Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-22-2018, 10:55 PM   #16
Terahite
Free Nick Young
 
Terahite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: unban NY!!
Posts: 3,856
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
Are you talking about the comment section of websites?

I think it's because political comment sections get littered with bully type comments against different groups, and by the nature of it I imagine liberals are less tolerant of such attacks, while right wingers feel more empowered by such comments.

someone passed their sophistry 101 class
Terahite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 10:58 PM   #17
Lamar Doom
Fresh Kid Turned Rotten
 
Lamar Doom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 6,743
Arrow Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

I'm extremely interested in learning more about what liberals and republicans do from you guys.
Lamar Doom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 11:20 PM   #18
Akrazotile
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15,489
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
You are severely lacking information about how this country runs, the division of power, Supreme Court, etc. As such I can't continue with this. Not in a rude kind of way, you just are completely unaware of so much. Your way of thinking is simplistically saying, "This is the constitution, this is what I read, so this is what it means." And then go on judging everything in a more dogmatic, simplistic way. In a sense it's almost religious.

And once again, free speech protects you from getting killed for what you believe in. Simple as that, and that's very big. It should have nothing to do with protecting you from a private business.


This is an embarrassing dodge. You should be ashamed to have posted this tbh.

Continuing to tell me what free speech is - which I and everyone here already knows - in order to change the topic from your unwillingness to answer a simple question is a sad exercise in diversion.

What we all can see here is that you believe the government should only protect those people and those rights that are of particular concern to you personally. When government involvement doesn't suit your personal agenda, you are against government involvement.

You don't have a specific, universal conviction that you apply equally. You agree with the general idea of government involvement when it suits your particular agenda, and disagree with the concept of government involvement if it doesnt suit your particular agenda.

You're a hypocrite, we've all just witnessed it, and there isn't really much more to say about that. What's worse is you're a pretentious hypocrite, trying to signal deep understanding of legal, philosophical, social concepts, to the point of suggesting your knowledge is "too far beyond mine" as a pretext to avoid answering a simple question, which will expose you as a hypocritical, selfish clown.

Silly fool.
Akrazotile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 11:31 PM   #19
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,808
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrazotile
This is an embarrassing dodge. You should be ashamed to have posted this tbh.

Continuing to tell me what free speech is - which I and everyone here already knows - in order to change the topic from your unwillingness to answer a simple question is a sad exercise in diversion.

What we all can see here is that you believe the government should only protect those people and those rights that are of particular concern to you personally. When government involvement doesn't suit your personal agenda, you are against government involvement.

You don't have a specific, universal conviction that you apply equally. You agree with the general idea of government involvement when it suits your particular agenda, and disagree with the concept of government involvement if it doesnt suit your particular agenda.

You're a hypocrite, we've all just witnessed it, and there isn't really much more to say about that. What's worse is you're a pretentious hypocrite, trying to signal deep understanding of legal, philosophical, social concepts, to the point of suggesting your knowledge is "too far beyond mine" as a pretext to avoid answering a simple question, which will expose you as a hypocritical, selfish clown.

Silly fool.

The best part was how he claimed this isn't ideology but something that's "evolved over a hundred years" lolwut

That's someone that doesn't believe in the constitution and believes it's a "living document" and only uses it to suit his or her whims.
Hawker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 11:47 PM   #20
Akrazotile
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15,489
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
The best part was how he claimed this isn't ideology but something that's "evolved over a hundred years" lolwut

That's someone that doesn't believe in the constitution and believes it's a "living document" and only uses it to suit his or her whims.


I was genuinely startled by his cartoonish pretension. The way he managed to say absolutely nothing coherent with such condescension was a clinic in cringe.


Quote:
You are severely lacking information about how this country runs, the division of power, Supreme Court, etc. As such I can't continue with this. Not in a rude kind of way, you just are completely unaware of so much. Your way of thinking is simplistically saying, "This is the constitution, this is what I read, so this is what it means." And then go on judging everything in a more dogmatic, simplistic way. In a sense it's almost religious.

Like, I just asked a simple question bro. If youre too insecure in your views to have a convo about it then just say so, but dont type out that bird shit.
Akrazotile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2018, 11:55 PM   #21
jstern
NBA lottery pick
 
jstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,636
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrazotile
This is an embarrassing dodge. You should be ashamed to have posted this tbh.

Continuing to tell me what free speech is - which I and everyone here already knows - in order to change the topic from your unwillingness to answer a simple question is a sad exercise in diversion.

What we all can see here is that you believe the government should only protect those people and those rights that are of particular concern to you personally. When government involvement doesn't suit your personal agenda, you are against government involvement.

You don't have a specific, universal conviction that you apply equally. You agree with the general idea of government involvement when it suits your particular agenda, and disagree with the concept of government involvement if it doesnt suit your particular agenda.

You're a hypocrite, we've all just witnessed it, and there isn't really much more to say about that. What's worse is you're a pretentious hypocrite, trying to signal deep understanding of legal, philosophical, social concepts, to the point of suggesting your knowledge is "too far beyond mine" as a pretext to avoid answering a simple question, which will expose you as a hypocritical, selfish clown.

Silly fool.

Forget about my second paragraph, (which I knew I should have left out, because you were going to laser focus on why you disagree with it and use it as an absolute excuse to yourself that you're completely right and I'm wrong).

I don't claim to know more than anyone, but do know enough to see that you have a very superficial view of the constitution and in particular the way the US government works. That's not your fault, because it's not something that you or anyone else will understand unless they went to school for it, or spend months reading textbooks.

And that's the major problem with people and the internet, their knowledge is so superficial and based on superficial logic that it makes them sound so ignorant.

Since this is a basketball forum, the only way I can describe it would be a 14 year old casual fan trying to tell a Bulls fan since 1980 about Michael Jordan when they've barely seen Lebron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
The best part was how he claimed this isn't ideology but something that's "evolved over a hundred years" lolwut

That's someone that doesn't believe in the constitution and believes it's a "living document" and only uses it to suit his or her whims.

Perfect example of PURE dogmatic ignorance. God bless the founding fathers that saves this country from people.
jstern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 12:00 AM   #22
Akrazotile
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15,489
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
Forget about my second paragraph, (which I knew I should have left out, because you were going to laser focus on why you disagree with it and use it as an absolute excuse to yourself that you're completely right and I'm wrong).

I don't claim to know more than anyone, but do know enough to see that you have a very superficial view of the constitution and in particular the way the US government works. That's not your fault, because it's not something that you or anyone else will understand unless they went to school for it, or spend months reading textbooks.

And that's the major problem with people and the internet, their knowledge is so superficial and based on superficial logic that it makes them sound so ignorant.

Since this is a basketball forum, the only way I can describe it would be a 14 year old casual fan trying to tell a Bulls fan since 1980 about Michael Jordan when they've barely seen Lebron.


Lel.

Im not asking you about any specific laws or statutes or court cases.

Im asking you WHAT YOU THINK. Im asking FOR YOUR OPINION.

Textbooks arent gonna have the answer. They cant tell you how to think.

I guess thatís the problem here.
Akrazotile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 12:29 AM   #23
jstern
NBA lottery pick
 
jstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,636
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrazotile
Lel.

Im not asking you about any specific laws or statutes or court cases.

Im asking you WHAT YOU THINK. Im asking FOR YOUR OPINION.

Textbooks arent gonna have the answer. They cant tell you how to think.

I guess thatís the problem here.

No, a private company should not be allowed to discriminate when hiring. Particularly if it's a bigger company, and especially if the person is American. If someone has say one store, and they hate blacks, then I personally don't think they should hire them, because of the environment that it will create, but they better not state the reason.

The government is allowed to dictate the hiring practices, based on race, gender, etc, because these people are American citizens. But a company is certainly in their right not to hire somebody if they don't meet some other qualifications, such as the way they dress, etc. The government does not dictate that.

The government already impose free speech mandate for work, you're allow to say whatever you want at work, or in your free time, and they will not arrest you or force the company you work for to fire you. You can wear a shirt with a Photoshop image of Obama's face on a monkey's body that's ****ing another monkey, and the US government will not arrest you. That is free speech.

But just like a company can refuse to hire you based on the way you dress, then they can also fire you for wearing that Obama shirt. OR they can keep you. The only time where this would be a discrimination issue would be if they fired you for having that Obama t-shirt, but let others who wear the same shirt keep their jobs.
jstern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 12:51 AM   #24
Akrazotile
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 15,489
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
No, a private company should not be allowed to discriminate when hiring. Particularly if it's a bigger company, and especially if the person is American. If someone has say one store, and they hate blacks, then I personally don't think they should hire them, because of the environment that it will create, but they better not state the reason.

The government is allowed to dictate the hiring practices, based on race, gender, etc, because these people are American citizens. But a company is certainly in their right not to hire somebody if they don't meet some other qualifications, such as the way they dress, etc. The government does not dictate that.

The government already impose free speech mandate for work, you're allow to say whatever you want at work, or in your free time, and they will not arrest you or force the company you work for to fire you. You can wear a shirt with a Photoshop image of Obama's face on a monkey's body that's ****ing another monkey, and the US government will not arrest you. That is free speech.

But just like a company can refuse to hire you based on the way you dress, then they can also fire you for wearing that Obama shirt. OR they can keep you. The only time where this would be a discrimination issue would be if they fired you for having that Obama t-shirt, but let others who wear the same shirt keep their jobs.


Ok. But listen.

All Constitutional prohibitions on discrimination extend to government activity only. That's what "all men are created equal", "due process under law", etc. is all about. It wasn't originally written as an obligation for a private company to to hire employees or serve customers without discrimination. Right? So NEITHER free speech, nor civil rights, has anything to do with private business. Agreed?

But you are suggesting the government SHOULD take the extra step of telling privately owned companies they cannot discriminate in hiring or in serving. So why don't you think the government should ALSO take the extra step of telling companies they cannot fire people for exercising their rights to free speech?

If you're going to take the right not to be discriminated against by government, and write up laws extending it to the private sector, why not do the exact same thing for free speech?

That's what I'm asking you.
Akrazotile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 01:16 AM   #25
GimmeThat
NBA rookie of the year
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 6,272
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

there are certain things where the world is grand when a 10 year old sees the same thing as the 50 year old

and certain things where a 50 year old ought to be able to render as wilderness, while which a 10 year old learns to mate
GimmeThat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2018, 06:40 PM   #26
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,808
Default Re: Why do liberal media outlets ban discussions while republican outlets encourage it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
Forget about my second paragraph, (which I knew I should have left out, because you were going to laser focus on why you disagree with it and use it as an absolute excuse to yourself that you're completely right and I'm wrong).

I don't claim to know more than anyone, but do know enough to see that you have a very superficial view of the constitution and in particular the way the US government works. That's not your fault, because it's not something that you or anyone else will understand unless they went to school for it, or spend months reading textbooks.

And that's the major problem with people and the internet, their knowledge is so superficial and based on superficial logic that it makes them sound so ignorant.

Since this is a basketball forum, the only way I can describe it would be a 14 year old casual fan trying to tell a Bulls fan since 1980 about Michael Jordan when they've barely seen Lebron.



Perfect example of PURE dogmatic ignorance. God bless the founding fathers that saves this country from people.

The only one coming off dogmatic is you bud. There are historians out there that disagree with accommodation laws for businesses. Academics don't own the thought and opinions of this matter.

You sound like Paul Krugman.
Hawker is online now   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:


Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:52 PM.






NBA BASKETBALL FORUM KEY LINKS:

NBA Basketball

NBA Rumors

Basketball Blog

NBA Videos

NBA Free Agents

NBA Free Agency

NBA Summer Leagues

Utah Summer League

Sacramento Summer League

Vegas NBA Summer League

Search Site

FOLLOW US
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy