why should they be forced to buy from you or not protest you?

Not buying from a business is one thing. Ruining a decent person's career because you disagree with their political views is another.

Also, censorship via mob justice is still censorship.

Edited 4/25/2016 02:32:41

Yes, it is. You've obviously never stepped foot on a U.S college campus, or any setting dominated by liberal-leaning individuals. Refuting transgenderism will make you a persona non grata very fast.

I've been to Holland, it's way more liberal than America. None of this happens. To you, your thoughts, and to me, mine, that's the liberal motto, so I find this very hard to believe. Maybe it's since you've never been to the red spots on this map.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/2012nationwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewon.svg/1280px-2012nationwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewon.svg.png

That's a debatable point.

You've "In God We Trust" on American money, you've your president and willings always saying "by the grace of God", you've the Republicans who stand to specifically concentrate efforts in the Mashriq war to help Christians the most, all the presidential candidates are Christian, I believe, so I don't know how you can say that's debatable.

However, it's also one I never made. Where in my posts did I even bring religion into this discussion? This isn't about Christians.

It's in the same bundle of melodrama.

The liberal elite are consistently using political correctness to stomp out any view points that doesn't fit with the progressive mainstream.

That's society, and if you don't fit with it, move to Arabia. But it's not some "elite" targeting the few stragglers conservatives.

CEOs have been forced to step down for opposing gay marriage, companies have been boycotted for not supporting LGBT groups, college administrators have their careers ruined if they don't meet the social justice standard.

Has any of this actually been "forced" or is this just democratic systems of opposing that've worked? And I bet the same stuff happens to LGBT way more than those who oppose it. Maybe not in the "liberal" universities, but in Hicktown, Backwoodstate.

The FBI doesn't ostracize you from public life for your political leanings.

They definitely do. It's more than just "ostracising", though, they imprison you or investigate you for it. If it was just "ostracising", then man up, why do you want to talk to such folk who would closed-mindedly "ostracise" yourself anyway?

To you, your thoughts, and to me, mine, that's the liberal motto

From personal experience I find that statement to be laughable. I actively attend a nearby community college, and you can always pick out the liberals far easier than the conservatives. The liberals forthrightly proclaim their views, and rarely get criticized for it. Meanwhile the conservatives are usually quietly holding back or carefully tempering their words so they don't trigger the mob.

Maybe it's since you've never been to the red spots on this map.

I live in one of the red spots on that map. On average, the climate is pretty free and open. However, go to any institution and you'll quickly see a dynamic shift where certain political opinions suddenly become taboo.

You've "In God We Trust" on American money

For the time being, but forces are already at work to remove that.

all the presidential candidates are Christian

One is Jewish, but I digress.

That's society, and if you don't fit with it, move to Arabia.

I know I used a similar argument earlier, but that line of thought has its limits as does any philosophy.

I could reply to MGSB's complaints about the FBI with, "Don't like it? Move to Sweden". But that wouldn't really be fair now would it?

Has any of this actually been "forced" or is this just democratic systems of opposing that've worked?

I'll defer to my previous point: Censorship via mob justice is still censorship.

Also, forcing a leader who has by all accounts done his job and has abided by the rules fairly to step down just because he has a political a view you deem "unacceptable" is not democratic in the slightest.

Democracy is mob justice, a dictatorship of the proletariate. Don't like it? Advocate against government, so at least the mob won't have a monopoly of force.

From personal experience I find that statement to be laughable. I actively attend a nearby community college, and you can always pick out the liberals far easier than the conservatives. The liberals forthrightly proclaim their views, and rarely get criticized for it. Meanwhile the conservatives are usually quietly holding back or carefully tempering their words so they don't trigger the mob.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I really doubt America is that liberal with an unspoken rule about some thoughts. But conserves are far far from innocent in this outlook, far from anyone to criticise this. For example, you still can discriminate in hiring practices against weirdsex folk. I'm not for hiring quotas, but they should at least be consistent.

I live in one of the red spots on that map. On average, the climate is pretty free and open. However, go to any institution and you'll quickly see a dynamic shift where certain political opinions suddenly become taboo.

I don't know what this means, rephrase.

For the time being, but forces are already at work to remove that.

I don't think Obama is doing anything about it (I could be wrong), and I think all the presidential candidates except Sanders want to keep it on. There's no Christian persecution, going on in a country that is 80% Christian and has Christian governmental references and preferences down to the money.

I know I used a similar argument earlier, but that line of thought has its limits as does any philosophy.

I could reply to MGSB's complaints about the FBI with, "Don't like it? Move to Sweden". But that wouldn't really be fair now would it?

Well, the problem wouldn't be fixed if he moved to Sweden, he'd have to move to maybe China or a good American foe that probably has a great counter-intelligence programme.

Anyhow, you're complaining about society, and what it feels is acceptable, and what it does. Gays complain about the same thing, gays can even complain that not enough folk are gay. But it's society, and I think more open-mindedness if good, talking to Americans, but not needed to be mandated.

If you really want to fix the problem, become part of another society.

I'll defer to my previous point: Censorship via mob justice is still censorship.

If the folk vote to keep the NSA running, that's censorship through mob justice. If loads of folk say you're a dumbhead for being a homophobe, that's not censorship. If loads of folk boycott your business, that's not censorship, that's your crappy failing business policies.

forcing a leader who has by all accounts done his job and has abided by the rules fairly to step down

But is it forced?

For example, you still can discriminate in hiring practices against weirdsex folk.

So you're willing to criticize people for not hiring LGBTs while at the same time defending people being fired for opposing gay marriage?

I don't know what this means, rephrase.

In general you can hold whatever politics you please without getting treated like dirt for it, but inside areas like colleges you have to be careful before uttering a view which is "unacceptable". Political correctness has turned universities into echo chambers.

Anyhow, you're complaining about society, and what it feels is acceptable, and what it does. Gays complain about the same thing, gays can even complain that not enough folk are gay. But it's society, and I think more open-mindedness if good, talking to Americans, but not needed to be mandated.

There's a difference between complaining, and silencing.

I support the right of people to protest. Gay folk want to protest about society? Fine. Just as long as they don't force others to agree with them through political pressure.

I don't think you're understanding my point here. Criticizing is fine. Censorship is not.

If you really want to fix the problem, become part of another society.

So, say in a hypothetical scenario, America is about to turn fully fascist. Should I actually do something constructive to stop the change? Or should I just take the coward's way out and move to another country?

If loads of folk say you're a dumbhead for being a homophobe, that's not censorship.

No, but loads of folk ruining your job, harassing you on a regular basis, and pushing you out of public life by making you a pariah is censorship.

America is practically fascist at this point, just needs a touch of "democratic" socialism to get it on it's way.

Reading this thread gave me a cough, the sniffles and a headache. And now I'm crying sick tears.

i never thought i would say this but i agree with MGSB

Edited 4/25/2016 04:28:18

So you're willing to criticize people for not hiring LGBTs while at the same time defending people being fired for opposing gay marriage?

Well, I would say that's inconsistent, but I think the hiring quotas and wage laws apply only to things that you're born with and can't change except without loads of trouble and flaws. Gayness, bisexualism, and transgender are all natural happenings, however, opposing such things is a conscious choice that can be changed without trouble.

If the hiring/wage laws are applying to other things though, then yeah, I'd say that's inconsistent.

you can hold whatever politics you please without getting treated like dirt for it

That's an abnormality. Polit is like faith, you don't talk about it with an un-mainstream outlook unless you want to get into a quarrel.

inside areas like colleges you have to be careful before uttering a view which is "unacceptable". Political correctness has turned universities into echo chambers.

Universities are dominated by the Democratic demograph, I guess, as some others are dominated by the Republican. And sometimes, it's just nonpartisan closedmindedness, like were the September 11 Attacks a false flag?

Polit is something that many folk hold dear to heart, and if you're in a room where many folk hold it dear to heart, and they all share the same outlook except you, tread lightly.

The same goes for faith, the same goes for sports.

There's a difference between complaining, and silencing.

I support the right of people to protest. Gay folk want to protest about society? Fine. Just as long as they don't force others to agree with them through political pressure.

You're not being silenced. Silenced would be if you got arrested for your thoughts, or if the police refuse your claims. It happens in America, but not over petty things like "gays are dumb".

Gay marriage is legalised in America, but you still don't have to agree with it, and you still can speak out against it, have a thought that roughly 40% Americans have.

There, though, in gay marriage, you actually have some kind of point, though it's worth noting that marriage became corrupt already when atheists were allowed to marry, so gays aren't a new bad, and it's the government forcing faiths to do something they shouldn't have to on basis of a small minority.

But conserves are noone at all to complain about this, most notably, with gerrymandering.

So, say in a hypothetical scenario, America is about to turn fully fascist. Should I actually do something constructive to stop the change? Or should I just take the coward's way out and move to another country?

Probably anything that you could try to stop the change would be ineffective and hazardous to you. Yeah, if you're really patriotic, go ahead and try to stop your country from being corrupted more than it is, but otherwise, "take the coward's way out". It's not your problem, and if everyone can leave whenever they want, say "bye". Now, if you illegally leave through an escape tunnel or something like that, then it would really be humanitarian of you to help a few others escape, but that's only if you're humanitarian and give 10% your money to Doctors without Borders and charities and like organisations.

Your government is not your problem, nor anyone else's. If other folk can leave, then everyone can take the same answer as you, and it's not a coward's way out at all.

I really hate this argument being applied to Syria, that the refugees are somehow "cowards" for leaving the war and not fighting for their country. Is it "cowardly" to want to keep your life, and not get killed in a pointless war; not to have your loved ones abroad to miss you?

No, but loads of folk ruining your job, harassing you on a regular basis, and pushing you out of public life by making you a pariah is censorship.

Specify "ruining your job". As for being mean and somewhat closed-minded, yeah, that's just society. It'd be nice if it could change, but it really can't, so if it really bothers you, dissociate yourself, you don't even have to move. Counterculture, you're far from alone in this "liberal oppression", and believing in it.

I've started to read the post, and then the quoting answering battle started, I'm kindda lazy to read it all. So, I'll try and be quick here.

I totally agree with Major's position in transgender people here. You need to be a hipocrite to claim yourself a defender of freedom, and then deny a minority's right to choose for the sake of the majority. THAT'S NOT HOW LIBERTY WORKS.

Conservatives are often hipocrites when it comes to many issues (the left isn't perfect either btw), but Liberty is hole a concept, you can't pick the parts of it you like and take away the ones you dislike.


========

Butler is starting to become a smart libertarian; one who doesn't aligns with conservatives for convenience when it comes to moral stances, a thing that happens too often, while remaining true to their concept of economic freedom. I don't agree with the libertarian position too much, but I like talking to smart people, who know their ideology rather than alienated morons who defend their position out of political ignorance.

Ah yes, Liberty. Let people do whatever they want! Let people with gender insecurities use whatever bathroom they wish!

Who cares if the majority of people don't feel comfortable with a grown man in the same bathroom as a young girl! They are all bigots!

Soon enough more insecure people will be unhappy with their race and they will be changing their skin colors too.

All these special snowflakes!

Edited 4/25/2016 13:31:33

but Liberty is hole a concept, you can't pick the parts of it you like and take away the ones you dislike.

So you're saying we either have to have total Liberty or none? That's BS. Complete liberty is anarchy. As with anything, freedom has to be balanced with other concerns. This argument of, "You have to support total freedom or support no freedom" is bunk.

Side note: I know English isn't your first language, and I feel like bit of a douche for being a grammar nazi here, but it's "Whole" not "hole". Common mistake I've noticed and it's been nagging at me.

It's not bunk at all, you either support real freedom or you support the enslavement of man by the state.

Be consistent or be truthful, but don't be dishonest and say you support freedom.

You either recognize transgender folk's bodies as property they own and property they can what they want with, or you are in favor of the government owning folk and their bodies.

It's not bunk at all, you either support real freedom or you support the enslavement of man by the state.

Be consistent or be truthful, but don't be dishonest and say you support freedom.

There has to be a sensible medium?

I respect their right to do whatever they want with their bodies. but businesses should not be required to let them use any bathroom they want. And the business shouldn't be shamed either.

There's no medium, liberty or death, freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.

Businesses should be able to be shamed, it's the only way to morally regulate a business in a free market.

I don't defend total freedom, for this is only a return to the state of nature, where individual freedoms are taken away by the strong. I never said I supported that idea. My idea of freedom is:

One's liberty shall be total as long as his liberty doesn't take away other's; a state, independent from private purposes and just shall be the defender of the society's freedom.

This definition of freedom gives the right from transgender's to choose their bathroom, bc they aren't taking away anyone's freedom. Also, there were NO REPORTS of transgenders sexually assaulting women/children in public bathrooms. Now that this stupid law passed, men can enter women's bathroom claiming to be transgenders and commit sexual abuse, which is for me far more likely to me than transgenders doing it.

What about the businesses freedom to choose who uses which bathroom?

Oh, and you seem to have misinterpreted the law. It just made people use the bathroom suitable to their genitalia, as opposed to the one they "identify" as. No one is worried about trans people being sex offenders, they were worried about people saying they "felt" like a woman and then getting pictures of 10 years olds.