Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

ianunderhill wrote:

Is there something I'm missing here

Now that corporations are people, the crusade is on to make it a crime not to give them money. This is also why they're so hopped up about increasing the opacity of their contributions--the "intimidation" they want protection from is the loss of customers who, I'd say rightly, don't want any of their money going to hate groups.

New Hampshire Chick-fil-A sponsors LGBT Pride

I think this is pretty cool.

I'm more annoyed at Chick-fil-a for their lawsuit against the Eat More Kale T-shirt guy, though I understand the trademark protection thing. Still, he makes T-shirts, not food.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I'm more annoyed at Chick-fil-a for their lawsuit against the Eat More Kale T-shirt guy, though I understand the trademark protection thing. Still, he makes T-shirts, not food.

All due respect, Chairman, don't re-educate me or nothin', but while the Eat More Kale thing is sh*tty, the anti-marriage thing is more than the CEO spouting off--the chain's profits get donated to anti-marriage equality groups. That's what irks me about the free speech whining--I have the right to say my money isn't going to fund hate.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

I'm more annoyed at Chick-fil-a for their lawsuit against the Eat More Kale T-shirt guy, though I understand the trademark protection thing. Still, he makes T-shirts, not food.

All due respect, Chairman, don't re-educate me or nothin', but while the Eat More Kale thing is sh*tty, the anti-marriage thing is more than the CEO spouting off--the chain's profits get donated to anti-marriage equality groups. That's what irks me about the free speech whining--I have the right to say my money isn't going to fund hate.

Nope I won't re-educate you on that point. I think it's despicable that the company would do that and I hope all this visibility brings about some change, like the NH Chick-fil-a manager is doing. I just don't want Kale guy's problem to be forgotten, since I'm pretty sure Chick-fil-a is on the wrong and losing end of the fight over gay rights, but Kale guy's outcome isn't so clear.

Also did I miss this little bit of awesomeness getting posted?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86...

ianunderhill wrote:

Is there something I'm missing here, or is this just good ol' fashioned "people disagree with us, so we're going to say our rights are being infringed upon by the other side!" childishness? Note I'm not looking to be convinced, but rather get some insight into the reasoning (if any, 'cause I see none).

Nah, it's not even that. This actually comes up quite often (though I'm drawing a blank on other recent occurrences) - people seem to think that freedom of speech also includes freedom from consequences from said speech. It really just comes down to the fact that people, in general, are kinda dumb.

billt721 wrote:

Nah, it's not even that. This actually comes up quite often (though I'm drawing a blank on other recent occurrences) - people seem to think that freedom of speech also includes freedom from consequences from said speech. It really just comes down to the fact that people, in general, are kinda dumb.

Yes, legally speaking, free speech rights do not guarantee freedom from consequences. However, I wouldn't be thrilled if my boss fired me or cut my salary because he found out I had contributed money to Obama's campaign.

Proposed Onion headline: Shockingly, Many US Citizens Don't Understand Their Own Rights

The Chick-Fil-A guy was free to say it. He didn't get thrown in jail or fined or censured or censored.

Funkenpants wrote:
billt721 wrote:

Nah, it's not even that. This actually comes up quite often (though I'm drawing a blank on other recent occurrences) - people seem to think that freedom of speech also includes freedom from consequences from said speech. It really just comes down to the fact that people, in general, are kinda dumb.

Yes, legally speaking, free speech rights do not guarantee freedom from consequences. However, I wouldn't be thrilled if my boss fired me or cut my salary because he found out I had contributed money to Obama's campaign.

On the contrary, that could be pretty lucrative for you.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Proposed Onion headline: Shockingly, Many US Citizens Don't Understand Their Own Rights

The Chick-Fil-A guy was free to say it. He didn't get thrown in jail or fined or censured or censored.

There was this crazy spiral when Sean Penn won the Oscar for Milk. There were anti-gay protesters outside the theater. He shamed those people and their ilk in his speech. And then a Washington Post editor shamed Sean Penn for using his 1st amendment rights to shame others who were also using their rights.

The 1st amendment does not require me to posit that certain people who speak suffer from a genetic disorder or may have been the recent victim of a stroke or are just plain stupid. It also confers upon me to pose this very question to them.

Kraint wrote:

On the contrary, that could be pretty lucrative for you.

How? I'm an at-will employee. He can fire me for any reason he wants so long as he's not doing it because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.

Apparently yesterday was "Free Speech" day at Chick-fil-a and, at least in my area, people showed up by the droves to support them by buying chicken sandwiches. At the location nearest to me people were literally lined up for over a mile to even get into the place. It was absolutely nuts. The facebook reactions I've seen have generally proposed 1 of 2 lines of reasoning. 1. By saying people should boycott CFA you are somehow infringing upon the owners right to freedom of speech. Logical jump here is not explained. 2. Being against gay marriage is good and people should support a company who has the cajones to stand up and say it, especially in the midst of the Obama liberal, Christian hating regime.

Yeah, seriously. When I dared mention to one extended family member the GWJ line of reasoning "free speech does not exempt you from the consequences of said speech as long as it is not the government censoring you." I was greeted with "So you're saying you like f*gs?". To which I responded, "Usually, yeah. I've found most gays and lesbians to be fairly nice people and I haven't run into one yet who would refuse to shake my hand because I sleep with people of the opposite sex." I think I'm going to be dropped from their friends list for that one.

Kehama wrote:

Apparently yesterday was "Free Speech" day at Chick-fil-a and, at least in my area, people showed up by the droves to support them by buying chicken sandwiches. At the location nearest to me people were literally lined up for over a mile to even get into the place. It was absolutely nuts. The facebook reactions I've seen have generally proposed 1 of 2 lines of reasoning. 1. By saying people should boycott CFA you are somehow infringing upon the owners right to freedom of speech. Logical jump here is not explained. 2. Being against gay marriage is good and people should support a company who has the cajones to stand up and say it, especially in the midst of the Obama liberal, Christian hating regime.

Yeah, seriously. When I dared mention to one extended family member the GWJ line of reasoning "free speech does not exempt you from the consequences of said speech as long as it is not the government censoring you." I was greeted with "So you're saying you like f*gs?". To which I responded, "Usually, yeah. I've found most gays and lesbians to be fairly nice people and I haven't run into one yet who would refuse to shake my hand because I sleep with people of the opposite sex." I think I'm going to be dropped from their friends list for that one.

Stephen King in [i wrote:

The Stand[/i]]No great loss.

Kehama wrote:

Yeah, seriously. When I dared mention to one extended family member the GWJ line of reasoning "free speech does not exempt you from the consequences of said speech as long as it is not the government censoring you." I was greeted with "So you're saying you like f*gs?". To which I responded, "Usually, yeah. I've found most gays and lesbians to be fairly nice people and I haven't run into one yet who would refuse to shake my hand because I sleep with people of the opposite sex." I think I'm going to be dropped from their friends list for that one.

You're a better man that me. I would have responded with "So you're saying that you're a moron?"

So why have those people as Facebook friends? Are they family? You can always set it so you keep someone as a friend but their posts do not appear in your news feed.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So why have those people as Facebook friends? Are they family? You can always set it so you keep someone as a friend but their posts do not appear in your news feed.

I have to say that I am a huge proponent of having social access to people who don't agree with you. Facebook is a really good venue for that. On the other hand, it's pointless to have to constantly deal with people who don't just disagree with you, but are insulting, cliche-waving jerks about it. And yet I see a lot of folks with their Facebox or whatever friends lists full of that. I do not get it. Maybe it's just people feeding their urge to yell at someone in opposition.

There's plenty of people on GWJ or IRC who don't agree with me.

Kehama wrote:

Apparently yesterday was "Free Speech" day at Chick-fil-a and, at least in my area, people showed up by the droves to support them by buying chicken sandwiches. At the location nearest to me people were literally lined up for over a mile to even get into the place. It was absolutely nuts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/0...

Somewhere, a Burger King ad man’s toying with the idea of having “The King” declare himself “100% pro-life.”

I'm just going to say this in regards to yesterday:

I've been out for 15 years and I was horribly depressed when I'd see photos of all the lines of people lining up for food because of what Mike Huckabee suggested. I just can't even imagine what someone newly out or struggling with coming to terms with their LGBTQ identity must be feeling.

Chick-Fil-A and its hatemongering supporters can have each other. I am not giving them a single cent.

Huckabee actually talked about bigotry and intolerance towards Christians while crusading against LGBTs. What a damn loon.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

Chick-Fil-A and its hatemongering supporters can have each other. I am not giving them a single cent.

Huckabee actually talked about bigotry and intolerance towards Christians while crusading against LGBTs. What a damn loon.

He also talked about how much weight he had lost through diet and exercise

Rubb Ed wrote:

I've been out for 15 years and I was horribly depressed when I'd see photos of all the lines of people lining up for food because of what Mike Huckabee suggested. I just can't even imagine what someone newly out or struggling with coming to terms with their LGBTQ identity must be feeling.

It was a shocking display of power: A large number of people with disposable income, transportation, and the liberty to (often) go in the middle of the day decided to swarm a place on nearly no notice, just " 'Cause Murrica! And Jesus!"

The only thing I saw on my Facebook wall mentioning all this was this image and this link.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/292472_4124241621108_431002131_n.jpg)

Edwin wrote:

The only thing I saw on my Facebook wall mentioning all this was this image and this link.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/292472_4124241621108_431002131_n.jpg)

It's another 'divide and conquer' ploy by the MSM. It's not news. Every 4 years some social debate arises to get people from focusing on real issues before an upcoming election and to keep the masses fighting about non-issues. It's genius really, they have effectively turned the gay rights issue into a free speech one. Just as the Aurora, Co was a mental health issue that was turned into a gun rights issue.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So why have those people as Facebook friends? Are they family? You can always set it so you keep someone as a friend but their posts do not appear in your news feed.

I don't really manage my friends list. I have very few to start with, maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 or so? And only a handful of those did I seek out, the rest are just old highschool classmates that invite everybody. For me it's more of a fascination to see how differently we all view the same events and how much some of us have changed over the last nearly 20 years. Or haven't changed for some.

As Bloo said, I like to see differing opinions on issues as I don't want to get stuck in the echo chamber that's all too easy to find on the net nowadays. That being said, there are probably only a couple of people on my facebook list I could actually have an engaging conversation with on issues like this. Most, like the last gent I mentioned, tend to just fall back to shouting things like Free Speech! America! Communist! Life! God! when confronted with complex issues.

In short, seeing the way a lot of my former acquaintances approach issues serves to remind me that apparently a decent number of people get all of their news from soundbites and front page headlines though this doesn't dissuade them in the least from being fully ready to physically assault someone to defend their positions. Think of it as the P&C equivalent of "keepin it real".

It's another 'divide and conquer' ploy by the MSM.

The Ken Coleman Show is "mainstream media"? Really?

The Ken Coleman Show is a syndicated weekly radio talk show that focuses on our pursuit of a better life. Featuring Ken's conversational interviews with leading voices and ordinary heroes as well as his positive perspective on life, The Ken Coleman Show is invigorating, inspiring & insightful.

When we discover the intersection of our greatest talent and highest passion we have found our sweet spot where purpose and fulfillment reside. When we are fulfilled we will be better spouses, better parents, better at business, better with people and better with money.

Listeners of The Ken Coleman Show walk away with a greater sense of significance and calling. Listeners will be encouraged that they can make a difference by the way they live their life. Listeners will be energized by the informative and entertaining conversations with A-listers, leading thinkers and ordinary heroes.

Right. Mainstream media. Because they are all about the pursuit of a better life...

How can America simultaneously treat sex as taboo while also being one of the global centers of the porn industry? Does the cultural repression itself serve to stoke the appetite of the consumer? I'm also still trying to figure out if the taboo itself is more cultural or religious in origin. I have to think religious but at this point American culture is so intertwined with Biblical ideas that I don't think you can really seperate the two on a lot of issues.

Kehama wrote:

How can America simultaneously treat sex as taboo while also being one of the global centers of the porn industry? Does the cultural repression itself serve to stoke the appetite of the consumer? I'm also still trying to figure out if the taboo itself is more cultural or religious in origin. I have to think religious but at this point American culture is so intertwined with Biblical ideas that I don't think you can really seperate the two on a lot of issues.

Public face vs. private actions. The loudest voices against things like pornography are exceptionally likely to have 50 Shades on the nightstand and a browser history that'd make a lonely teenager blush. You are absolutely right that the repression and taboo status increase the appetite for it. As I see it, the root cause of the taboo is religious(thanks, Puritans and friends!) practice that has migrated to a cultural issue as generations of immigrants adopted the practices of existent society. I'd say that the overall higher rate of religious belief/practice in the US compared to Western Europe exists for a similar reason. I don't have anything scientific to back that up, just my read on what I know of American history.

Kehama wrote:

How can America simultaneously treat sex as taboo while also being one of the global centers of the porn industry? Does the cultural repression itself serve to stoke the appetite of the consumer? I'm also still trying to figure out if the taboo itself is more cultural or religious in origin. I have to think religious but at this point American culture is so intertwined with Biblical ideas that I don't think you can really seperate the two on a lot of issues.

There's actually a pretty simple explanation, I think: American society being as free as it is, and as big as it is, there's room for the puritanical "sex is dirty" crowd, the free-love "sex is great" crowd, and everything in between. This has been the case almost from the beginning, and there's always been an element of flaunting behavior in the face of opposition. Think of the stereotypical Western town that had both a saloon and a church, the flappers versus the prohibitionists in the twenties and thirties, and the hippies versus the squares in the sixties and seventies. The conflict has generated plenty of trouble, like Prohibition, solicitation laws, and most importantly the War on Drugs; however, I think the only cultural attribute that is nearly universal to Americans is the fairly high level societal tolerance of all sides. We might yell at each other, and occasionally one side will make stupid laws that have to be repealed, but for the most part we live and let live.

Edwin wrote:

The only thing I saw on my Facebook wall mentioning all this was this image and this link.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/292472_4124241621108_431002131_n.jpg)

The fast food chain has no stance. A guy who happens to be the CEO of the company does.