Anthony Cumia fired from SirusXM for racist rant.
-
I'll find one when I get home. I ask for evidence with other posters' claims so I'll try to do the same (though evidence is hard for some to find it seems)
Yes not everything is on the internet and if it is it might not be easy to find.
It does seem like most people being punished for offensive language are ones making fun of the certain few minorities.
WSS
Yes not everything is on the internet and if it is it might not be easy to find.
It does seem like most people being punished for offensive language are ones making fun of the certain few minorities.
WSS
No, I meant that a lot of posters on here have a tough time sometimes when it comes to finding evidence for whatever they just said when they are asked.
As for conservatives getting mad, it seems like Stewy, Walter and co posted some things they were mad about and liberals weren't. Maybe those would work?
But, like I was picturing before: War On Christmas
http://www.theblaze.com/news/war-on-christmas/
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/25/war-christmas
Here is the American Family Association getting mad about the Harvey Milk stamp, http://news.yahoo.com/american-family-association-rejected-harvey-milk-stamp-donation-175700629.html , though I'm probably getting into different territory now
-
Actually what I was looking for is examples were conservatives where offended and liberals punished for it.
It's not all that hard to find examples of conservatives being pissed off about something.
WSS
-
Oh, "and punished for it". Hmmm...
Well would you consider any advancement of Christian power or defeats to gay rights as being "punished"?
Or do you want a liberal public figure that said something conservatives didn't like, and then that public figure's company "punished" them for it?
I can't really think of any for the second. I'd have to look around. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't really keep bookmarks on my browser for that sort if stuff. It seems though, that conservatives are generally on the wrong side of society's advancing moral compass (whether or not you agree with where that's going). It would make sense they get hit for it more because there are probably more saying things others would consider "old fashioned" (to put it lightly). I mean, by definition that's what "conserve" could mean.
I'll look around a little after work. Maybe I'll find something
-
I think part of the problem as well is people thinking freedom of speech means you're free to be a complete asshole without any repercussions.
If I come up to you in the street and call you a cunt, I'm expressing my freedom of speech. You punching me in the mouth is the repercussions. If I stand outside your house and tell you you should go home, that immigrants are ruining the country (go far enough back we're all immigrants somehow), people will call that freedom of speech. But really it's me being an ignorant douche.
So yes, he can say what he wants - but he shouldn't be surprised if people take offence and his employer doesn't take too kindly to it.
I'd never heard of the guy before this, but I understand he hosts a show with Oprah? Guessing that wouldn't go down too well with her either.
I think part of the problem as well is people thinking freedom of speech means you're free to be a complete asshole without any repercussions.
If I come up to you in the street and call you a cunt, I'm expressing my freedom of speech. You punching me in the mouth is the repercussions.
Part 1 is that it should be. If you're going to be free. If we are not, at least that rule should apply to both sides don't you think?
Part 2 no that's certainly not an acceptable repercussion. I don't think you would advocate physical violence against anyone offends you correct?
Cmon, let's say you take your kids to a restaurant and a gay couples holding hands. You are offended. Do you have a right to go attack them?
WSS
-
I think part of the problem as well is people thinking freedom of speech means you're free to be a complete asshole without any repercussions.
If I come up to you in the street and call you a cunt, I'm expressing my freedom of speech. You punching me in the mouth is the repercussions.
Part 1 is that it should be. If you're going to be free. If we are not, at least that rule should apply to both sides don't you think?
Part 2 no that's certainly not an acceptable repercussion. I don't think you would advocate physical violence against anyone offends you correct?
Cmon, let's say you take your kids to a restaurant and a gay couples holding hands. You are offended. Do you have a right to go attack them?
WSS
Part 1 is that it should be. If you're going to be free. If we are not, at least that rule should apply to both sides don't you think?
Part 2 no that's certainly not an acceptable repercussion. I don't think you would advocate physical violence against anyone offends you correct?
Cmon, let's say you take your kids to a restaurant and a gay couples holding hands. You are offended. Do you have a right to go attack them?
WSS
Yeah I was being a little flippant. But seriously, you think it's perfectly ok for a guy to walk around Harlem in a sandwich board saying 'all niggers are cunts' or something, and then be protected when people attack him? Of course, the people attacking shouldn't be free from reprimand either.
No, you don't have the right to attack a gay couple. Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a normal way. Not going on twitter rants about how straight people are the devil or whatever.
-
Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a perverted, abnornal way.
****************************************
fixed. This liberal/progressive emotional moral relativism reeks of bs.
Anything status quo and accepted, normal human being activity is broken away from, with the "glorious" battle being
the "fringe is mainstream and okay".
For whatever reason, they live for the emotional high of getting attention, and
fighting the nonsense fights to prove the sick fringe is "mainstream". Just weird. Never ends with them, either.
-
Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a perverted, abnornal way.
****************************************
fixed. This liberal/progressive emotional moral relativism reeks of bs.
Anything status quo and accepted, normal human being activity is broken away from, with the "glorious" battle being
the "fringe is mainstream and okay".
For whatever reason, they live for the emotional high of getting attention, and
fighting the nonsense fights to prove the sick fringe is "mainstream". Just weird. Never ends with them, either.
Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a perverted, abnornal way.
****************************************
fixed. This liberal/progressive emotional moral relativism reeks of bs.
Anything status quo and accepted, normal human being activity is broken away from, with the "glorious" battle being
the "fringe is mainstream and okay".
For whatever reason, they live for the emotional high of getting attention, and
fighting the nonsense fights to prove the sick fringe is "mainstream". Just weird. Never ends with them, either.
'Abnornal'? Nah, not so fixed. The amount of time you pick woody up for his spelling/grammar mistakes, yours had better damn well be perfect, and it really isn't.
edit: had the wrong thread, thought we were on the gay bakery business
What exactly is the problem you have here Cal? Not saying you don't have a point, just not sure whether you're referring to my post, someone else's or the OP.
-
Just commenting on your use of "normal". that's all. for further explanation,
read what I posted on the "Christian baker" thread.
I didn't bring up the gay analogy here, though. That wild and crazy Steve did.
btw, Chris - nobody is perfect, and I don't always spell words correctly. Usually,
I see the mistakes as I type them, and I correct them eh? Truth is, in the other thread,
I misspelled "martyr" - I left out the "y".
But you need to understand - pretend you aren't a liberal - and know that woodpecker
is very, very, arrogant about his schooling and intelligence and the rep of his school,
blah blah blah blah...
yet he often misspells words, and uses some very inaccurate and nonsense phrases in his sentences.
Chris - I don't mess with people unless they mess with me - and disgreeing with ideas and explanations and
statements is pretty much the way it goes around here.
But still, the personal attacks for disagreeing are deserving of self-defense belligerence to a mild point.
So, while any of us can misspell a word, whatever, putting other people down because you have so much
academia that you think anybody who disagrees with you is "Retarded", etc....
deserves some extra scrutiny. I never go around putting other people down "because I am so much
smarter" and "went to a high rated school" and "I'm an "x", so you aren't, careerwise, so you suck and I
am superior" isn't going to work..
The left doesn't "own" belligerence about being disagreed with; some on the right have the same problem.
Listen, Chris, I would post fewer of my stupid opinions, except I type very, very fast.
-
Part 1 is that it should be. If you're going to be free. If we are not, at least that rule should apply to both sides don't you think?
Part 2 no that's certainly not an acceptable repercussion. I don't think you would advocate physical violence against anyone offends you correct?
Cmon, let's say you take your kids to a restaurant and a gay couples holding hands. You are offended. Do you have a right to go attack them?
WSS
Yeah I was being a little flippant. But seriously, you think it's perfectly ok for a guy to walk around Harlem in a sandwich board saying 'all niggers are cunts' or something, and then be protected when people attack him? Of course, the people attacking shouldn't be free from reprimand either.
No, you don't have the right to attack a gay couple. Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a normal way. Not going on twitter rants about how straight people are the devil or whatever.
Yeah I was being a little flippant. But seriously, you think it's perfectly ok for a guy to walk around Harlem in a sandwich board saying 'all niggers are cunts' or something, and then be protected when people attack him? Of course, the people attacking shouldn't be free from reprimand either.
No, you don't have the right to attack a gay couple. Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a normal way. Not going on twitter rants about how straight people are the devil or whatever.
1 no I don't "I think it's perfectly okay."
I said that the rules, if there are any, should be applied equally. Just to the people you choose.
And I don't think physical violence is acceptable in cases where you haven't been attacked. For instance I don't think woody should be allowed to sucker punch a family saying grace before a meal in a restaurant.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
And since you didn't like my gay couples holding hands hypothetical how about a black kid walking down the street with a boom box playing offensive hip hop music? And a white guy takes a ball bat to his head?
Equal?
And racism around every corner... Ask yourself had it been a white man who attacked him they called him a savage, an animal. As I always say reverse the races if it sounds stupid, it is stupid
WSS
-
And since you didn't like my gay couples holding hands hypothetical how about a black kid walking down the street with a boom box playing offensive hip hop music? And a white guy takes a ball bat to his head?
Equal?
And racism around every corner... Ask yourself had it been a white man who attacked him they called him a savage, an animal. As I always say reverse the races if it sounds stupid, it is stupid
WSS
And since you didn't like my gay couples holding hands hypothetical how about a black kid walking down the street with a boom box playing offensive hip hop music? And a white guy takes a ball bat to his head?
Equal?
And racism around every corner... Ask yourself had it been a white man to text him they called him a savage, an animal. As I always say reverse the races if it sounds stupid, it is stupid
WSS
You ask the guy to turn it down. If he declines, then either he's moving on, so not your problem, or causing a breach of the peace, and so it is a legal issue.
And why does it have to be a white guy? You think there's no black guys out there that when he sees some black kid walking around with his trousers hanging round his knees with a boom box on his shoulder, wearing a vest and a big gold necklace blasting out whatever crap the kids listen to these days, thinks to himself "man, that guy is an idiot, it's guys like him that make it worse for the rest of us?"
I think when he's talking about the group of people he considers savages, he means the lady that attacked him and her friends/backup/posse/entourage. I doubt he meant every black person in the world. But the way he's saying it, it certainly comes across that way, like "of course they attacked me, they're black"
-
Don't play naive. It has to be a white guy because if a black guy attacked another black guy for a boombox that was belting out the word N***** (or any offensive shit) nobody would care.
And I guess you need to cling to your double standard. I say people act like savages should be called savages regardless of race.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Just commenting on your use of "normal". that's all. for further explanation,
read what I posted on the "Christian baker" thread.
I didn't bring up the gay analogy here, though. That wild and crazy Steve did.
btw, Chris - nobody is perfect, and I don't always spell words correctly. Usually,
I see the mistakes as I type them, and I correct them eh? Truth is, in the other thread,
I misspelled "martyr" - I left out the "y".
But you need to understand - pretend you aren't a liberal - and know that woodpecker
is very, very, arrogant about his schooling and intelligence and the rep of his school,
blah blah blah blah...
yet he often misspells words, and uses some very inaccurate and nonsense phrases in his sentences.
Chris - I don't mess with people unless they mess with me - and disgreeing with ideas and explanations and
statements is pretty much the way it goes around here.
But still, the personal attacks for disagreeing are deserving of self-defense belligerence to a mild point.
So, while any of us can misspell a word, whatever, putting other people down because you have so much
academia that you think anybody who disagrees with you is "Retarded", etc....
deserves some extra scrutiny. I never go around putting other people down "because I am so much
smarter" and "went to a high rated school" and "I'm an "x", so you aren't, careerwise, so you suck and I
am superior" isn't going to work..
The left doesn't "own" belligerence about being disagreed with; some on the right have the same problem.
Listen, Chris, I would post fewer of my stupid opinions, except I type very, very fast.
Just commenting on your use of "normal". that's all. for further explanation,
read what I posted on the "Christian baker" thread.
I didn't bring up the gay analogy here, though. That wild and crazy Steve did.
btw, Chris - nobody is perfect, and I don't always spell words correctly. Usually,
I see the mistakes as I type them, and I correct them eh? Truth is, in the other thread,
I misspelled "martyr" - I left out the "y".
But you need to understand - pretend you aren't a liberal - and know that woodpecker
is very, very, arrogant about his schooling and intelligence and the rep of his school,
blah blah blah blah...
yet he often misspells words, and uses some very inaccurate and nonsense phrases in his sentences.
Chris - I don't mess with people unless they mess with me - and disgreeing with ideas and explanations and
statements is pretty much the way it goes around here.
But still, the personal attacks for disagreeing are deserving of self-defense belligerence to a mild point.
So, while any of us can misspell a word, whatever, putting other people down because you have so much
academia that you think anybody who disagrees with you is "Retarded", etc....
deserves some extra scrutiny. I never go around putting other people down "because I am so much
smarter" and "went to a high rated school" and "I'm an "x", so you aren't, careerwise, so you suck and I
am superior" isn't going to work..
The left doesn't "own" belligerence about being disagreed with; some on the right have the same problem.
Listen, Chris, I would post fewer of my stupid opinions, except I type very, very fast.
Yes, Woody has a lot of life lessons to learn. Of course he does, he's only 21 (or whatever)! But do you suppose that the 'he started it' attitude towards flinging insults around is the best example to set him? you've called me a whole bunch of things recently - I guess since I said I wish you two guys would cut out the name calling - but I haven't been responding in "self-defence," I've just been ignoring them because ultimately, does it really matter? It's just some random guy on the internet that you have a very slim chance of actually ever meeting (and if you did you'd probably have some beers and have a great time chatting shit about football).
-
and you ask him to turn it down? Weren't you the guy condoning pounding the shit out of somebody who called someone a cunt? I suppose you feel the same way about woody and Anne Coulter , right?
(probably not because she committed the egregious sin of making fun of soccer
)WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Don't play naive. It has to be a white guy because if a black guy attacked another black guy for a boombox that was belting out the word N***** (or any offensive shit) nobody would care.
And I guess you need to cling to your double standard. I say people act like savages should be called savages regardless of race.
WSS
Don't play naive. It has to be a white guy because if a black guy attacked another black guy for a boombox that was belting out the word N***** (or any offensive shit) nobody would care.
And I guess you need to cling to your double standard. I say people act like savages should be called savages regardless of race.
WSS
I don't think it's necessarily racist if anyone attacks a young man for blaring out offensive music, whether victim or assailant were black, white, red, yellow or anything. It doesn't have to have racist connotations. For example, I don't think the woman was necessarily being racist, when she attacked him. Maybe she was - maybe she's "sick of whitey always coming down here thinking he can do what he wants" and just wailed on him because he was white. Maybe she was just an uneducated diva who doesn't want anyone taking pictures of her.
Maybe some old set-in-his-ways guy sees some kid walking past his house blaring music from a boombox and takes a bat to him. Perhaps if he's black, there's a thought of "these damn niggers are ruining my neighbourhood" - perhaps not. If he's white, perhaps he just wants to "teach this punk a lesson about manners"
I'm rambling, but I hope you get my point.
-
and you ask him to turn it down? Weren't you the guy condoning pounding the shit out of somebody who called someone a cunt? I suppose you feel the same way about woody and Anne Coulter , right?
(probably not because she committed the egregious sin of making fun of soccer
)WSS
and you ask him to turn it down? Weren't you the guy condoning pounding the shit out of somebody who called someone a cunt? I suppose you feel the same way about woody and Anne Coulter , right?
(probably not because she committed the egregious sin of making fun of soccer
)WSS
Yeah, he way overreacted on that one. She was just a bad troll making generic arguments, generally weren't accurate and I didn't find funny. His outrage is what keeps her in a job.
-
But do you suppose that the 'he started it' attitude towards flinging insults around is the best example to set him? you've called me a whole bunch of things recently - I guess since I said I wish you two guys would cut out the name calling - but I haven't been responding in "self-defence,"
***************************************
A. I don't set "examples" because if I did, it wouldn't be followed. Liberal behavior on the board
simply doesn't follow "examples".
B. I am philosophically dishing out consequences to a few posters who give me crap.
C. I wish we could stop the crap, but the initiator has to stop, because that started it in the first place.
D. I included you a few times because you joined in with woody in the personal stuff, though, I'm not
sure when that exactly was. It was pretty mild, I think, but I was on a roll....
E. It is "self-defenSe" here. Is it with a "c" over there?
-
A. I don't set "examples" because if I did, it wouldn't be followed. Liberal behavior on the board
simply doesn't follow "examples".
Do as I say not do as I do? Sounds like what those nasty lefties have been accused of doing
B. I am philosophically dishing out consequences to a few posters who give me crap.
Flame wars get boring. I'm surprised that a grown man like yourself still has the appetite for it.
C. I wish we could stop the crap, but the initiator has to stop, because that started it in the first place.
If you stop responding, calling him woodpecker, insulting his intelligence at every turn, I guarantee there'll be a downturn in the insults coming in your direction.
D. I included you a few times because you joined in with woody in the personal stuff, though, I'm not
sure when that exactly was. It was pretty mild, I think, but I was on a roll....
Quite possibly I joined in - I mock everybody on here from time to time. Nothing personal, and if it caused you any offence, I'm sorry.
E. It is "self-defenSe" here. Is it with a "c" over there?
Yes, here and the rest of the English speaking world, apparently - Defense (AmE) or defence (BrE, CanE, AuE and NZE)
-
Yeah I was being a little flippant. But seriously, you think it's perfectly ok for a guy to walk around Harlem in a sandwich board saying 'all niggers are cunts' or something, and then be protected when people attack him? Of course, the people attacking shouldn't be free from reprimand either.
No, you don't have the right to attack a gay couple. Not even close to being the same thing here. The gay couple are just people in love going about their business in a normal way. Not going on twitter rants about how straight people are the devil or whatever.
1 no I don't "I think it's perfectly okay."
I said that the rules, if there are any, should be applied equally. Just to the people you choose.
And I don't think physical violence is acceptable in cases where you haven't been attacked. For instance I don't think woody should be allowed to sucker punch a family saying grace before a meal in a restaurant.
WSS
1 no I don't "I think it's perfectly okay."
I said that the rules, if there are any, should be applied equally. Just to the people you choose.
And I don't think physical violence is acceptable in cases where you haven't been attacked. For instance I don't think woody should be allowed to sucker punch a family saying grace before a meal in a restaurant.
WSS
Is it really still a sucker punch by the time I get to the third or fourth family member?
-
Sucker punch, now there's great movie. Zombies, steam powered nazis, dragons, samurais, and hot women in short skirts with guns and swords.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login