4 Likes
Again. Why are some people defending people like this? I love to play devil’s advocate, but even the devil has standards.
13 Likes
Were they ever?
10 Likes
IANAL, but wouldn’t this guy’s Twitter rant be considered hyperbole based on the “reasonable man” argument. Offensive, sure, but just another asshole on the Twitters…
Because they can?
Because they don’t care, since it’s not “real” to them or doesn’t affect them personally?
Because some men people really do “just want to watch the world burn?”
10 Likes
Is stating IANAL an excuse for trying to apply the “reasonable man” argument (concept) in a context it was not intended for?
4 Likes
What actual US vets think about flag ceremonies:
1 Like
3 Likes
You know what 's more irksome than any of the other disingenuous arguments being presented? The idea that the general public somehow owes the guy in question their patronage to his place of business.
They don’t; that’s the “free market” in action, right?
13 Likes
Sorry, but no one has even come close to suggesting that.
Perhaps. I merely wanted to point out how a reasonable reader would chalk this guy’s FB post (my mistake re: Twiiter) up to just another idiot on the Internet, and that it’s not a real threat. Someone mentioned 12 Angry Men, and I was thinking of this at trial, where the defense lawyer would counter this FB evidence with “But your honour, no reasonable person would read that as a threat”
Not excusing the guy. Or justifying it. If I was looking for a place to eat where he is, his restaurant it not on the menu. Although from the look of the place, it’s not my style.
1 Like
Sure, if I were to lay a bet, I’d say he was a bar-owner closing up shop who got drunk, saw a Breitbart article, opened up Facebook, and started typing nastiness – then deleted it the next day and hoped nobody’d noticed (oops). And sure, we can postulate on his frame of mind, motivation, and psyche. I agree that he likely would never want anyone to actually kill NFL players, at least when he’s sober. But if I got super drunk and painted some racist stuff on the side of my house, then tried to paint over it the next day, the fact remains that I said a bunch of hateful, racist stuff in a very public way, and there’s consequences for that sort of thing.
8 Likes
I call that ‘the royal you’, and I sure don’t blame ya.
2 Likes
Sometimes a righteous shaming is far more effective than a reasoned debate. I suspect this is one of those times.
3 Likes
in the words of a wise, wise man.
You do it to yourself, you do
And that’s what really hurts
Is that you do it to yourself
Just you and no one else
You do it to yourself
You do it to yourself
5 Likes
Sorry, but… in vino veritas
Drunk people don’t go around seriously insisting AND believing that they’re the emperor of the North Pole.
7 Likes
Because fascism.
9 Likes
@Melz2 has already encapsulated the situation with their usual style: Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.
That applies here, too. If you have an unpopular opinion, you are not entitled to freedom from criticism of that opinion. The defence to bad speech is more speech. Whether or not the response is proportional or not is a fair topic for discussion, but suggesting that any response at all is restricting freedoms is a bad-faith argument and will be summarily removed.
That being said:
Please don’t accuse others of bad faith here. People may have opinions you disagree with. That doesn’t make them automatically bad actors. If you feel someone is acting in bad faith, flag their posts so we can have a look behind the curtain and make that determination. Posts insulting other posters or calling them names will be eaten.
Thanks.
9 Likes
Thanks, Oren.
10 Likes
5 Likes
