Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

[♪alt13]

Bigot? One word. I’d think several words.

Sexist, Racist, Homophobe...

But I just don’t really put up with BS. Especially in person.

Replace the words “republican” or “trumpet” with black, Jew, woman...in the long standing history of his posts and what do we have?

Now clearly the history and power dynamic between these groups and “the right”, or white males as you state, isn’t even remotely comparable. Like, at all.

But idiotic hate at its base level is idiotic hate. In this case it’s simply politically based. Both the “left” and “right” demonstrate this constantly.

So I’m neither ignorant or uncaring. Simply unwilling to remain silent forever.

you're not ignorant

I mean this in the softest possible way but if that's the argument you're making you're an *******

(Poop chute)

 

[Stoked]

you're not ignorant

I mean this in the softest possible way but if that's the argument you're making you're an *******

(Poop chute)

If you're blind to it then I can calmly say the same for you.

People always want to hate away at large groups as long as it’s “in”.

 

[♪alt13]

If you're blind to it then I can calmly say the same for you.

People always want to hate away at large groups as long as it’s “in”.

Smh

you chose the words

Sexist, Racist, Homophobe

How is anything that Thriller said to you equivalent to that?

Srsly

(This is where you should say. "Yeah it's not. I probably should have used a different word. He pisses me off but I certainly don't want to sound like a huge ******* that is unwilling to make a clear distinction between the absolutely most ugly facets of our society and a guy that I think is an *******. I should have said *******. I should have said Thriller is an orifice from which poop comes out. That would have been a much more honest way for me to express my views of him than to equate him to sexists, racists, and homophobes".)

 

[Stoked]

Smh

you chose the words

Sexist, Racist, Homophobe

How is anything that Thriller said to you equivalent to that?

Srsly

(This is where you should say. "Yeah it's not. I probably should have used a different word. He pisses me off but I certainly don't want to sound like a huge ******* that is unwilling to make a clear distinction between the absolutely most ugly facets of our society and a guy that I think is an *******. I should have said *******. I should have said Thriller is an orifice from which poop comes out. That would have been a much more honest way for me to express my views of him than to equate him to sexists, racists, and homophobes".)

You posed a hypothetical and I answered. Given the current climate that’s how I’d expect people to answer. Doesn’t mean I have to answer that way. To me I’d say hate.

Bigotry: intolerance towards those who hold different opinions than oneself.

To me the Thriller clearly hates “the right”. He demeans and belittles them endlessly. At its base level it’s still hate. He is adamantly intolerant of those who hold different political beliefs.

I wouldn’t call you a bigot. Far from it tbh.

It’s not what he said to me. It’s what he has said on here over and over and over.

I have made a distinction. Thriller isn’t the KKK. But I can still recognize idiotic hate when I see it.

 

[♪alt13]

You posed a hypothetical and I answered. Given the current climate that’s how I’d expect people to answer. Doesn’t mean I have to answer that way. To me I’d say hate.

Bigotry: intolerance towards those who hold different opinions than oneself.

To me the Thriller clearly hates “the right”. He demeans and belittles them endlessly. At its base level it’s still hate. He is adamantly intolerant of those who hold different political beliefs.

I wouldn’t call you a bigot. Far from it tbh.

It’s not what he said to me. It’s what he has said on here over and over and over.

I have made a distinction. Thriller isn’t the KKK. But I can still recognize idiotic hate when I see it.

Then call him hateful. Wether you like it or not people have to interpret what you say. By your iwn admission you do not own the words that you use. If you say bigot they will think you mean sexist, racist, homophobe. If you don't mean that then you have misspoken.

BTW

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

 

[Stoked]

Then call him hateful. Wether you like it or not people have to interpret what you say. By your iwn admission you do not own the words that you use. If you say bigot they will think you mean sexist, racist, homophobe. If you don't mean that then you have misspoken.

BTW

Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Exactly. In this case that group is a political one. “The right”. “Such as” is an example, and a good historical one, but hardly all inclusive.

I have not misspoken. I’ve aplied the very definition of the word. It’s in print and directly applies. Something I’ve thankfully learned from Jazzfanz.

You’re proving my point.

 

[Stoked]

Here is the exact definition I used.

 

[♪alt13]

Exactly. In this case that group is a political one. “The right”. “Such as” is an example, and a good historical one, but hardly all inclusive.

I have not misspoken. I’ve aplied the very definition of the word. It’s in print and directly applies. Something I’ve thankfully learned from Jazzfanz.

You’re proving my point.

no I really haven't. You are choosing to ignore the full history of the word and its implications despite knowing them well (as your chosen synonyms clearly demonstrate).

Language is thought warfare. With a few sounds or characters you or I can manipulate other people into having a thought they otherwise would not have had.

Like other forms of warfare defining the terms of the battle can give you an upper hand. Which is what you are trying to do.

By attempting to divorce the word Bigot of its full sting(kkk etc)you are neutering the word. Why would you commit yourself to an effort that would ignore the sexist, racist, homophobic undertones of the word bigot? What advantage do you gain by that?

In short it makes you look like a bigot who wants to soften the word.

You haven't said anything that makes me think you are a bigot but those are the optics.

 

[Stoked]

no I really haven't. You are choosing to ignore the full history of the word and its implications despite knowing them well (as your chosen synonyms clearly demonstrate).

Language is thought warfare. With a few sounds or characters you or I can manipulate other people into having a thought they otherwise would not have had.

Like other forms of warfare defining the terms of the battle can give you an upper hand. Which is what you are trying to do.

By attempting to divorce the word Bigot of its full sting(kkk etc)you are neutering the word. Why would you commit yourself to an effort that would ignore the sexist, racist, homophobic undertones of the word bigot? What advantage do you gain by that?

In short it makes you look like a bigot who wants to soften the word.

You haven't said anything that makes me think you are a bigot but those are the optics.

I’m not ignoring the history of the word. I acknowledge it with my comments on history and power dynamic.

But the literal definition directly applied to a thriller and his hate towards Republicans.

At this point is semantics. You simply don’t like my word choice while admitting the hate that exists.

The definition of the word agrees more with me while the social and political history agree more with you.

What I gain from it is standing against group based hate. That is what he is engaging in.

 

[♪alt13]

I’m not ignoring the history of the word. I acknowledge it with my comments on history and power dynamic.

But the literal definition directly applied to a thriller and his hate towards Republicans.

At this point is semantics. You simply don’t like my word choice while admitting the hate that exists.

The definition of the word agrees more with me while the social and political history agree more with you.

What I gain from it is standing against group based hate. That is what he is engaging in.

1)It is completely natural for political parties (and their members opinions ) to be in stark oposition to one another. If it wasn't this way we would have The Party.

2)Please stop crying that other people hate your views. It ain't the same as someone hating you because you are black. #snowflake

3)Srsly this use of bigot makes you look like a racist sympathizer to a great many people regardless of what you really mean or what you really feel. If that's what you want keep using it that way.

 

[Stoked]

1)It is completely natural for political parties (and their members opinions ) to be in stark oposition to one another. If it wasn't this way we would have The Party.

2)Please stop crying that other people hate your views. It ain't the same as someone hating you because you are black. #snowflake

3)Srsly this use of bigot makes you look like a racist sympathizer to a great many people regardless of what you really mean or what you really feel. If that's what you want keep using it that way.

1) stark contrast =\= hate

2) the republican views =\= mine. But I can still see a spade for a spade. For real. The Rs have some really BAD ideas.

3) your use of bigot makes you blind to the new social and political reality and simultaneously ignore the literal definition of the word. Good look with defending group based hate simply because they’re different. For real, good luck with that.

 

[Stoked]

Alt13, unlike Thriller, I listen and process what you say. I truly try to challenge my own beliefs.

Thanks for the discussion and insight. Hopefully I provided the same.

Beer, and goodnight.

P.S. you’re top 3 for someone I want to meet from JFC

 

[lauriandres]

Awesome! You may have explained this in another thread, but how did you come to be a Utah Jazz fan?

I guess my answer will be considered rascist, but nevermind
I was born in 1975, and heard about NBA around '87-'88 when i saw videoclips from the Finnish TV. Also, Tiit Sokk and the Soviet Union team had a tour in the USA (where they lost to Bucks and several university teams). Later Hawks visited Soviet Union and played exhibition games in Kaunas, Moscow and Tbilisi and i saw how Spud Webb was able to dunk (that was awesome to watch). I guess i learned more later, when Finnish TV showed playoffs in the 88-89 and so on seasons. For some odd reasons, i did not liked the Lakers nor Blazers and started to like Suns instead (who lost 4:0 to Lakers). Because Suns had Chambers, Hornacek and Majerle (who proved to me that white men can jump or at least play) i started to like them. When i got my first computer in '93 and Lakers vs Celtics game, then of course the Suns was my favourite team and i beat my friend who usually chose either Lakers or Bulls. Later when i managed to get some magazines (Hoop and Sports Illustrated) i started to like Jazz more. Maybe because John Stockton looked similar to Tiit Sokk. I remember that Martin Müürsepp was also originally drafted by Jazz and the traded to Heat (and then later to Mavs). According to this clip , i wonder if giving chance, would Jazz have replaced/traded Adam Keefe to Martin Müürsepp ...
Almost a 10-15 years ago our home (i lived in nearby https://www.google.com/maps/@59.385...4!1sqFvk8Eh8LPCUHEHlSQAl8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 )
was visited by couple of mormon missionaries who (if i remember correctly) spoke fluent estonian language. Told my mother about the personal difficulties (one had a relative who died while very young etc). I had not a chance to verify whether they are real mormons or not by asking something like "am i correct, Utah Jazz sucks compared to Blazers or Nuggets"

 

[fishonjazz]

No. Stop listening to fake news.

Union reps are typically present in the termination process. I’ve even advised a few principals that their best option would be to terminate the employee.

The main role we played was in protecting the worker’s rights. This means that employers had to give employees a due process. They had to follow protocol and ensure that the termination was just and not merely based on personal grudges, gossip, etc.

It shouldn’t be a secret that the American worker has seen stagnant wages since the collapse of organized labor. Like it’s obvious why workers today are typically working harder, receiving less pay, and are less secure in their jobs. Without organized labor of course the employer will exploit workers for all they can.

Good post

 

[The Thriller]

This is unsettling... this is the same bank that was fined $650 million for laundering Russian money. Trump went to this bank once American banks stopped loaning him money. Not exactly a clean bank. And it just adds more fuel to the fire that our government has been compromised by Russian influence.

 

[colton]

I had not a chance to verify whether they are real mormons or not by asking something like "am i correct, Utah Jazz sucks compared to Blazers or Nuggets"

Would definitely be a funny question to ask the missionaries! But of course not all Mormons are Jazz fans. I'm Mormon but was mostly a Washington Bullets fan growing up, because I lived near Washington DC. I didn't become a Jazz fan until I moved to Utah for college.

 

[Eminence]

I've understood your point this whole time.

Yep, I believe you did. And then proceeded to put a whole bunch of words into my mouth, making further discussion impossible.

I'm fine with allowing unions/workers to dissociate vs the formerly required 2-way interactions (dues/representation). This recent ruling leaves us at an ugly halfway point imo(representation required/nothing in return).

 

[RandyForRubio]

One thing that we haven’t even touched on, unions as a lobbying force in politics. If unions have less money now (which is obviously going to happen) how are they supposed to offset the corporate dollars that are flooding our political system?

Aaaand this is why the SCOTUS ruled the way they did.

If you didn’t have me on ignore you would’ve seen that I did mention it.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Yeah they could have repealed the ACS too but they couldn't hold Senate Republicans together so...

52 Republican Senators
McCain probably won't vote (dying and stuff) That means 2 Republicans can block a nominee.

Democrats like Manchin will vote to approve. Maybe Tester. Gotta get re-elected.

Plus Pence can vote if needed. It will get pushed through, because of Harry Reid.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I think where all of you have missed the point, or are willingly ignoring it, is that the union ruling was a first amendment issue.

90% of Union political money went to the Democrat Party. If that was reversed, are we honestly going to sit here and say Thriller (and people like him) wouldn’t have a huge issue with that? That if he wasn’t part of a union, but still had to pay his dues, and that money went to support republicans, that he wouldn’t take huge issue with that? Cause I’ve been reading that dude for years, and he literally loathes the Republican Party.

Oh, and btw, when you have evidence of treating people differently because of how they identify...whether it be gender, color, political party, dressing style, etc...that is an example of bigotry. Some are obviously more extreme than others, there are levels, but that’s what the doggone word means. But white men can’t use it?! Bullpoop (damn filter).