roads, water, schools near your area, etc).

If you don't need their help at all that's great. Then, basically we all become our own little countries and all it takes is a few like minded individuals with weapons and the desire for control to take over.

[Akrazotile]

That's such child like thinking. And you know it.

If you choose to go into business in AMERICA, where taxes pay for your infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc) you are benefiting from these people (through their taxes) that allow your business to exist. Yet, you feel because it is YOUR business you should be allowed to choose who you serve.

Likewise, those people that pay taxes should be able to choose how they are spent. And if they could i'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for anything that helps you out (e.g., roads, water, schools near your area, etc).

If you don't need their help at all that's great. Then, basically we all become our own little countries and all it takes is a few like minded individuals with weapons and the desire for control to take over.


Why should the government decide who gets brought into the country, while forcing citizens to serve them? What if the government decided it wanted to bring in a bunch of Ebola-positive immigrants because more people will drive wages down, or get them on government benefits and be more voting power for Democrats?

The government can simply decide to bring these people in, then force YOU to serve them in your own business? And mind you, some peoples business is their own home? "How dare you discriminate against the Ebola patients! Serve them like you'd serve any other human being, BIGOT!"

It's bullshit. You are a fool if you want to give the government authority to tell you whom to like, whom you must serve, what you can say about them, how to interact with them. We work together as a society but we also retain autonomy. If someone doesn't like paying taxes that help a person in business that doesn't want to serve them, then they should start their OWN business with whatever tax breaks are available to business, and earn the patronage of all the kumbaya liberals. If there are THAT many people who will put their money where there mouth is, then diversity-rich, open-door businesses will have NO PROBLEM earning plenty of business. Right? Of course, it'd be interesting to see where all the liberals ACTUALLY stand on this. If the way they segregate themselves residentially is any indication, it might not be too pretty. But hey, it's still their choice. Some place loud and smelly and possibly dangerous... or not. Up to them. Let's see what happens.

The government doesn't give a shit about you or me. They're not doing it to be nice. They want more people so they can have cheaper labor, control a bigger society, wield bigger power. Remember, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." And Obama evidently doesn't care about peace (despite getting a prize for it) if you look at the number of drone strikes. And you want to ALLOW them to make our decisions for us??

People wanna bring in the govt authorities when its convenient for their side of a particular issue. "Stay out of peoples bedrooms!" "Oh, wait, now the govt will FORCE states to recognize gay marriage? Ok, come in our bedrooms now!" "Don't tell me whether I can have an abortion or not, it's my body!" "But wait, make everyone have to buy health insurances!"


These are small minded people with very little understanding of history.

[ThePhantomCreep]

That's such child like thinking. And you know it.

If you choose to go into business in AMERICA, where taxes pay for your infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc) you are benefiting from these people (through their taxes) that allow your business to exist. Yet, you feel because it is YOUR business you should be allowed to choose who you serve.

Likewise, those people that pay taxes should be able to choose how they are spent. And if they could i'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for anything that helps you out (e.g., roads, water, schools near your area, etc).

If you don't need their help at all that's great. Then, basically we all become our own little countries and all it takes is a few like minded individuals with weapons and the desire for control to take over.
:applause:

[Akrazotile]

The government ALWAYS wants to keep bringing in new outside influences, because it divides the people, and it drives down the wages. This is why there are so few rich, and so many poor in America. Because people that own big business, and people in the government, don't give a fukk about their fellow Americans. If he can bring in a poor mexican or a poor syrian, so that low income americans already here don't have a leg to stand on when pushing for higher wages, because there's too much demand for jobs? They'll do it. They don't give a fukk. And if the division of the people dominates the newscasts, and keeps it from focusing on the wealth gap, and government secrecy and corruption? Even better.

I'm 100% NOT a hater. People who are cruel to others because of their skin color or sexual orientation? I'm not with it. (Joking with friends? Ok. Trying to make a political point? Ok. But just singling people out to be mean? Not with it in the least).

I hope everyone in the world can be happy. I El Salvador can be happy. I hope Canada can be happy. I hope Italy can be happy. I hope Algeria can be happy. I hope Russia can be happy. I hope Iraq can be happy. I hope the Koreas can be happy. But if THEIR shit, conflicts with OUR shit? Then I'm taking our side. Period. And I'm not gonna sugar coat it, and I'm not gonna be AFRAID of being called a bigot, simply because our government knows by bringing in people of poor, minority status it will imbue a whole bunch of short-sighted sympathy from knee-jerk fakkit simpletons, so they can make money while putting a social and political strain on the rest of us. F**K YOU. Keep your pansy, kumbaya, fundamentalist liberal PC garbage to yourself. And don't vote. And give 60% of your income to American charities if you're so righteous and benevolent. And fukk off.

[Akrazotile]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/31/db/6531db3d26904466938b654f43f6d087.jpg

[nightprowler10]

Millennials need a real cause to stand up for so they an get over this bullshit.

[NumberSix]

That's such child like thinking. And you know it.

If you choose to go into business in AMERICA, where taxes pay for your infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc) you are benefiting from these people (through their taxes) that allow your business to exist. Yet, you feel because it is YOUR business you should be allowed to choose who you serve.

Likewise, those people that pay taxes should be able to choose how they are spent. And if they could i'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for anything that helps you out (e.g., roads, water, schools near your area, etc).

If you don't need their help at all that's great. Then, basically we all become our own little countries and all it takes is a few like minded individuals with weapons and the desire for control to take over.
Do you choose who can enter YOUR house/property? Oh, you do? That's weird.

Did you pay for the streets in front of your house? Did you buy those street lights? How about the police that work your neighborhood? Did you hire them? How about the water and power grid?

Apparently, you don't believe people should be "allowed" to choose who can have access their property. So why are you choosing who can have access to your property? I mean, surely you're not just some hypocrite who thinks YOU should have the right to choose who accesses YOUR property while preaching for other people to not have that right, right?:confusedshrug:

[ThePhantomCreep]

Do you choose who can enter YOUR house/property? Oh, you do? That's weird.

Did you pay for the streets in front of your house? Did you buy those street lights? How about the police that work your neighborhood? Did you hire them? How about the water and power grid?

Apparently, you don't believe people should be "allowed" to choose who can have access their property. So why are you choosing who can have access to your property? I mean, surely you're not just some hypocrite who thinks YOU should have the right to choose who accesses YOUR property while preaching for other people to not have that right, right?:confusedshrug:


I take it you're cool with businesses not having to follow certain health standards, building codes, safety regulations, zoning laws and child-labor laws? It's their property, right?

Or should their absolute power as property owners be limited to discrimination... and that's it?

There is a huge distinction between private property used as a home and private property on which a business is conducted for profit and to which the general public is invited. Your comparison fails.

[NumberSix]

I take it you're cool with businesses not having to follow certain health standards, building codes, safety regulations, zoning laws and child-labor laws? It's their property, right?

Or should their absolute power as property owners be limited to discrimination... and that's it?
Actually, besides the child labor thing, yes.


There is a huge distinction between private property used as a home and private property on which a business is conducted for profit and to which the general public is invited. Your comparison fails.
There is? Why? Just because you claim that there is?

[ThePhantomCreep]

Actually, besides the child labor thing, yes.


Yeah, right :rolleyes:. If you actually believe businesses should be allowed to operate under unsanitary or dangerous conditions just because "it's their property", you're an idiot.

Most likely, you're just covering up for the fact that you Ron Paul acolytes only really bitch about "excessive government intrusion" when the subject turns to anti-discrimination laws. I never hear you clowns whining about the health department or building inspectors. It's only when a bakery is forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple that you scream bloody murder.


Why? Just because you claim that there is?

Private property vs public accommodation. Learn to distinguish the two and get back to me. Private businesses can discriminate (like the gun range owner who banned Muslims), but if you're open to the public, you have to serve everyone in the community.

Btw there are limits to what you can and can't do even in your own home, limits that have been around since before this country's inception, and limits you property rights advocates (shockingly) never complain about either. Because I doubt you're railing against government overreach at 3AM, when the cops show up to tell your neighbor to turn his music down.

[masonanddixon]

We need to consider the Back to Africa movement and send these nigs on a boat back to Liberia and get rid of them once and for all.

[dunksby]

Yeah, right :rolleyes:. If you actually believe businesses should be allowed to operate under unsanitary or dangerous conditions just because "it's their property", you're an idiot.

Most likely, you're just covering up for the fact that you Ron Paul acolytes only really bitch about "excessive government intrusion" when the subject turns to anti-discrimination laws. I never hear you clowns whining about the health department or building inspectors. It's only when a bakery is forced to make a cake for a homosexual couple that you scream bloody murder.



Private property vs public accommodation. Learn to distinguish the two and get back to me. Private businesses can discriminate (like the gun range owner who banned Muslims), but if you're open to the public, you have to serve everyone in the community.

Btw there are limits to what you can and can't do even in your own home, limits that have been around since before this country's inception, and limits you property rights advocates (shockingly) never complain about either. Because I doubt you're railing against government overreach at 3AM, when the cops show up to tell your neighbor to turn his music down.
He tries too hard to be the voice of a reasonable contrarian and it never amazes how he is always wrong and makes the wrong comparisons and analogies and sticks to them too. Whenever I have engaged him and tried to show him a flaw in his argument he gets all defensive and tries to rationalize the irrational.
Yep, let's stop with the health and fire hazard inspections, I'm sure the free market competitiveness will take care of everything...

[Dresta]

That's such child like thinking. And you know it.

If you choose to go into business in AMERICA, where taxes pay for your infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, etc) you are benefiting from these people (through their taxes) that allow your business to exist. Yet, you feel because it is YOUR business you should be allowed to choose who you serve.

Likewise, those people that pay taxes should be able to choose how they are spent. And if they could i'm sure they wouldn't want to pay for anything that helps you out (e.g., roads, water, schools near your area, etc).

If you don't need their help at all that's great. Then, basically we all become our own little countries and all it takes is a few like minded individuals with weapons and the desire for control to take over.
This is such an idiotic argument: infrastructure spending, in regard to what is directly applicable to businesses (roads, transport, supply lines, legal protection), is such a small component of spending, that it could be easily provided for with a small tax on consumption (as Texas and Florida miraculously manage). Besides, this belief allows an abstract 'majority' of the population of the United States, to manage the businesses of individuals, through the general government, a thing which is patently absurd. The same arguments you are using could be used to justify plunder without limit - there is no limiting factor aside from the extent of human beings not to be resentful of those with more than them (which is no limit at all, considering a man tends to undervalue what he has, and overvalue what others have - it is a natural human weakness). Nor do you provide a justification as to why the protection provided by the state to individuals and businesses, or its laws pertaining the securing of property, should provide a mandate for legalised plunder, or the mandating of rules regarding who one can and cannot serve (plenty of businesses discriminate in both their hiring and serving practices, and would be foolish to do otherwise - the discrimination restrictions you support are thus completely arbitrary, and deny the plain reality of how people conduct business; but this tends to be the staple of those taking this sort of position: a complete denial of reality).

And if people who pay taxes should have be able to 'choose' how their taxes are spent (when no person does such a thing, and all are taxed indirectly, without their consent or approval - or even understanding, in most cases), then surely, by logical extension: people who don't pay tax shouldn't have the vote? In that case i agree, and taxation would be far lower if we didn't allow those who don't contribute themselves to decide how other people's money ought to be spent.

[NumberSix]

He tries too hard to be the voice of a reasonable contrarian and it never amazes how he is always wrong and makes the wrong comparisons and analogies and sticks to them too. Whenever I have engaged him and tried to show him a flaw in his argument he gets all defensive and tries to rationalize the irrational.
Yep, let's stop with the health and fire hazard inspections, I'm sure the free market competitiveness will take care of everything...
Do I?

[BoutPractice]

An army and a police force to defend citizens from aggression... laws and regulation to protect against theft and fraud, and a justice system under rule of law that stops the cycle of vendetta... schools that educate all children... effective health care and child care for everyone... a safety net that prevents people from starving... good roads, bridges... a land that's protected from overexploitation...

I don't care exactly how we get all those benefits. But it's objectively better to have them than not to have them, and we've had to struggle for centuries to get to that point. If someone can convince me that you can get all the items on that list without government - and the taxes that go with it - I'll always prefer it that way... Unfortunately most plans I've heard of so far are terribly impractical, and just don't match what's already on offer... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'd love to see what the system would look like if citizens could choose more directly where their tax money went, though. In the aggregate, it probably wouldn't lead to a much worse outcome, but there'd be more legitimacy behind the system.

[KyrieTheFuture]

This is such an idiotic argument: infrastructure spending, in regard to what is directly applicable to businesses (roads, transport, supply lines, legal protection), is such a small component of spending, that it could be easily provided for with a small tax on consumption (as Texas and Florida miraculously manage). Besides, this belief allows an abstract 'majority' of the population of the United States, to manage the businesses of individuals, through the general government, a thing which is patently absurd. The same arguments you are using could be used to justify plunder without limit - there is no limiting factor aside from the extent of human beings not to be resentful of those with more than them (which is no limit at all, considering a man tends to undervalue what he has, and overvalue what others have - it is a natural human weakness). Nor do you provide a justification as to why the protection provided by the state to individuals and businesses, or its laws pertaining the securing of property, should provide a mandate for legalised plunder, or the mandating of rules regarding who one can and cannot serve (plenty of businesses discriminate in both their hiring and serving practices, and would be foolish to do otherwise - the discrimination restrictions you support are thus completely arbitrary, and deny the plain reality of how people conduct business; but this tends to be the staple of those taking this sort of position: a complete denial of reality).

And if people who pay taxes should have be able to 'choose' how their taxes are spent (when no person does such a thing, and all are taxed indirectly, without their consent or approval - or even understanding, in most cases), then surely, by logical extension: people who don't pay tax shouldn't have the vote? In that case i agree, and taxation would be far lower if we didn't allow those who don't contribute themselves to decide how other people's money ought to be spent.
Are you planning on acknowledging how wrong you were?

[Dresta]

Are you planning on acknowledging how wrong you were?I had written a response to your post, but when i posted it the internet ****ed up and i lost it (and couldn't be arsed to write again).

I wasn't wrong in what i said, and if you'd take a closer look at the numbers you'd realise it (they don't in any way disprove the point i was making). The percentile difference between those with college degrees and without is minimal, and when taking into account the notorious inaccuracy of polling (largely driven by perception, people who are educated are far more likely to think they believe in such things, but when practical circumstances emerge, show that they are in favour of the suppression of speech and such), they cannot be considered as being significant. Thus lack of 'education' is clearly not the driving factor in this problem. The differences regarding education cannot be used to explain why more educated generations are more intolerant.

The plain fact that University campuses (places supposedly for free-thought and inquiry), have become the biggest institutions for conformity and the banning of free expression, shows that education is not an important factor here, at least, not education as it is now understood.

Nor is it consistent with the other numbers in the poll. The least educated age group polled far better than those more educated than they are, and the less educated Party (as i'm always hearing), the Republicans, are also far more likely to allow offensive speech.

What the polling data does actually suggest is that life experience is the actual most important factor (that, or not being a Democrat). When you've lived through enough you stop being petty - the young are notoriously petty and ignorant.

I don't know in what world such a slight statistical variation in a single poll proves what i was saying wrong in any way, shape or form. We are talking a handful of percentage points here.