not freedom of speech

Because it is not culture. Culure is defined as "the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time." What is American culture or what is Japanese culture. You cannot define that cancel culture is a subgroup of the overall American culture, can you? If you do, then you say all Americans generally perform this, not one subset of Americans peform this.

 

If you were a sophomore in a second rate college I might give you a C+ for your attempt to deconstruct culture. The country is being torn apart and all you contribute is this horseshit. Amazing.

 

LOL, and you cannot define what culture is at all. This is a debate, not a junio high schoolyard francas.

 

So you're down with Coca Cola telling it's employees to be less white?

 

Dude the argument you made was as I pointed out in another post bs. You threw out a strawman that had nothing to do do with Nitzche's warning.

 

We have progressed to the point that we had a black President, would that he had taken the golden opportunity thereby granted him to end the racial divide instead he took every opportunity to hype up racial animosity at every opportunity he could find or create. Note we will never get beyond racism until we quit talking about race and stop pretending that the color of the wrapping paper in which one is esconsced has anything to do with their value as a human being.

 

It's a law that exposes folks to damages if they subject Floridians to abuse. That's perfectly proper. It's unjust for any group to be unfairly maligned by a public entity or a publicly regulated private entity. All of us are entitled to full and free access and fair and equal application of all policies of such organizations.

 

Easily. You don't pretend that any Germans in the work place, who had nothing to do with it, bear any guilt or responsibility for it, BECAUSE THEY DON'T!

Easily. But, if you lie and claim that any of your employees are responsible for violating the rights of others, when they didn't violate them, then you may be subject to damages AS WELL YOU SHOULD BE.

Fake News. You are welcome to discuss it freely but you cannot falsely apply false guilt or shame to those you are instructing without risking a jury holding you liable for financial damages, AS WELL THEY SHOULD.

 

Well there's your strawman ^^^. It was you who responded to my post-- my post which was about the quote in the OP, if you didn't get that, from all my quotes of it. IOW, since the quote does not mention Nietzsche, it is a wonder where you got any idea that this was part of my argument. IOW again, if my post had been about Nietzsche, you may be right. But since it was YOU who brought that philosopher to my argument, which had nothing to do with him-- that makes it YOU, also, who is putting forth the strawman argument.


Still lost?-- Nietzsche is the strawman; your strawman.


Here is your post, the supposed "reply," for which you quote no one, you m*"on! It appears at the top of page 5, post #101.

Scroll down from there, and notice that I never quote your post in a reply-- because it seemed like gibberish, and it was unaddressed. BTW, is this as close as you can get, to an actual English sentence? And you even consider it some kind of argument-- a vague allusion to "Nitzche (sic) point," which you say that, the unidentified person you are talking to, had "missed?"


So, just to get this straight:
1) I posted an argument, that made no mention of Nietzsche;
2) You made a post that mentioned Nietzsche, but did not even specify that it was a reply to me;
3) And now my argument is a strawman, because it doesn't fit into whatever argument, you had subsequently brought in (without even giving me notice of this)?

God, to go to those lengths to cheat-- and do it so poorly, on top of it all-- are you looking for pity "likes," by making the most pathetic excuse for an argument I have ever seen on this site?

I cannot imagine a bolder admission, of your own incompetence.



Tell you what, if we call you the automatic winner of all forum arguments, from this point forward, will you just go play with some blocks or something, and stop cluttering up the forum with your desperate attempts to call yourself "a winner?"


Yeah, you're a real winner, all right.

 

At this time Republican preudo-cons are the woke ones, so what are you going to choose?

 

So, you would make the same argument if companies on the right (the left claim that most companies are on the right because they have rich, greedy, uncaring owners who only care about greed and using illegals for slave labor) indoctrinated all employees into the conservative way of thinking?

 

Please identify the Florida employers who have indicated they have such an agenda.

Under capitalism, a corporate entity is free to espouse social values as a matter of public relations to enhance its image and sales.

A State gag order that prevents them from exercising that right is repugnant to supporters of the free-market.

 

For starters, when discussing the Holocaust, you have to talk about race, not blame. And Germans are educated on this too and can provide a unique perspective into how Germans feel if a German exchange student was in class. However, if an American who has German ancestry gets upset because that American happen to agree with AH, what then? The bill states that his feelings shouldn't get hurt and thus, cannot discusss it. See, woke culture, Conservative style.

When it comes to BLM, what do you think the main issues are? Apparently, you have no idea, do you? And that makes it hard for teachers to teach because state and local politicians have no idea whoat BLM is or is not. Furthermore, companies are responsible for what their employees do and don't do, generally. Where I live, police officers are boycotting a Whataburger because of a singular employee refused the police officer service. The employee was fired once it was known to HQ management, the company apologized directly to the officer, and offered the police officer a discount on his next stop. But the police officer refused and still he and his buddies at the department are boycotting that specific Whataburger still. Are the police officers wrong in continuing to do this despite what the company response was? Be careful how you answer this.

Finally, the bill does not make that way and why the Conservatives dubbed it the "Don't Say Gay" bill originally. Now they are on this quest to say it's about kindergarden through third grade despite that is not what the bill says. Considering that third parties and teachers can be sued if they bring up sexual orientation or gender identity issues at any grade level, then yes, it is violating the first admendment rights of those persons.

 

What is wrong with private, capitalistic entities publicly espousing social values that they view as enhancing their profits, whatever they might be, free of government restraint?

There is a radical statist element that is eager to surrender power to politicians and bureaucrats - whether in lieu of public health experts in public health matters, in lieu of climatologists in climatological science, and even licensing those politicians and bureaucrats to seize control of wombs to the exclusion of women in consultation with trusted medical and spiritual advisers.

Some crave authoritarianism. I don't believe that most freedom-loving Americans do.

 

Why do the disgruntled RINOs of Trumpery frenetically flail their pom poms for Big, Intrusive Government, even in its suppression of free speech, while traditional, conservative Republicans persist in vilifying it?

 

The most blatant example of this was Trump goons, incited by his lie, violently attacking Congress to prevent the democratic will from being respected, but they were thwarted, law and order prevailed, and hundreds of the goons have been identified, apprehended, indicted, prosecuted, and convicted or confessed.

Are there still such anti-American malcontents on the loose? Of course, but they will fail again if they throw another such tantrum.

 

A laughable response. You still fail to understand the problem. Your to Jefferson demo strates the problem. The left has become so obsessed with rooting out racism that it can no longer distinguish between actual palpable real and filthy racism and literally anything else. In the process they have become the problem instead of part of the solution. The problem has been largely solved so now but for purely political reasons the left can't afford to let it die. So now we get lectured about micro aggressions by people with a Texas sized chip on their shoulders.

In the end the real problem for African-Americans is a shortage of intact families brought on by the inveterate distaste of the family by leftist ideologues so their solution to poverty was to replace father's with a government check. The numbers are now in. The program is an abject failure. It increases criminality among both girls and boys and still leaves poor people poor. So then what have we gained a much larger homicide rate largely restricted to African Americans, and a complete unwilling

So support segregation as long as the victims of said segregation are white?

 

Free speech is not exactly the same thing as forcing your employees to have to listen to it.

 

What is a Republican pseudo-con?

 

A mainstream populist Republican who pretends to be conservative, but acts the opposite, and the willingness to get "woke" is a good example.

Pseudo-con = A person who claims to be guided by and a follower of conservative ideals and principals, but in reality is primarily and mostly just the opposite. While they may take a conservative stance on a few periphery issues, and even speak in conservative terms and espouse conservative ideas, they are in reality individuals who at their core are functionally anti-conservative.

 

LOL Urban Dictionary. It's where scholars and liberal professors go for word salad and substance

Although, what an accomplishment! It's not everyday you can search a word on the internet and come up with a ZERO hit

Pseudo-con, wut!

 

I am on the side which opposes CRT, illegal immigration, transgenderism. etc. I am what Clinton called a deplorable. If they are what you call pseudo-conservatives, so be it. Sticks and stones and all that.

Here is a nice description of conservatism that I find fits me very well.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.


In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.
Hat tip to Russel Kirk)

But if pressed to define my political views precisely, I confess to being a reactionary.

 

Reactionary who has gone "all-in" with wokeness....All righty then.

 

Fake News. The Bill says no such thing.

Heed your own warnings of caution. Nothing in the bill prohibits walking around with a sign urging others to avoid doing business with someone. If you are unable to distinguish between urging and blocking, then that's something you will need to figure out so that you can deepen your understanding of what it is to be a Free Person in a Free Society where all authority is drawn from the consent of We The People, and the purpose of government is to more perfectly secure OUR Freedom and Liberty.

More fake news. Claiming it says "Don't Say Gay" is a lie no matter who tells it, and I can think of no examples of the Left discussing it without using that lie to address it.

More fake news. The bill directly and specifically forbids education on these sexual topics until the 4th grade.

More fake news. Anyone can be sued, though if the case is without merit it will be thrown out. From 4th-12 sexual education can be delivered but only if the material is age appropriate. Do you support inappropriate sexual instruction to minors? Are you claiming you have a First Amendment right to engage minors in inappropriate sexual discussions? If you try in FL, you will have an opportunity to present your case to the Court, and that's as it should be.

 

Note: this argument involves a poster's statements in one thread, being contradicted by his viewpoint, in another. So this post is being presented in both threads.

Again, STRAWMAN. You are claiming that, because "The left has become so obsessed with rooting out racism that it can no longer distinguish between actual palpable real and filthy racism and literally anything else," therefore, any pointing out of a racist argument from the right, is automatically false? Are you kidding? You are not addressing MY specific argument, but trying to wave it away, but grouping it with ALL indictments of racism against anyone on the right, from anyone on the left. That is as genuine a strawman argument, as one could create. By this argument, it is impossible for anyone on the right to be racist-- unless someone on the right thinks so.

Why don't you try addressing the specific quote, from the OP, which is the focus of my argument. The quote which you claimed that I misinterpreted, but have for days now, despite several requests from me, not provided the "correct," interpretation. FYI, it is patently obvious, that if you could show that this quote was not racist, you would disprove my argument. It is just as blatantly clear, that none of your smears or generalizations about the left, have anything to do with this quote, or my argument, in particular.

So what are you waiting for? Still trying to figure out how to spin Derek Hunter's words in some way that don't sound racist as hell? Strange, that it would be so difficult for you to directly prove my words to false, as they are "nonsensical claptrap," and, "borderline insane," according to you.