Is Hate Speech Free Speech?

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Not quite. I believe in freedom of speech. You're free not to watch MMA if you don't like it.

I disagree with censoring someone solely based on them offending you. 

Context and the nature of what was said should matter. In this case, in my opinion it didn't warrant any type of discipline.

What he said was insensitive. Not abusive in the slightest.

If he offends you, you are under no obligation to watch MMA. 

Nope. Not even close. What he said was ignorant, but is his freedom of speech to do so.

The fact there was a lot of backlash on the reporter, speaks for itself. Many were onto what he was trying to do.

I speak my mind. I don't believe in a world where I should be afraid to speak. That isn't democratic or constitutional.

Actions matter more. His actions are why he is respected. 

Everything is offensive nowadays. You're talking about a level of control on speech that has nothing to do with accountability. 

Its all about suppression.

Anyone who disagrees with your logic should see a professional, based on our debate.

Am defending freedom of speech.

I speak freely, so yeah.

Again, freedom of speech refers to government control of speech, not to social consequence of speech.

What you're not cheering on isn't courage, it forthrightness or any positive attribute. It's just an a-hole with access to the megaphone of celebrity who is using his platform to pile abuse on the weak and marginalized in a world that already does plenty of that.

No amount of rationalization will change that. You support it, for whatever reason. It's exactly like cheering on an outspoken racist. It's probably worth getting that checked out.

 

[CdnFox]

Quote

Again, freedom of speech refers to government control of speech, not to social consequence of speech.

So all i have to do to squish free speech if i'm the gov't is encourage someone else to hurt the people saying things i don't like?

No, freedom of speech literally means freedom to say what you think without punishment. Gov't should protect free speech by passing laws punishing those who take actions against someone  else to try to 'cancel' them or shut them up for saying what they think.

This is just more of the lefts disgusting attempts to justify their cancel culture

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Am defending freedom of speech.

You're defending gratuitous abusive speech. Nothing virtuous about that.

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I speak freely, so yeah.

And abusing the societally marginalized because they're weaker and you can with impunity.

 

Edited January 28, 2024 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You're defending gratuitous abusive speech. Nothing virtuous about that.

And abusing the societally marginalized because they're weaker and you can with impunity.

 

And this is the problem with the left today.

They believe they are the sole arbiters of what is 'acceptable' speech and what should be gratuitous.

And they can't understand why anyone WOULDN'T want to surrender that exclusive right to them. (sigh)

Accepting freedom of speech is accepting that once in a while people are going to say things you don't like or approve of.  And you don't get to decide it's "Gratuitous" for them.

There was a time the left believed in free speech.  Now they're just a bunch of authoritarian fascists. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's just an a-hole with access to the megaphone of celebrity who is using his platform to pile abuse on the weak and marginalized in a world that already does plenty of that.

I am confused as to what he said here, that isn't straight factual. You're hoping he's canceled, but this has elevated him to legend status. He's 100% an a-hole, but he says a lot of things that many are thinking. There's a reason why he's not canceled, and there's a reason why many videos of him are being liked in high amounts.

He's not picking on the marginalized. He's picking on agenda pushing people, who are trying to suppress any dissenting views from the garbage they are pushing onto people.

One thing you need to learn about Strickland and the only thing I relate to him on, is he doesn't give two f***s about what you think about him.

I respect anyone who is themselves to the fullest, and isn't sitting there worrying about what everyone thinks on it. I may disagree with the person or not like who they are, but the respect will be there.

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

You support it, for whatever reason.

I respect anyone who speaks their mind, without fear.

I don't respect anyone who says something 10 years ago--gets it pulled up, and apologizes for what they said and meant back then and grew from. Nobody stands for anything, anymore. That's not courage.

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's exactly like cheering on an outspoken racist.

If they are called racist based on them not biting their tongue, and their "racism" is just things they say that offend others, without actually being racist, then I see someone being muzzled.

Strickland didn't go against any marginalized group of people--he in fact went against those who push ideologies that aren't based on anything factual onto children. He made his point very clear.

Its easier to dismiss someone by calling them transphobic and homophobic, than to actually debate what he said that was wrong, and being specific about it.

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's probably worth getting that checked out.

I think disagreeing with someone isn't grounds for getting "things checked out". Its grounds to debate with them, or accept that there is a disagreement.

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're defending gratuitous abusive speech.

What did he say that was abusive? Be specific.

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

And abusing the societally marginalized because they're weaker and you can with impunity.

Where did he do so. Where is his quote on abusing the marginalized. Be specific. You're hiding behind the copy and pasted manufactured outraged, but have yet to present specifically what was said that was in any shape or form abusive vs you simply not agreeing with it.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Accepting freedom of speech is accepting that once in a while people are going to say things you don't like or approve of.

Exactly. Ben Shapiro once made a very accurate statement about the black community, which feels its a victim for many. Pointed out the issue being community based, vs based on a society being racist. He supported his point with facts, stats, and was considered racist by many.

So easy to call someone a transphobe, and racist than face the reality of what is being said.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Nothing virtuous about that.

Virtuous? Who needs that?

Maybe you can signal a little more.

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

Maybe you can signal a little more.

 

Who was signalling more than that MMA guy?

I think today I learned that virtue signaling is moralizing by someone who has different morals than you.

If you want to moralize about freedom, being able to be an a- hole, telling people what language they should use and not use... That's okay.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Who was signalling more than that MMA guy?

I wouldn't call it virtue though. Meanness, ok.

Virtue to me means purity. Like virgin.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

I wouldn't call it virtue though. Meanness, ok.

Virtue to me means purity. Like virgin.

Well you're the one talking about virtue signaling so you can define it any way you want.

Some people like to define other words as they want. Like woman.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Well you're the one talking about virtue signaling so you can define it any way you want.

Some people like to define other words as they want. Like woman.

No, I can't. In the liberal world we can define anything as we want. In our conservative reality, we use a dictionary.

These are the telltale signs, you see.

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. No, I can't. In the liberal world we can define anything as we want. In our conservative reality, we use a dictionary.These are the telltale signs, you see.

 

1. I agree, but some who fashion themselves as conservatives do it too.  Like 'ideology'.  It sounds insidious so they use it to try to cancel ideas that they don't like.

[OftenWrong]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I agree, but some who fashion themselves as conservatives do it too.  Like 'ideology'.  It sounds insidious so they use it to try to cancel ideas that they don't like.

Yes, that makes sense. The purity seekers are like extremists in a way. 

If a person is a virtue seeker, that in itself is fine but for me it is about outcomes. My liberalism is based upon the notion you get to define yourself any way you want within your own sphere. But that doesn't mean I have to agree or approve of it. I shouldn't need to. It's your sphere and your alone. 

In the public sphere it has to fall under a definition we all, or the majority, agree upon. That's where laws and rules come in. 

Anything that challenges the established laws and rules could threaten our civility, and that's where the fight begins.

[Nationalist]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I agree, but some who fashion themselves as conservatives do it too.  Like 'ideology'.  It sounds insidious so they use it to try to cancel ideas that they don't like.

Mike...you can have and speak your opinion. Me too.

What can never be done, is to use the influence of the government and bureaucracies to squelch our opinions.

THAT...Mike...is the point.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What can never be done, is to use the influence of the government and bureaucracies to squelch our opinions.

Basically. 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Mike...you can have and speak your opinion. Me too.

What can never be done, is to use the influence of the government and bureaucracies to squelch our opinions.

THAT...Mike...is the point.

No.  OW and I were talking about etymology.  Whatever this thing about government is, is a new angle on what we were discussing.

 

[Guest]

To me anyone using terms like "punching up" believes in freedom of speech, only when it favors what they have to say. 

 

[Guest]

Also, what Strickland was doing, was affirming his freedom of thought.

He doesn't believe "chicks have d***s".

He feels he would have failed as a father if his child became gay.

This barely hits the radar of hate speech, as he isn't inciting anything onto anyone.

To blame him for violence would be the same as blaming Trudeau for inciting violence on conservative leaders by calling them "MAGA conservatives".

Its lazy, and doesn't remotely create any form of incitement. 

A rap song where it is encouraged to shoot your "ops" in the head making it to the radio, is perfectly fine.

Literally encouraging the systematic killing of black youth--fine.

Offending the LGBTQ community, must be shut down. 

How can anyone tell me this is legitimately the protection of marginalized communities, vs the suppression of the ability one could have to disagree with you?

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Also, what Strickland was doing, was affirming his freedom of thought.

What a ridiculous statement. " Affirming freedom of thought" is a phrase that could be used to justify anything.

You're criticizing individual critics, bending over backwards to find an excuse to excuse his assenine statement.

Why?  You somehow identify with people making assh0lish statements in public.  That's your right, but your obsession with reverse engineering it so what he said is above reproach is just weird.

You're never going to live in a world without manners, you know that right?

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

a phrase that could be used to justify anything.

What Strickland said isn't justified. What he said was him expressing his freedom of speech. His freedom of thought.

Nothing he said, incited violence onto anyone. 

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're criticizing individual critics

Am criticizing their hypocrisy. Not the criticism.

47 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

to excuse his assenine statement.

What is foolish about stating there are two genders? Women don't have penises?

Offensive? You bet. But for it to be foolish, would elude go where there should be no facts to validate the statement, and it would be easily refuted by correcting the quantity of genders that there are. Why having a penis makes you a woman.

Dismissing something is a lazy way out. Using facts to bring it to a crashing end is far more effective.

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You somehow identify

I identify with people not afraid of speaking their mind.

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

what he said is above reproach is just weird.

You're free to disagree with it. Trying to silence it because you're offended when he incited violence on nobody, is a other story.

Weird is a subjective term. Also lazy,  as anyone who doesn't behave like you, can easily inherently be weird.

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're never going to live in a world without manners, you know that right?

He is in entertainment. He understands media quite well, and straddles the line. 

He doesn't have a filter, but also is well aware of the red lines he cannot cross, or even the UFC wouldn't protect him.

Another fighter got suspended a few years prior for calling another fighter a f****t. The UFC gives fighters some rope, but won't hesitate to cut it if you go too far.

Sorry, but Strickland isn't too far, and you clearly don't know a thing about combat sports if you think that it is.

What he said was offensive, no doubt about it, but a lot of what he said was factual.

I look at people like Don Cherry, who said it unfiltered.

Did he say a few things that crossed the line? Were a lot of those things true and thought about by many?

Its what I like most about my wife. She is insanely blunt.

If she feels you are full of it she will tell it to you as is, to your face.

I believe in people being empowered. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. 

Respecting the boundaries and rights of others even, would come close to what you feel are manners.

Is Strickland breaking any laws? Do you hate what he said? Do you have to watch combat sports or choose to?

People who have their panties in a bunch over this, I guarantee you, aren't combat sports fans.

You can't possibly be that brittle and have enjoyed combat sports all your life. 

I grew up from childhood enjoying everything from watching boxing, kick boxing and eventually MMA, many years ago.

Most fans you will find, lean conservative as someone with a fighter spirit won't be able to see themselves as a victim. 

The world needs more combat sports.

I encouraged my sister to put her daughters in them.

The world needs more people who are strong and stoic. Not less.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. What Strickland said isn't justified. What he said was him expressing his freedom of speech. His freedom of thought.

Nothing he said, incited violence onto anyone. 

Am criticizing their hypocrisy. Not the criticism.

What is foolish about stating there are two genders? Women don't have penises?

Offensive? You bet. But for it to be foolish, would elude go where there should be no facts to validate the statement, and it would be easily refuted by correcting the quantity of genders that there are. Why having a penis makes you a woman.

Dismissing something is a lazy way out. Using facts to bring it to a crashing end is far more effective.

I identify with people not afraid of speaking their mind.

You're free to disagree with it. Trying to silence it because you're offended when he incited violence on nobody, is a other story.

Weird is a subjective term. Also lazy,  as anyone who doesn't behave like you, can easily inherently be weird.

He is in entertainment. He understands media quite well, and straddles the line. 

He doesn't have a filter, but also is well aware of the red lines he cannot cross, or even the UFC wouldn't protect him.

Another fighter got suspended a few years prior for calling another fighter a f****t. The UFC gives fighters some rope, but won't hesitate to cut it if you go too far.

Sorry, but Strickland isn't too far, and you clearly don't know a thing about combat sports if you think that it is.

What he said was offensive, no doubt about it, but a lot of what he said was factual.

I look at people like Don Cherry, who said it unfiltered.

Did he say a few things that crossed the line? Were a lot of those things true and thought about by many?

Its what I like most about my wife. She is insanely blunt.

If she feels you are full of it she will tell it to you as is, to your face.

I believe in people being empowered. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. 

Respecting the boundaries and rights of others even, would come close to what you feel are manners.

Is Strickland breaking any laws? Do you hate what he said? Do you have to watch combat sports or choose to?

People who have their panties in a bunch over this, I guarantee you, aren't combat sports fans.

You can't possibly be that brittle and have enjoyed combat sports all your life. 

I grew up from childhood enjoying everything from watching boxing, kick boxing and eventually MMA, many years ago.

Most fans you will find, lean conservative as someone with a fighter spirit won't be able to see themselves as a victim. 

The world needs more combat sports.

I encouraged my sister to put her daughters in them.

The world needs more people who are strong and stoic. Not less.

 

 

I just don't get your ethic.  You are steadfastly against shaming, moralizing, or expressing that you're offended - I get that.  But then finding the line as to when someone can express an objection to a statement becomes difficult.

I call this guy a doltish sounding bully - my opinion.  You say that people are too easily offended - your opinion.  Why is one expression ok and the other not ?    And I don't give a sh*t about Strickland, or combat sports.  You keep saying that I don't understand them, but I haven't disagreed.  I just this this guy, as a public figure, sounds like an 1diot.   Me calling him that is not "trying to silence him".  Nobody is trying to silence him.  Somebody asked a question and he started talking over the questioner and going after him personally.  If anybody was trying to silence someone, then it's him.

It's weird, as in abnormal, to expect a society to have no matters, protocol, or public morality.    That's not subjective, it's objective because there are no such societies.  But I am interested in hearing if you can articulate what you think the public sphere should do with objectionable people - or maybe now to process such things as an individual.

And - I do not care one whit about your childhood, your family, your nieces, your wife or your ex-wife.  Why do you think anything about your personal life is relevant ?  It's not.   It's not stoic that you share your problems with your ex-with me.

He can have his opinions about what constitutes a 'woman' but if you're interested in facts as you profess to be - please cite me something that says parenting will determine your sexuality.  That's the only statement from him I find to be non-factual and worthy of questioning, if not criticism.

You're LGBTQ+ - what happened in your parenting that made that happen, if you agree with Strickland ?

I'm asking all of this sincerely because I can see that there IS actually an ethic and some thought behind your positions, as well as a strong morality and - yes - shaming of people who shame.  That's fine.  When I ask myself if your philosophy on such things could be objectively seen as logical and consistent .... I get stuck in the area of self-improvement.  Is there room for any in such an ethic ?  That to me is a critical part of conservatism, taking in one's life events and adjusting the course.

Anyway, you're definitely interesting as a poster and I wouldn't say otherwise...

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

expressing that you're offended - I get that. 

Nothing wrong with being offended. Something wrong with being offended, and trying to take down a sports organization because of it.

If it fails, going after broadcasters, or anyone you feel will be soft enough to bend the knee, because you don't like hearing things that disagree with your political stance being said by a celebrity. 

Same entitlement behind people demanding companies to follow their every politician whim.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

my opinion

Good. Glad you added that this time. You're entitled to your opinions.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And I don't give a sh*t about Strickland, or combat sports. 

Point I made, about those outraged about his every word, yet having zero understanding of combat sports and trying to tell the owner of a combat sport business how to run his incredibly successful sport, or what he should allow his athletes to say.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I just this this guy, as a public figure, sounds like an 1diot.

Yet your exposure to him are two quotes. Two quotes taken out of context, no less.

I see it like people getting upset at Trump's border policies when Obama's were far worse. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nobody is trying to silence him. 

They pressured Dana White to muzzle his fighters. He humiliated the reporter for even bringing it up.

So they looked for softer targets. Scotiabank and ESPN. Neither responded, which is why that reporter and another had a full meltdown during one of their shows about it.

Just because he wasn't silenced, doesn't mean there wasn't a concentrated campaign to do just that.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Somebody asked a question and he started talking over the questioner

He clearly was picking a fight. This was after weigh ins. Fighters are depleted, cranky. Many get into fights. Understand combat sports and you would understand weigh ins is the last moment you want to pick a fight with someone.

Horrible timing for woke talking points. He talked over him because he called out gotcha moment he was trying to serve Strickland with.

You don't give them air when they do this, you snuff it out of them. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

and going after him personally.

He tried to corner a wild animal. What do you expect to happen?

Strickland is a loose cannon. That isn't a gimmick. 

He literally has a road rage video where a black male pulled a gun out on him, and Strickland dared him to point it at him, as he had a much more powerful gun he was about to use, as he was readying to get into a shootout with the guy.

The black male saw he was a different level of crazy and was on his way. He punched a fan during warm-ups after being asked to, almost knocking him out.

This, is who you're trying to corner and pressure to give an answer that meets your agenda. 

Dana White was spot on. This was agenda pushing. You know who you are talking to, and know what you will get out of this person.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

If anybody was trying to silence someone, then it's him.

This was all over leftist news. Pressure mounted on the UFC.

Strickland was over it the moment the press conference ended.

Try again.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

public morality

Because we are as moral a society as we have ever been?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 It's not stoic that you share your problems with your ex-with me.

I used an example. You're the one with the issue with it. Ironically enough, since we are talking being stoic.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

He can have his opinions

That's freedom of speech. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's the only statement from him I find to be non-factual

Well, he would be disappointed if his kid came out as gay. The issue being?

I know people who kids came out as trans. They struggled with it. Were disappointed. 

What is your point on it being non factual? He is talking about a fictional child of his.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're LGBTQ

I am. I wouldn't be disappointed if my wife's daughter came out as gay. I would see her the same.

My wife would be devastated.

She wants a daughter. Grandkids. 

This line of thinking is quite common, difference is my wife would accept her daughter after mourning the loss because she loves her.

You're removing that option from Strickland, because the reporter didn't allow for that line of questioning to occur.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. "trying to take down a sports organization because of it"  "going after broadcasters"

2. Yet your exposure to him are two quotes. Two quotes taken out of context, no less.

3. Just because he wasn't silenced, doesn't mean there wasn't a concentrated campaign to do just that.

4. He clearly was picking a fight. This was after weigh ins. Fighters are depleted, cranky. Many get into fights. Understand combat sports and you would understand weigh ins is the last moment you want to pick a fight with someone.

5. Strickland is a loose cannon. That isn't a gimmick. 

6. He literally has a road rage video where a black male pulled a gun out on him, and Strickland dared him to point it at him, as he had a much more powerful gun he was about to use, as he was readying to get into a shootout with the guy.  The black male saw he was a different level of crazy and was on his way. He punched a fan during warm-ups after being asked to, almost knocking him out.   

7. Because we are as moral a society as we have ever been?

8. I used an example. You're the one with the issue with it. Ironically enough, since we are talking being stoic.

9. Well, he would be disappointed if his kid came out as gay. The issue being?

10. I am. 

1. I'm guessing that you mean boycotts... and are against boycotts across the board.

2. Just the one about failing as a father if his son turns out LGBTQ.  I just think that's st*pid and arrogant of him to say.

3. People have a right to boycott though.  People boycotted BUD Lite because they were associated with a trans woman.  There was a campaign and people who pushed against the company.

4. It doesn't change that this guy said something st*pid.

5. I don't believe in people giving excuses for dumb quotes or behaviour unless they're a child.  Conservatives are supposed to believe in accountability.

6. Is this supposed to make me respect him or something ?  It just reinforces my view that he's an idi*t.  But you like him.  Ok.

7. Maybe we're not.  What do you think of that ?  It sounds like you don't care.  If that's your ethic, then you believe in might makes right.  Which means groups will gang up to defeat you.  But you're against that idea so...

8. Are you saying I'm not being stoic ?  If so, tell me how much you know from my posts my relationships, my ex-wife, my upbringing.... it's like A&E Biography with you sometimes... "I believe this because I was brought up on the mean streets of asexuality.." or whatever it is.  It's baffling.  But you do you, I am just telling you my opinion.

9. The issue being it's not a function of parenting.

10. Just to clarify: do you agree with him that parenting creates gayness/straightness ?  I think that's crazy/st*pid ...

[WestCanMan]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm guessing that you mean boycotts... and are against boycotts across the board.

2. Just the one about failing as a father if his son turns out LGBTQ.  I just think that's st*pid and arrogant of him to say.

3. People have a right to boycott though.  People boycotted BUD Lite because they were associated with a trans woman.  There was a campaign and people who pushed against the company.

4. It doesn't change that this guy said something st*pid.

5. I don't believe in people giving excuses for dumb quotes or behaviour unless they're a child.  Conservatives are supposed to believe in accountability.

6. Is this supposed to make me respect him or something ?  It just reinforces my view that he's an idi*t.  But you like him.  Ok.

7. Maybe we're not.  What do you think of that ?  It sounds like you don't care.  If that's your ethic, then you believe in might makes right.  Which means groups will gang up to defeat you.  But you're against that idea so...

8. Are you saying I'm not being stoic ?  If so, tell me how much you know from my posts my relationships, my ex-wife, my upbringing.... it's like A&E Biography with you sometimes... "I believe this because I was brought up on the mean streets of asexuality.." or whatever it is.  It's baffling.  But you do you, I am just telling you my opinion.

9. The issue being it's not a function of parenting.

10. Just to clarify: do you agree with him that parenting creates gayness/straightness ?  I think that's crazy/st*pid ...

Strickland was asked a question... don't be offended that he answered honestly just because you don't agree with his beliefs.

What you are looking for is a society where people have 3 choices: believe what you believe, STFU, or get cancelled.

Just remember that you are the nutjob here. You believe that all small children should be exposed to leftist talking points which lead them to believe that they can grow up to be whatever they want to be with regards to gender.

It's an absolute fact that Johnny can't grow up to be what he knows as "a mother". A fact. Nothing that you believe changes that fact. But little kids who are exposed to crazy alt-left talking points will be convinced that they should chase after a fairy tale, and they completely lack the wisdom to understand the ramifications of that decision.

Strickland believes that educators should not be telling them those things, and that they are false and/or misleading. 

He may not be eloquent about it, or pleasant, but he doesn't have to be. He's defending children. People get nasty when they have to do that.  

Edited January 30, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Just the one about failing as a father if his son turns out LGBTQ.  I just think that's st*pid and arrogant of him to say.

I don't understand how that is arrogant. He is describing how he would feel about it, again--using a fictional son. You're literally offended by a hypothetical situation about how one would allegedly feel about something should they face it.

You're making way more of it than it was.

It would be like you lecturing me about calling Smurfette a town slut and how slut shaming her is damaging.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

People have a right to boycott though.

Businesses for whom the clientele boycotting doesn't affect its bottom line, have the right not to give a f**k about it. Glad the UFC found its balls.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't change that this guy said something st*pid

To you. To many others, he said something factual that needed to be said. Beauty of opinions. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't believe in people giving excuses for dumb quotes or behaviour unless they're a child.  Conservatives are supposed to believe in accountability.

Accountability for what though. Ruffling your feathers?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is this supposed to make me respect him or something ?  

You don't respect people who live authentically and speak their minds without an ounce of a care for how you feel about it. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which means groups will gang up to defeat you.

That's what guns are for.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If so, tell me how much you know from my posts my relationships, my ex-wife, my upbringing

I often speak from experience. You like Google and links. 

Your point?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's baffling

You like things in tidy boxes. I don't do boxes, unless am moving.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The issue being it's not a function of parenting.

You're wanting someone to tell you about something honestly, but in a way that meets your required tone, wording and level of political correctness.

His take was brutally honest, he elaborated, but this had nothing to do with his opinion.

It was a hit piece in hopes to get him muzzled. It amplified him, because millions saw through it.

Good on the UFC.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Just to clarify: do you agree with him that parenting creates gayness/straightness ? 

No. I understand why a parent could feel disappointed or question their parenting. Devastated even, if their child came out as trans.

However, it ultimately shouldn't affect your love for your child, nor do they choose to be gay or trans.

Schools however, shouldn't confuse them about either. Its not their job to. Growing up is confusing enough.

See. I translated it to suitable PC talk for you.

Where we differ, is I don't do PC. Unless we are talking computers or voting.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Strickland was asked a question... don't be offended that he answered honestly just because you don't agree with his beliefs.

2. Just remember that you are the nutjob here. You believe that all small children should be exposed to leftist talking points which lead them to believe that they can grow up to be whatever they want to be with regards to gender.

1. Offended?  Read back through this thread, Johnny Come Lately, and point where I said I was offended.  Or just believe that I wasn't.

2. 😂 Now YOU sound offended.  

Anyway, you're cancelled 😂 Now back to your ignore bucket...