Politics

[blueflower999]

Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots.

Ah yes, religious people who are actually convicted are such terrible people. They're all less human than all the minorities that need the shield of "they can get upset for any reason." I mean tbh 100% of the people who call themselves "Christians" should have been opposed to the decision but even that wasn't the case.

It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that.

Says someone on the left. I don't really consider this even valid because the left thrives by attacking the right like this. 

Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it. It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.

So it's a fundamental right as long as it doesn't make anyone feel bad? I'm allowed to express myself in whatever way I want as long as I don't hurt someone else's fweelings because they can't accept that not everyone has to agree with them

So, don't make fun of bigots?

I really hate this word. A bigot is someone who can't tolerate other viewpoints. Nocturne is being incredibly tolerate of other viewpoints while still retaining his own. It's the Left that insists on everyone's viewpoints being akin to their political agenda, or else you're labeled as said "bigot". Which doesn't make any sense, frankly. It's honestly being used on the wrong people that the definition would suggest. 

EDIT: Ninja'd. Alright.

[Dude]

o no not the left theyll kill us all

[Altissimo]

Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.

Just as we have freedom of speech, so too do you have the freedom to choose what media to consume and not consume. It's not as if the contents of this are being broadcast on the main page of the NSM forums in bright bold letters for all to see. What would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?

(This thread is more about semantics at this point but the discussion was about politics. In a thread titled "Politics". I don't see the problem.)

[Dude]

What would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?

New topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS

[Dudeman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

Get yourselves edumacated, kids. It's gonna be a wild ride.

[Altissimo]

New topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS

I think rainbows should be illegal

[Dude]

My uncle used to coach the Hawaiian Rainbows

[Dudeman]

♪ You are my sunshine, my only sunshine ♪
♪ You make me happy when skies are grey ♪
♪ You'll never know dear, how much I love you ♪
♪ Please don't take my sunshine away~ ♪

[InsigTurtle]

I believe that rainbows should only be allowed in the country if they can contribute to the US by paying taxes, working, and integrating into our American society. All freeloader rainbows are a drain on the economy and resources should not be reallocated to help them.

[Dudeman]

Should we declare war on the sun or the rain to prevent more rainbows from infiltrating society? Soon enough the Aurora to Rainbow ratio will tip in a disadvantageous direction and we need to decide what steps to take to prevent that.

[Dude]

My uncle used to coach the Hawaiian Rainbows

i officially cannot find this anywhere now wtf

[blueflower999]

[Waddle Bro]

Waddle, sweetie, I've seen you make some good posts arguing your points before but this one just doesn't do it for me.

:] for some reason people always tend to dislike it when I point out their mistakes

I'm trying really hard to understand this but I can't. I realize that the definition of offensive is subjective, but what's factual is, obviously, not subjective. Whether something is offensive or not has no bearing on whether something is factual or not. That's why Slow's post that essentially said "everything that's offensive is wrong" set me off. 

Whether something is factual or not isn't technically related to how an individual interprets it, meaning it's not in straight correlation to how an individual defines it!!
also "wrong" can also be taken as "ethically wrong"

Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.

first of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
You assume "they" and "their" actions represent the entirety of the left view, but in reality it has no effect on the actual values.
Second of all, in your example they weren't even denying people's right to be upset, as they were offended as well, but by the offended people.

Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.

If you don't mind opening your philosophy a bit for me fren, to me this only seems like a red herring

As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you seem deadset that the left doesn't think like that. If the left has a right to its opinion, why shouldn't anyone else have the right?

Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level. I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?

If you're white and act racist towards fe. the asian people, you're clearly not gonna act that way towards other white people. That's known as discrimination and undermines the right to be treated as an equal individual of the society.
also you're speaking from your own personal and individual perspective, and not representing the entirety of america. :x
You're absolutely right about when restricting "freedom", you restrict individualism. But that's exactly what laws and human rights do, and it's a dilemma to say should laws and human rights exist in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation is a regulated thing for a reason, and

ARTICLE 10

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

^this explains pretty well why.

Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?

as long as you live in democracy you should be fine fren.


ninja'd @maestro if you're gonna do something then please do something about this off-topic clutter .-.

[FireArrow]

Content Warning

Spoiler

MLF you have absolutely no right to come in here and say extremely conceited and insulting things, then act like you're the good guy by changing the subject.

To everyone else: There is no straight equivalent for homophobia because one doesn't exist. Don't you dare claim to be a "victim." Are straight kids driven to suicide because their friends and family disown them under the name of god, something they were raised to believe is a loving entity who looks after everyone? Are straight people physically assaulted and raped because they're straight? Huh, but I guess having your church rightfully accused of being bigoted is just an absolutely horrible crime. Oh, and that's also totally different from freedom of speech - that right only applies to me when I want to be politically incorrect!

[close]

Much of our western culture came from Greece and Rome, yes?
Because,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
In Rome, you were allowed to have gay sex as long as you took the dominant position  Acceptable partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers.
In Greece, instead of sexuality being limited to the sexuality in and of itself, it was assigned to dominant and submissive roles, dominant roles being associated with masculinity and submissive roles being associated with femininity.
inb4 someone says "down with the patriarchy"

Along with many other civilizations. Homophobia came around with the Roman Catholic Church (In rome, it was only acceptable when it was a democracy, not when it was a christian autocracy iirc.) Anyways, this is redundant to the point both you and I were trying to make, since I posted that in your defense.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

The only way people use that word is in a derogatory way. "Blinded by political correctness," etc. When something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.

Most of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).