Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:42 pm**

Possibly.

Fortunately wars of words generally don't get people killed.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:29 pm**

Until someone makes their point with a rifle and a recruiting office, or a jet plane and an office building.

Big things are made up of little things, words lead to actions, and this bullshit with destroying someones' life because they don't approve of gay marriage isn't going to lead anywhere good. But fuckit.... the "good guys" are winning right now, so it's fine.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:35 pm**

Is that seriously what you took from that? Wow.

Of course it's not good. But besides repealing Freedom of Speech what do you recommend? Every person has the right not to do business with a person or company they don't like; if it becomes political and a mob do you force people to go buy a cake they don't want from a baker they don't like just so that baker doesn't suffer consequences for angering the mob? Every person has the right to state their political views on Twitter; if it becomes a mob of people talking about one target do you now make it illegal for them to say anything negative?

I'm not seeing any solutions yet. I certainly don't have any myself, but at least I can state that the current problems are better than the only extreme alternative I've been able to formulate so far.

EDIT: Okay, here's one possible solution: use government tax money to prop up businesses attacked by social media mobs and to pay damages to people wronged by social media mobs. But I don't think that's an improvement; it becomes too easy to game the system and I'd rather not see my money going to either nazi hate groups or militant feminists or anyone in between.

Edited By TPRJones on 1437100874

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:41 pm**

Yeah, "wow." I predict push-back from this recent spate of social change OR ELSE, and if some charismatic leader emerges, it could get bad.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:44 pm**

The key thing about these social justice warriors is they never take action, they just talk a lot. You don't get many progressive shooters hitting schools. It's just not in their nature. Most of them would piss their pants if they were in the same room as a gun.

I don't think you need to worry about that. At most they'll say mean things about you and arrange boycotts of your businesses. As long as there are enough normal people still around to keep you in business you'll be fine. And if not ... well, if they really do become the majority then so be it; by the rules of democracy that makes them in the right doesn't it?

I don't like that last bit, but there's truth in it. One of the problems with democracy, IMO.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:50 pm**

what does it mean when a person may say a perfectly legal but unpopular thing, and folks band together to destroy their livelihood?

Depends what that constitutes. If "destroying your livelihood" means not patronizing your biz or protesting outside it and driving away customers, then that's legal. If they set fire to your house, not so much. Slander and libel? Grey area.

I'm not seeing any solutions yet.

Because democracy tends to be expensive and relies heavily on a citizenry that votes intelligently. I can only presume federal, state, and local governments have let every corner of the public education system decay to crumbling stupidity expressly for the purpose of making its graduates easier to trick.

Edited By Malcolm on 1437101770

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:54 pm**

Slander and libel is not grey. That's illegal, too. It's just that most people using those words that aren't lawyers don't really know what they mean.

Hell, some lawyers that throw those words around don't know what they really mean, either.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:58 pm**

TPRJones wrote:Slander and libel is not grey. That's illegal, too. It's just that most people using those words that aren't lawyers don't really know what they mean.

Hell, some lawyers that throw those words around don't know what they really mean, either.

You can hide slander/libel behind parody laws without too much trouble, much like how Hustler beat Jerry Falwell in that one court case. You aren't breaking the letter of the law, but you're fucking its spirit in the ass by prefacing your verbal thorns with an implied, "This is entirely fictitious and in the tradition of artistic comedy and expression."

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:07 pm**

what does it mean when a person may say a perfectly legal but unpopular thing, and folks band together to destroy their livelihood?

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards "they got what they deserved". Not because I agree with the mob or because I disagree with any statements the business might have made; I'm talking about the general case. Because part of running a business of any size is public relations, and if you screw up your public relations so badly that you get an angry mob after you then you are too incompetent to be running a business.

Now if we're talking about something the owner says as their own private self - with no relation to the business involved - splashing back onto the business then that's a bit different I find that distasteful and unfortunate. But then again, if you are going to be relying on the good will of the public to patronize your business you do need to keep that in mind at all times, I guess. This scenario is more in that grey area than a business making an unpopular statement in it's own name.

Edited By TPRJones on 1437102464

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:15 pm**

Every person has the right not to do business with a person or company they don't like; if it becomes political and a mob do you force people to go buy a cake they don't want from a baker they don't like just so that baker doesn't suffer consequences for angering the mob?

I agree with you completely, but Gordon also has a legit point.

The trend of public shaming folks is pushing the opposition underground. It's causing resentment. It's basically telling people their opinions and beliefs don't matter. Eventually, there will be a backlash. I hope it's a peaceful one.

And people aren't stopping at boycotts, they're pressuring others, who might not even agree with them, to boycott. Not going to a bakery you don't agree with or like is one thing. Attempting to get everyone to not go there so they're forced out of business is a whole other thing.

I want gay people to be able to be married. I don't think Chick-Fil-A needs to be forced out of business because their company president disagrees with me.

In the short term there will be huge success, but in the long term you're creating a cancer, and the more you ignore it, the worse it will become.

Education and tolerance is a better way to spread ideas and beliefs than force and public shaming. Remember that time people publicly shamed religious folks, and they took it well and quietly stopped believing their religion to be right?

And honestly, lately I believe the "intolerant religious" folks have been the more tolerant ones, while the "tolerant" progressives have been the intolerant, hate filled monsters.

The key thing about these social justice warriors is they never take action, they just talk a lot. You don't get many progressive shooters hitting schools. It's just not in their nature. Most of them would piss their pants if they were in the same room as a gun.

I'm not sure that's true. I get what you're saying, but that's an assumption based on stereotypes.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:19 pm**

I agree with you in essence on all points. And I fully acknowledge that GORDON has a point. The problem is I don't see a solution that doesn't involve giving up at least some of the Bill of Rights.

The real solution is to change society to make people more forgiving and understanding of each other. But you can't do that sort of thing with force of law.

Edited By TPRJones on 1437103248

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:29 pm**

The problem is I don't see a solution that doesn't involve giving up at least some of the Bill of Rights.

The best I can do is this:
If you were helping a little old lady across a street how would you do it? Would you grab her by the ankle and drag her across? Build a catapult and launch her? Maybe cut her up into little pieces, stuff them into a bag, and then drop it on the other side?

Or would you simply extend your arm and slowly help her across at a pace she can handle?

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:34 pm**

Would you grab her by the ankle and drag her across?

Is there a car about to run her over?

Or would you simply extend your arm and slowly help her across at a pace she can handle?

They can walk at whatever pace they want. If they don't get moving quickly enough, traffic will kill them.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:34 pm**

Well, of course, but again that's not a legal solution. How do you go about changing society so that people act more reasonably?

I'm concerned when I hear people say that these pilings-on shouldn't be legal, because the implications of that aren't good. Just as GORDON is worried about a future full of roaming mobs of literal PC Police, I'm worried about a future that sees a curtailing of our civil rights in the interest of countering those mobs. I don't think it would come to that, but then I never would have predicted just how many of our civil rights would be taken away as a reaction to 9/11, either.

EDIT: Sorry, Malcolm, bad edit timing on my part.

Edited By TPRJones on 1437104383

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:35 pm**

TPRJones wrote:Well, of course, but again that's not a legal solution. How do you go about changing society so that people act properly?

First off, you let everyone who disagrees on "properly" all murder each other. Then the survivors move on with life.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:43 pm**

TPRJones wrote:Well, of course, but again that's not a legal solution. How do you go about changing society so that people act more reasonably?

I'm concerned when I hear people say that these pilings-on shouldn't be legal, because the implications of that aren't good. Just as GORDON is worried about a future full of roaming mobs of literal PC Police, I'm worried about a future that sees a curtailing of our civil rights in the interest of countering those mobs. I don't think it would come to that, but then I never would have predicted just how many of our civil rights would be taken away as a reaction to 9/11, either.

The atmosphere of debate has changed. I've said this before.

People used to be able to have different opinions about other people and it wouldn't cost them their... whatever. And if someone got too obnoxious about it, he got a shot to the chops and manners were learned.

Now these minor attitude adjustments get you thrown in jail. No one ever learns nothin except "mob rules."

I don't know. I think the Bill of Rights could remain untouched if... people weren't snowflakes. If people didn't need a "safe place" whenever they heard someone near them had a different opinion. I don't know. I'm not making my argument very goodly.

Tolerance is great. Tolerating those who hate you and everything you stand for and honestly wish you were dead and will do their small part to make that happen is a suicide pact for a society. maybe.

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:51 pm**

People used to be able to have different opinions about other people and it wouldn't cost them their... whatever.

Eh. That was one of the dirtiest elections in this country's history, if not the sole holder of that crown. Adams and Jefferson went at each other with claws and venom. Additionally, I dare you to get a time machine, travel back to 1840s Georgia and start preaching abolitionism. Go try to be a British sympathizer during the War of 1812. Try to be a German during WWI or living in one of those awesome concentration camps back in WWII for the Japanese.

Tolerating those who hate you and everything you stand for and honestly wish you were dead and will do their small part to make that happen is a suicide pact for a society.

They can wish and hate all they want. Until they take actions, I don't care.

I think the Bill of Rights could remain untouched if... people weren't snowflakes.

One of the primary arguments against that thing was people might get to thinking those are literally the only rights you get and anything not listed is off limits or up for grabs. Back in the day, sexual orientation didn't even figure into the equation, but freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and the press were en vogue. The freedom to fuck whomever you please looks like it belongs with those other four, but the ... ahem, "morals" of the day would never permit such a thing. The freedom to walk around with whatever skin colour you were born with also seems like something that's a given, but yet again, a few people had to be reminded.

It is a document that exists partially because some people needed fundamental precepts spelled out for them on parchment.

Edited By Malcolm on 1437105701

Posted: **Thu Jul 16, 2015 11:56 pm**

I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want. To me that sounds fair.

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:00 am**

GORDON wrote:I'd like to propose a new law that if a person organizes a mob with the sole intent of hurting you financially, and they succeed, you are allowed to punch them in the nose as hard as you want. To me that sounds fair.

Whoa, so every person in Cuba gets to take a shot at us?

Edited By Malcolm on 1437105637

Posted: **Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:03 am**

They can walk at whatever pace they want. If they don't get moving quickly enough, traffic will kill them.

Traffic might kill her, that's kind of my point. I know that if you treat her like shit her grand kids are going to rise up and murder you and your whole family. Treat her well and they'll be on your side. Hell, even if you can't get her out of traffic's way in time, YOU didn't kill her, thus her grand kids won't hold a grudge.

I'm concerned when I hear people say that these pilings-on shouldn't be legal, because the implications of that aren't good.

Well, I don't believe I'm asking for laws. I'm saying the movement behind gay rights or any other issue should be more organized and preaching education and tolerance over blind hatred and intolerance. It's just funny that the people claiming they're tolerant are easily the most intolerant.

Those bakers weren't asking for gay people to be annihilated, but their opponents want the bakers annihilated.

Can't we all just get along?

Welcome to Thunderdome

SC church shootings