Defensive Carry banner

41 - 51 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
We saw this when Obama held his televised town hall on firearms and the participants and audience were definitely skewed towards the anti-firearm crowd.
Stacking a Democrat town hall with Democrats isn't a free speech issue. Censoring and imprisoning dissent-full speech happened under Stalin and Mao. Both leftists. Both promised Marxist socialism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
My take. Whether or not he meant to imply the content to a particular race or not, I think it should be apparent that it could be taken that way. If that was not the intent, then it could have been worded differently.
Does this mean original intent means less than how another person can choose to interpret your words? Do we judge speech based on the interpretation of the most offended? That is a dangerous proposition. It makes it impossible for anyone to make any thoughtful expression. This very paragraph could be misinterpreted to be offensive, thus hateful, thus violence; even though it is clearly not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
Does this mean original intent means less than how another person can choose to interpret your words? Do we judge speech based on the interpretation of the most offended? That is a dangerous proposition. It makes it impossible for anyone to make any thoughtful expression. This very paragraph could be misinterpreted to be offensive, thus hateful, thus violence; even though it is clearly not.
Not sure what you are implying. I am stating that any reasonable person could see how the statements could be misinterpreted. So, either he is lacking in the IQ department, his meaning was that as some implied, or he was baiting people. In any case, I also said that the content was not worthy of being fired over. Just because someone can say something doesn't mean they should say it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,423 Posts
When did we lose or ability to voice our opinions as long as they are legal and not face losing our jobs?
Everything we say now has to pass the liberal woke smell test.
If it doesn’t, they will destroy everything you are.
Yet on the other end of the spectrum you can call white people racist and support looting and vandalism and you get a raise.
We never lost our ability to publicly voice our opinion. What you are not appreciating is that there is no immunity from the consequences. Social media provided society with an ability to amplify people's voices and it provided a platform for people to shout out to a large community of people that they are offended. And this large community has been exerting pressure on businesses to see things there way or face boycotts of their products and services. Today its the Washington Redskins being told change their name or they can't play in the new stadium. Yesterday, it was ice cream novelties. As I have stated in other posts, I like the Eskimo Pie ice cream novelty. I just like chocolate covered vanilla ice cream that is rectangular shaped. I still do not understand why the product is undergoing re-branding because of some racial undertones. I always thought that Eskimo meant a member of a group of indigenous peoples of southwestern and northern Alaska. Somewhere, I missed the memo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,423 Posts
My take. Whether or not he meant to imply the content to a particular race or not, I think it should be apparent that it could be taken that way. If that was not the intent, then it could have been worded differently. Although, as others suggested, maybe that is the point of how it was framed. Once the SJWs speak up that it is racist, the poster can then accuse them of racism for assuming it was about race when it was never mentioned. So, either he didn't understand the context (and has poor judgement) or did it to "trap" people which is antithetical to productive speech. But, neither is worthy of firing him.



As you say, the 1st amendment protects us from government retribution based on our speech - but not from our employers. But, in this case, his employer is the government. So, it is not that simple. Plus, I have to assume his department is part of a union. I suspect he will get his job back or some type of settlement.
I suspect he will get nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Not sure what you are implying. I am stating that any reasonable person could see how the statements could be misinterpreted. So, either he is lacking in the IQ department, his meaning was that as some implied, or he was baiting people. In any case, I also said that the content was not worthy of being fired over. Just because someone can say something doesn't mean they should say it.
So speech is judged by misinterpretation? Should we not be judged by actual interpretation? There are plenty of reasonable people here who did not misinterpret the post.
Speech that is immune to misinterpretation seems like an impossible standard for a free society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
So speech is judged by misinterpretation? Should we not be judged by actual interpretation? There are plenty of reasonable people here who did not misinterpret the post.
Speech that is immune to misinterpretation seems like an impossible standard for a free society.
I did not say that at all. In fact, either you are not understanding what I have posted or you are being purposefully obtuse.

1) I never made the claim that he (or anyone else) should be judged by misinterpretations. In fact, I specifically stated he should not be fired.
2) I'm not sure what you mean by avoiding misinterpretations being impossible for free society. People have 1A rights to say what they choose without repercussions from the government. Whether it was misinterpreted or not is irrelevant.

What I have stated from the beginning, is that if he is an intelligent person he should have realized the high possibility of it being interpreted as a racial message. Either he is not bright, actually meant it be racially charged, or it was meant to be bait. My money is on the latter.

People do commonly state "facts" in ways to be purposefully misinterpreted. E.g. " The killer bought a gun online". As I'm sure you are aware, when purchasing a gun online, the firearm has to be sent to an FFL for a background check to be conducted. But, the people making such statements do so with the intent to deceive others that anyone can just buy a gun off a website and have it shipped to their home. So, yeah, shouldn't be fired. Doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
I did not say that at all. In fact, either you are not understanding what I have posted or you are being purposefully obtuse.
Most reasonable people would misinterpret this needle threading. I am not responsible for misinterpretations, by your logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
Most reasonable people would misinterpret this needle threading. I am not responsible for misinterpretations, by your logic.
No needle threading. I have been very explicit and consistent. If someone states something in a way that any reasonable person can see has the proclivity to be misinterpreted, then one has to wonder why the person made the statement the way they did. While I explicitly stated multiple times that he should not have been fired, you made the illogical assumption that I was somehow suggesting he should face consequences even though I clearly stated multiple times that he should not. I did not state anything that a reasonable person could have interpreted otherwise. Yet, here we are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Whether or not he meant to imply the content to a particular race or not, I think it should be apparent that it could be taken that way.
I am stating that any reasonable person could see how the statements could be misinterpreted.
So how do we deal with people whose statements have misinterpreted implications?
So, either he is lacking in the IQ department, his meaning was that as some implied, or he was baiting people.
Personally, I am not criticizing the IQ of the person making the statement above. I believe it is up to the reader to comprehend the statement.
I did not state anything that a reasonable person could have interpreted otherwise.
This opinion is filtered through the view of the author, not the reader. The initial position was that the reader should filter statements for implied meaning. We can see how this subjective standard impedes meaningful dialogue.

The officer was wrongfully attacked by intentionally applying uninformed context to his FB post. The virtue signaling fad stops meaningful dialogue and deeper understanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
915 Posts
This controversy reminds me of the firing, by a Black supervisor, of a White worker over her completely appropriate use of the word "niggardly."

While I am certain in my own opinion, that the White person was "baiting" the perceived ignorance of the Black supervisor, the firing "for having used the N-word," was nevertheless wrong. The White worker was reinstated.

I suggest that the cop in question knows very damn well that the "privileged people" to whom he refers are predominantly non-White. Nevertheless, his statement is true, if impolitic.
A court of law will have to decide whether or not he was properly fired, just as was necessary in the case of the user of "niggardly."
 
  • Like
Reactions: airslot
41 - 51 of 51 Posts
Top