1 1
markharju

Biden Team Member Advocates Thought-Crime Laws

Recommended Posts

(edited)

Your non-sequitor makes no sense to me. Incitement is already unlawful under US constitutional test. To nationalize thought crimes is Orwellian. I'm an American and will therefore say what I fucking well please, thank you very much (to the Founders).

Edited by markharju

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, markharju said:

To nationalize thought crimes is Orwellian. I'm an American and will therefore say what I fucking well please, thank you very much (to the Founders).

I actually read the article, it says no such thing about nationalizing thought crimes. He says at the end:

Quote

Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?

Now I don't even know this person, but he doesn't represent the Biden administration or the entire left. So why are you implying the entire left is calling for this? Do you think he represents the Biden administration? He doesn't, he's just one opinion columnist.

Trump lost, get over it. Get some therapy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markharju said:

Remember, this piece of shit was voted for by leftist fucktards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-america-needs-hate-speech-law/

Actually, I checked again and the piece was written by a Richard Stengel. I don't remember anyone voting him into office, the person who won was Joe Biden.

 

basically markharju:

random columnist: says something

markharju: AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH Biden's implementing ORWELLIAN laws kill them all! $%"£^%$£%$

 

You do know something a columnist says doesn't make it law right? Nor does it mean everyone agrees with the columnist, least of all the new president-elect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, olofscience said:

Actually, I checked again and the piece was written by a Richard Stengel. I don't remember anyone voting him into office, the person who won was Joe Biden.

 

basically markharju:

random columnist: says something

markharju: AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH Biden's implementing ORWELLIAN laws kill them all! $%"£^%$£%$

 

You do know something a columnist says doesn't make it law right? Nor does it mean everyone agrees with the columnist, least of all the new president-elect.

He's a major Biden staffer. That means he came along for the ride. Geez, why do I have to dumb everything down in this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, markharju said:

He's a major Biden staffer. That means he came along for the ride. Geez, why do I have to dumb everything down in this forum?

Yeah but he wasn't voted into office. Your brain might struggle to tell people apart - you should get it checked - but he's not Biden.

Additionally, the president can't change state laws. Trump is trying and failing, especially with state election laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Yeah but he wasn't voted into office. Your brain might struggle to tell people apart - you should get it checked - but he's not Biden.

Additionally, the president can't change state laws. Trump is trying and failing, especially with state election laws.

This motherfucking Biden staffer is pushing for it at THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, markharju said:

No I won't. I'm angry that some leftist piece of shit even dared to challenge the Bill of Rights.

What use is that anger then?

Trump is challenging democracy by refusing to concede. Which is far more consequential than what someone wrote on a random website. Any anger on that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, markharju said:

This motherfucking Biden staffer is pushing for it at THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

Then Congress will have to write a bill, and vote on it, then the Senate will vote on it too. Who holds the Senate again?

Please educate yourself on how things work. A Biden staffer calling for something isn't worth getting angry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Then Congress will have to write a bill, and vote on it, then the Senate will vote on it too. Who holds the Senate again?

Please educate yourself on how things work. A Biden staffer calling for something isn't worth getting angry about.

This is how incrementalism works. Please educate yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, olofscience said:

Then Congress will have to write a bill, and vote on it, then the Senate will vote on it too. Who holds the Senate again?

Please educate yourself on how things work. A Biden staffer calling for something isn't worth getting angry about.

Well there were five million more leftists than GOP voters. Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall is driving the anger. The flow of power from elections leading to controls on lies, feeding dangerous right wing groups. Many counties have laws regarding hate speech.

Don't worry it will be a couple more years before the US adopts them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, markharju said:

This is how incrementalism works. Please educate yourself.

You're about as right about this as your predictions about post-election violence.

But then your prediction about post-election violence depended on your prediction that Trump was going to win, so that's another wrong prediction that "we heard here first".

Why should I listen to you again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Good you you do know whats coming.

Yes, I know what's coming, just as in the UK: A white man is jailed for saying "good morning" to a black woman. I'm not going to dumb this down again: "hate speech" is highly subjective, and is therefore what a bureaucrat (egged on by grievance groups) decides it is. No thanks. I'll stick with the First Amendment. AND THE SECOND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You're about as right about this as your predictions about post-election violence.

But then your prediction about post-election violence depended on your prediction that Trump was going to win, so that's another wrong prediction that "we heard here first".

Why should I listen to you again?

There is plenty of post-election violence. You're not being allowed to see it (DC last weekend, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, markharju said:

He's a major Biden staffer. That means he came along for the ride. Geez, why do I have to dumb everything down in this forum?

Saying dumb shit is not the same as dumbing something down. Why do I have to explain that to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, markharju said:

Yes, I know what's coming, just as in the UK: A white man is jailed for saying "good morning" to a black woman. I'm not going to dumb this down again: "hate speech" is highly subjective, and is therefore what a bureaucrat (egged on by grievance groups) decides it is. No thanks. I'll stick with the First Amendment. AND THE SECOND.

You do know that the first and second amendments were crafted by politicians? Rumor has it that the entire US constitution was written by politicians. Its all ok when trump buys Newsmax you can get your daily feast of rumor, hate speech and b.s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, markharju said:

Yes, I know what's coming, just as in the UK: A white man is jailed for saying "good morning" to a black woman. I'm not going to dumb this down again: 

Good, because that’s already the dumbest thing I’ll read all week. 
 

Isn’t it funny how those who dismiss BLM and other social justice movements are terrified at the thought of anything which could possibly allow them to be profiled and discriminated against (no matter how laughably unlikely that is)?
 

Imagine if you were black. Imagine if you actually were profiled in the way you just imagined, every day in every conceivable walk of life. Then imagine how righteously fucking angry you would be about that profiling really happening, given how angry you are about the profiling you just purely imagined?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, markharju said:

Yes, I know what's coming, just as in the UK: A white man is jailed for saying "good morning" to a black woman. I'm not going to dumb this down again: "hate speech" is highly subjective, and is therefore what a bureaucrat (egged on by grievance groups) decides it is. No thanks. I'll stick with the First Amendment. AND THE SECOND.

You got a cite for that? I'd like to see the context. It's quite permissible to say "good morning" to people in the UK. If you have a restraining order, or if the rest of the sentence is something like "you fucking African bitch," then maybe not so much. Context matters.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1