MovieChat Forums > beermonkey70 > Replies
beermonkey70's Replies
2. That is how the right likes to frame it but it is absolutely NOT what is happening.
There are 2 areas where this occurs.
One is sexual orientation. The law in Florida and other copycat versions bans speech under the banner of "inappropriate". The problem here is that in practice they simply declare anything they dont like to be inappropriate. They claim it's about "pornography" but that's not the case as evidenced by the titles on the widely available book ban lists.
A mere mention by a female teacher of her wife can result in termination or criminal prosecution.. yay freedom
The other is "CRT", which is a graduate level law course which they claim is being taught on K-12 Obviously that is a lie but they sell it by broadening the definition to include any mention of a historical fact that they feel might be tangentially related to the study of CRT. For example, the historical fact of the policy of redlining is not allowed to be mentioned in states with so called CRT bans. Christofer Rufo explicitly stated this plan to weaponize the term CRT.
1. They're not pretending anything unless their site says anything goes. Otherwise they have terms and conditions that explicitly state they can moderate as they see fit. If you don't like how someone runs their site you have the right to go to a different site. Moderating content adds value to a website as they will want to cultivate a user base that is consistent with the nature of the site.
Site with inadequate moderation will drive away most people and devalue the site. Since I prefer freedom, I believe the owner of the site should be able to make decisions about moderation and not the government as the right implicitly advocates for.
You're just making unsupported claims. Republicans have been and continue to be the party of censorship.
Allowing private companies to make their own content moderation decisions isn't censorship.
Muzzling educators and banning books is censorship
Your "normal behavior" has not been redefined in any way. You guys are such drama queens.
1. If either bother you that's a reflection of your own fragility
2. Nonsense. That is simply right wing propaganda and you bought into it of course.
3. Seems you do as demonstrated above.
"so basically all the president does is signs bills? "
It's not my job to explain how the 3 branches of federal govt operate but when it comes to LEGISLATION then yes that is often the extent of the president's role, Especially when the legislation is supported overwhelmingly by both parties as was the case in the bills you brought up. These types of bill happen during every administration unless the opposing party is deliberately obstructing.
Although I already stated that I am not in business of cheerleading for Biden I will point out a few bills he did sign
Chips act - supporting the domestic production of semiconductors and
authorizes various programs and activities of the federal science agencies.
American Rescue Plan Act - helped small businesses post pandemic
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act - something that trump promised but was unable to deliver
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 - Hard to argue with this one. The recovery from the post pandemic inflation crisis so far has been the best such recovery in our nation's history. The numbers dont lie
1. So then the issue is not whether they are making a political statement (others have stated that companies shouldn't be making political statements at all but ok ) but whether the statement is "controversial". OK. If a bunch of self loathing Americans decided to be offended by the hypothetical American flag can would we blame the marketing there? OR would we rightly chide those that got offended for being the snowflakes that they are .. they MADE is controversial by being easily offended
2. I'm well aware of what the fringe is advocating but there is zero chance any legislation that makes any of the things you mentioned enforceable by law would ever make it outside of a house committee. Meanwhile far worse legislation has been enacted in red states and there is a far greater chance those would make it onto the big stage
3. If they were simply not drinking we wouldn't know about it. The primary expressions are virtue signaling about not supporting "woke" beer, buying the beer they dont support so they can destroy large quantities of them in virtue signal videos and verbal attacks on trans people and anyone who isn't angry about the very existence of trans people.
I'm not aware of the views of this influencer and certainly dont support those specific things that this influencer allegedly advocates. However it goes far beyond what you are stating. There are very well known right wing influencers like Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles who are openly advocating for wiping trans people out of existence
1. So we have no problem with having political statements. You define it very broadly. I mean is there any marketing affiliation that you WOULDN"T consider a political statement?
2. That viewpoint, defining "hate speech" that broadly, would be pretty fringe so no I would not support that. I suspect the text of any such law would have to be tightened up such that it only covered speech that amounted to incitement or harassment before it would ever be politically viable.
3. It has nothing to do with "refusing to celebrate someone else's choices". No one is asking you to "celebrate" someone else's choice. I don't even "celebrate" their choice as it has zero effect on me. Personally when I find myself simply not "celebrating" someone else's choices you would never know about it because I don't feel the need to obnoxiously tell the world about me refusal to celebrate.
When I spoke of attacks I wasn't referring to refusal to celebrate or even refusing to accept. I was referring to verbal attacks like calling the influencer a "disgusting human being", a "groomer" and things like that
you've clearly missed the point here. The point was that you were giving trump credit for things that congress did. I dont worship Biden so I don't care about propping him up for signing bipartisan bills (there were some like the chips act, American rescue plan, infrastructure bill).
If there fewer bipartisan bills passed during his term then blame congress for obstructing
1. You think that sending a a trans person a case of beer with their image on it equates to making that person the "image of their beer" ? Surely you can see how much of a stretch that is.
If they put an American flag on their product would that be "making a political statement" ??
2. We should avoid putting limits as much as possible but there are some limits that are necessary. Hate speech legislation is narrowly defined to only restrict when said speech incites violence and I would oppose any hate speech legislation that was too broadly defined.
The right is are rarely ever on the side of "free speech" except when it comes to "hate speech" then they become free speech warriors all of the sudden. Weird hill t die on
3. In rendering their opinions they were attacking trans people who never attacked them.
No one is being forced to agree with anything. They just have a massive persecution complex and are soo very fragile
Please dont tell that you are invoking the nonsense logic that they weren't banned because you can still get them at the public libaary or some such nonsense. You can tbat that stupid. Sorry if you dont know what words mean
No one was attacked, nor were any ideas or policies forced upon anyone.
"Also, most of Red State stats originate from the shitty Blue Cities inside of them..."
This explains nothing even if it were true. The blue states that are doing better also have "blue cities", in fact they have more and/or bigger "blue cities"
calling them groomers and pedophiles is their way of being friendly
Yeah, book-banning republicans are "free speech"
punishing private companies for offering a dissenting opinion is "free speech"
forcing private companies to platform those that violate their terms conditions is "free speech"
most of the list is Trump signing bi-partisan bills that came across his desk that ANY person that happened to be in the White would have signed.
"Woke assholes like the ones in charge of Bud Light now, make a political person a represenative and by talking shit about "inclusion" and "diversity", then send a clear mesage.
"
They're not "woke" , they are marketing people. The thing about people in marketing is that make their decisions based on what they think will maximize profit. Most of them don't really give a fuck about so called "woke" politics. In this case they vastly underestimated just how fragile the customer base of this particular brand was.
"Complain at all, and you will be painted as being AGAINST these clearly good, not political things, or even some form of "ist" or "phobe"."
You have complete freedom to complain here. I guarantee you will not land in jail for crying over bud light or any other "woke" nonsense. Others have complete freedom to offer dissenting opinions to your complaints. That's how freedom works.
"Hell, not to mention the constant verbal attacks from partisan troll bois, like " stupid" or "fragile" or blah, blah, blah."
Quite hypocritical to complain about verbal attacks when you initiated the verbal attack.. clearly
The only gaslighting is the one who initiates the verbal attacks and then pretends to be the victim
lmao. Absolutely delusional.
"Bullying" ??? lmao
Does drinking a Bud Light today means that you "accept" any political position regarding trans people?
Obviously the answer there is NO and no sane person would think otherwise.
Drinking a BL just means you have awful taste in beer or you dont feel like paying more for a decent beer. Nothing more
You're making it a political issue. Being so consumed with what's inside another person's pants is on you.
Just sad. I couldnt imagine being so fragile that you allow yourself to be affected by something so trivial