Bigoted online posts from Tucker Carlson's co-writer

[Rojava Free State]

The first amendment protects you from the government, not your job. If i tell my boss to get fucked, I cant then pull the free speech card, so I don't see why a bigot should be able to either.

Your equating different things.

No, I'm not. Why should someone be able to keep their job after insulting millions but if i insult one person, just one, i get kicked out?

Does that make any sense?

[Ifreann]

How convenient for Tucker Carlson to have something to complain about when he gets back from hiatus.

---

You talk shit, you get shit. I honestly don't understand how you can think otherwise.

Because victimisation is already considered a crime in most cases and just needs to be expanded to cover this.

Sounds like you're proposing thoughtcrime.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Your equating different things.

No, I'm not. Why should someone be able to keep their job after insulting millions but if i insult one person, just one, i get kicked out?

Does that make any sense?

Yes you are.
Your insulting someone at work deliberately.
Being racist is not deliberate. Not at work. And not an insult, even if you're finding it insulting.
Lets not forget that there's a large block that want to extend the definitions of bigotry to include all their political opponents.

The only logical solution here is to make victimisation of individuals for political beliefs a crime.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

How convenient for Tucker Carlson to have something to complain about when he gets back from hiatus.

---

Because victimisation is already considered a crime in most cases and just needs to be expanded to cover this.

Sounds like you're proposing thoughtcrime.

Oh look backwards land.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Ok, those were disgusting statements, but it was not like I was under the delusion that FOX was good. It's a propaganda network.

[Rojava Free State]

No, I'm not. Why should someone be able to keep their job after insulting millions but if i insult one person, just one, i get kicked out?

Does that make any sense?

Yes you are.
Your insulting someone at work deliberately.
Being racist is not deliberate. Not at work. And not an insult, even if you're finding it insulting.
Lets not forget that there's a large block that want to extend the definitions of bigotry to include all their political opponents.

The only logical solution here is to make victimisation of individuals for political beliefs a crime.

Racism is not an insult? If you call people racial slurs you're definitely insulting them. That's the whole idea of slurs. They aren't terms of endearment.

I will say this. At day's end it's on fox as a company. They wanna lose sponsors and keep this guy, they can make that choice. It's no skin off my nose if they put their people before their profits. But that doesnt mean our response should be "alright dude'a racist. But that's okay cause he has a first amendment right."

[Exalted Inquellian State]

As long as it isn't an outright threat to a person or group, people should say whatever they want. Most today would either scold them or ignore them. Maybe a few would listen.

TL;DR: Saying something isn't natural is fine. Threatening persecution of and committing crimes based on a group of people you don't like is wrong.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Yes you are.
Your insulting someone at work deliberately.
Being racist is not deliberate. Not at work. And not an insult, even if you're finding it insulting.
Lets not forget that there's a large block that want to extend the definitions of bigotry to include all their political opponents.

The only logical solution here is to make victimisation of individuals for political beliefs a crime.

Racism is not an insult? If you call people racial slurs you're definitely insulting them. That's the whole idea of slurs. They aren't terms of endearment.

Those are two separate things. And it would need to be at work to be valid for punishment.

[Rojava Free State]

Racism is not an insult? If you call people racial slurs you're definitely insulting them. That's the whole idea of slurs. They aren't terms of endearment.

Those are two separate things. And it would need to be at work to be valid for punishment.

When you work a job, you're often an at will employee. They can literally fire you half the time for any reason unless you're unionized. Fox made that kind of decision. My issue isn't really the decision they made as much as the fact that people listen to Tucker Carlson and the writings of his bigotted ghost writer and the response isn't 100% "what is wrong with you, you fucking creep?" But fox is free to do whatever they as a company want with their own people, and it isn't my concern.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Those are two separate things. And it would need to be at work to be valid for punishment.

When you work a job, you're often an at will employee. They can literally fire you half the time for any reason unless you're unionized. Fox made that kind of decision. My issue isn't really the decision they made as much as the fact that people listen to Tucker Carlson and the writings of his bigotted ghost writer and the response isn't 100% "what is wrong with you, you fucking creep?" But fox is free to do whatever they as a company want with their own people, and it isn't my concern.

Im familiar with working at a job.
Im talking about expanding workers rights.

So your upset that a group of people with diverse opinions have diverse opinions?

[Servilis]

Actually, I prefer that people be held accountable for their actions, if you want to say some awful shit, except some awful consequences.

Are the consequences going to be equal or more than that of just saying random shit that can at best cause someones feelings to be hurt? I ain't against calling an idiot an idiot when he deserves it. But internet witch hunts like this, especially against someone who was effectively doxed (his pseudonym was tracked to him) have the potential to do a lot more harm than hurt feelings. Which is why I am against them.

I'd rather the Writer be punished, Tucker Carlson shouldn't be punished for his association, however, he should still be shunned.

[Rojava Free State]

When you work a job, you're often an at will employee. They can literally fire you half the time for any reason unless you're unionized. Fox made that kind of decision. My issue isn't really the decision they made as much as the fact that people listen to Tucker Carlson and the writings of his bigotted ghost writer and the response isn't 100% "what is wrong with you, you fucking creep?" But fox is free to do whatever they as a company want with their own people, and it isn't my concern.

Im familiar with working at a job.
Im talking about expanding workers rights.

So your upset that a group of people with diverse opinions have diverse opinions?

I'm upset that their diverse opinions are "this guy is a fucking nigger." You have a right to your opinions but it doesn't mean you're free of consequences or that your opinions aren't messed up. A guy once called my sister a retard. Do you think I said "well thats okay he has a right to his opinion"? The idea of the first amendment was to protect all speech so we all know our personal thoughts and feelings won't get us hung, but it was not designed to force everyone to accept or tolerate other people's ideas.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Are the consequences going to be equal or more than that of just saying random shit that can at best cause someones feelings to be hurt? I ain't against calling an idiot an idiot when he deserves it. But internet witch hunts like this, especially against someone who was effectively doxed (his pseudonym was tracked to him) have the potential to do a lot more harm than hurt feelings. Which is why I am against them.

I'd rather the Writer be punished, Tucker Carlson shouldn't be punished for his association, however, he should still be shunned.

Punished for what, having an unpopular opinion?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Are the consequences going to be equal or more than that of just saying random shit that can at best cause someones feelings to be hurt? I ain't against calling an idiot an idiot when he deserves it. But internet witch hunts like this, especially against someone who was effectively doxed (his pseudonym was tracked to him) have the potential to do a lot more harm than hurt feelings. Which is why I am against them.

I'd rather the Writer be punished, Tucker Carlson shouldn't be punished for his association, however, he should still be shunned.

What did Tucker do to be shunned?

[Rojava Free State]

I'd rather the Writer be punished, Tucker Carlson shouldn't be punished for his association, however, he should still be shunned.

Punished for what, having an unpopular opinion?

Would u let a JET BLACK congo nigger do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off? I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no.

This is the unpopular opinion you're referring to. It isnt just an unpopular opinion. The guy didn't say Coney Island food is bland. He didn't say the Wall was a shitty album. He's a bigot.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Im familiar with working at a job.
Im talking about expanding workers rights.

So your upset that a group of people with diverse opinions have diverse opinions?

I'm upset that their diverse opinions are "this guy is a fucking nigger." You have a right to your opinions but it doesn't mean you're free of consequences or that your opinions aren't messed up. A guy once called my sister a retard. Do you think I said "well thats okay he has a right to his opinion"? The idea of the first amendment was to protect all speech so we all know our personal thoughts and feelings won't get us hung, but it was not designed to force everyone to accept or tolerate other people's ideas.

And?
First amendment was an attempt at envisioning the ideal of freedom of speech. You keep saying consequences as if you don't mean to victimise someone for something you don't like.
Freedom of speech is exactly consequence free.
Threats aren't, political opinions are.

Hes not waving it in your face, someone had to deliberately track him down to victimise him. That should be a crime, as well as firing him.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Punished for what, having an unpopular opinion?

Would u let a JET BLACK congo nigger do lasik eye surgery on u for 50% off? I wouldn't get LASIK from an Asian for free, so no.

This is the unpopular opinion you're referring to. It isnt just an unpopular opinion. The guy didn't say Coney Island food is bland. He didn't say the Wall was a shitty album. He's a bigot.

I've been called worse today. I didnt care then i don't care now.

He could be a fucken nazi kkk member, doesn't change anything.

[Rojava Free State]

I'm upset that their diverse opinions are "this guy is a fucking nigger." You have a right to your opinions but it doesn't mean you're free of consequences or that your opinions aren't messed up. A guy once called my sister a retard. Do you think I said "well thats okay he has a right to his opinion"? The idea of the first amendment was to protect all speech so we all know our personal thoughts and feelings won't get us hung, but it was not designed to force everyone to accept or tolerate other people's ideas.

And?
First amendment was an attempt at envisioning the ideal of freedom of speech. You keep saying consequences as if you don't mean to victimise someone for something you don't like.
Freedom of speech is exactly consequence free.
Threats aren't, political opinions are.

Hes not waving it in your face, someone had to deliberately track him down to victimise him. That should be a crime, as well as firing him.

His job decided profit was more important than him. Go speak to them if thats a problem.

At day's end fox kept Tucker. I didn't push for him to be fired. I pushed for people to stop taking fox seriously. If fox wants to keep the racist screenwriter, it's fine if they're willing to only get views from a certain segment of America who has bigotry issues.

[Rojava Free State]

This is the unpopular opinion you're referring to. It isnt just an unpopular opinion. The guy didn't say Coney Island food is bland. He didn't say the Wall was a shitty album. He's a bigot.

I've been called worse today. I didnt care then i don't care now.

He could be a fucken nazi kkk member, doesn't change anything.

Its not just an unpopular opinion though. That makes it seem like all he said was "I think George Washington sucked as a general," and not something actually inflammatory.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

And?
First amendment was an attempt at envisioning the ideal of freedom of speech. You keep saying consequences as if you don't mean to victimise someone for something you don't like.
Freedom of speech is exactly consequence free.
Threats aren't, political opinions are.

Hes not waving it in your face, someone had to deliberately track him down to victimise him. That should be a crime, as well as firing him.

His job decided profit was more important than him. Go speak to them if thats a problem.

At day's end fox kept Tucker. I didn't push for him to be fired. I pushed for people to stop taking fox seriously. If fox wants to keep the racist screenwriter, it's fine if they're willing to only get views from a certain segment of America who has bigotry issues.

I mean, like ok. None of that really relates to what I'm saying.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

I've been called worse today. I didnt care then i don't care now.

He could be a fucken nazi kkk member, doesn't change anything.

Its not just an unpopular opinion though. That makes it seem like all he said was "I think George Washington sucked as a general," and not something actually inflammatory.

Its not inflammatory unless you accept it as. And its easier to just grow up and chosing to not get histerical about it than to interfere with the guys right to be shit.

[The Emerald Legion]

Because of the nagging question of who gets to determine shit from gold. Once society as a whole starts shouting people down and censoring them that inevitably leads to a very dark place.
So TLDR what works in interpersonal direct conversations (where your rule does and bloody well should apply) should not work on this scale because it has a potential to (and frankly if you look around has) turn society into a perpetual witch hunt.

You're really hedging your bets on a giant slippery slope. It's not hard to determine when someone's a massive racist and homophobe, friend. I say this as someone who can also be edgy and use slurs myself; society not tolerating gigantic racists, fascists and their ilk holding prominence isn't the death of free speech or anything like that, it's the ostracizing of those who stand contrary to every ideal of a free society. Preventing (and not with legal, but social repercussions, mind you) the worst excesses of harassment, hatred and abuse allows for the genuine engagement of people who operate in good faith.

It's the same reason you cannot go on NSG and proclaim how you want to "gas the kikes". That shit won't roll here, and with good reason: you're not operating in good faith or any desire to contribute to public discourse, really. One would undermine the very principles of engaging in reasonable discussion in that scenario. If you're black and the public discourse is dominated by racists who would see you hanged, you're not going to come forward unless you're willing to risk yourself being harassed or worse. What do you actually hope to gain from society affording respect to people like Carlson's co-writer? Because it sure as shit isn't an improved public discourse.

Incorrect. It is incredibly hard if the lefts rate of false positives is anything to go by.

[Duvniask]

You're really hedging your bets on a giant slippery slope. It's not hard to determine when someone's a massive racist and homophobe, friend. I say this as someone who can also be edgy and use slurs myself; society not tolerating gigantic racists, fascists and their ilk holding prominence isn't the death of free speech or anything like that, it's the ostracizing of those who stand contrary to every ideal of a free society. Preventing (and not with legal, but social repercussions, mind you) the worst excesses of harassment, hatred and abuse allows for the genuine engagement of people who operate in good faith.

It's the same reason you cannot go on NSG and proclaim how you want to "gas the kikes". That shit won't roll here, and with good reason: you're not operating in good faith or any desire to contribute to public discourse, really. One would undermine the very principles of engaging in reasonable discussion in that scenario. If you're black and the public discourse is dominated by racists who would see you hanged, you're not going to come forward unless you're willing to risk yourself being harassed or worse. What do you actually hope to gain from society affording respect to people like Carlson's co-writer? Because it sure as shit isn't an improved public discourse.

Incorrect. It is incredibly hard if the lefts rate of false positives is anything to go by.

So what are all these false positives exactly? Care to provide some examples? Care to show how what I said means they necessarily have to be considered as the standard for what someone should correctly be ostracized for? Care to show me how certain people who mistake everything for racism are necessarily representative of the broader "left" at large?

I re-iterate my point. The man this thread is about is so obviously a racist you'd have to be brain-dead or know nothing about how racists speak to not think so. It's not hard to tell at all.

[Purpelia]

I re-iterate my point. The man this thread is about is so obviously a racist you'd have to be brain-dead or know nothing about how racists speak to not think so. It's not hard to tell at all.

But is being a racist a crime so heinous that one should be removed from his job, left destitute and have his life destroyed through the lynch mob of public opinion?

[Ifreann]

How convenient for Tucker Carlson to have something to complain about when he gets back from hiatus.

---

Sounds like you're proposing thoughtcrime.

Oh look backwards land.

Crazy, right? You say that you want free speech, but to achieve that you want to ban people from changing their opinions about a person based on what that person says.