Jump to content

The Woke Mind Virus


Recommended Posts

On 5/2/2024 at 4:02 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I never understood why you had to declare an allegiance when you register for voting in the USA. Seems to favor status quo. 

Is that information public?

You're not required to do anything here Mike, except follow some forum rules. 

Why do you feel oppressed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I truly do agree with the gay couple but find that legal action is not always the best way to achieve the goal. Legal action creates faux victims and galvanizes them. However, by simply going somewhere else and therefore not giving them your business and spreading the word... you do something far more impactful. Your other examples are a bit hyperbolic. Yes, if they lived in shoup, Idaho.. they would have no alternatives. But they do not.. I did a quick google search and found that they had dozens of alternatives within 30 miles. 

But the examples are not hyperbolic. That was just real life in the US before the civil rights act. Those examples are exactly why the law was passed, and why such cases still matter. 🤷‍♂️

Funny that you mention Idaho, I actually had a different, larger Idaho town in mind. Moscow, ID is home to the University of Idaho (and not much else of note). It's a population of about 25,000. But it's been targeted for takeover by an insane ultraconservative church/cult. This has been brewing for many years, and they've actually made an alarming amount of progress toward their goal and have a massively outsized presence, having executed coordinated takeovers of many local businesses and commercial spaces. It's a problem already, but without legal protection, what is life going to be like for minorities in this town as the takeover continues? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

1. No, I would not have. Another aspect to modern politics that I thoroughly loathe is the faux victimhood. Yes, the gay couple were met with resistance but they could have easily have went elsewhere. If I was the couple.. I would not let one religious zealot ruin my day. I would have brushed him off like pocket lint, found someone else, and then wrote a negative review. The review would let others of like mind to myself know that he is not welcoming. That is free enterprise at its finest.

2. The usual line is "I should not have to do that". The "that" is choosing an alternative. When I point out that they have a choice.. the indignation and whining is epic. You should not have to choose an alternate route to work but the interstate is closed going westbound so you can either figure out another way or sit in traffic and whine. I find that most people today prefer the latter. 

3. as an example, I have two websites (one political like this and one centered around music)  that recently went live... I love the fact that I do not allow comments. I have the right to block trolls, hackers, and ignorant types. 

1. You "loathe faux victimhood" yet you're still butt-hurt enough to broadcast the "zealot's" transgressions because he won't bake a cake for your homosexual wedding? When you say the guy is "not welcoming", you're basically saying he is hostile to queers and will kick their asses out on sight. All he did was refuse one particular request because he disagrees with the homosexual community distorting the proper meaning of marriage. Apparently, he's STILL being harassed by godless a$$holes because he stood his ground on ONE issue. 

2. So what the hell are you saying here? That you should not have to do your best to take a piece out of the baker's ass? That he should just step down and be compliant with the homosexual agenda? 

3. Yes, you do have the right to now allow comments. But are you really so fragile that you can't sift through the bullshit and find genuine opinions? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

But the examples are not hyperbolic. That was just real life in the US before the civil rights act. Those examples are exactly why the law was passed, and why such cases still matter. 🤷‍♂️

Funny that you mention Idaho, I actually had a different, larger Idaho town in mind. Moscow, ID is home to the University of Idaho (and not much else of note). It's a population of about 25,000. But it's been targeted for takeover by an insane ultraconservative church/cult. This has been brewing for many years, and they've actually made an alarming amount of progress toward their goal and have a massively outsized presence, having executed coordinated takeovers of many local businesses and commercial spaces. It's a problem already, but without legal protection, what is life going to be like for minorities in this town as the takeover continues? 

Been to Moscow, ID a few times. I grew up in Boise. I detect that you have not been there or not for a long time and are relying on second hand media for this. This sounds a bit hyperbolic. 

The point being (interesting how you dodge this) is the reputational risk and damage is greater if you make it public than if you take legal action and therefore galvanize the opposition. I have seen the prior method work. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

It's not because they couldn't have gotten a cake elsewhere. It's because they shouldn't have to--so that everyone else shouldn't have to, because that's not always an option. 

See, people like you think that ALL businesses should have little, if ANY rights. If one little special interest loses his shit over something, then EVERYONE needs to be put on notice. That might be the stupidest thing that has ever come out of your party. 

Yes, they should have to go elsewhere, because business providers also have rights. They reserve the right to refuse service for ANY reason. Don't like it? Then f*ck off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Been to Moscow, ID a few times. I grew up in Boise. I detect that you have not been there or not for a long time and are relying on second hand media for this. This sounds a bit hyperbolic. 

The point being (interesting how you dodge this) is the reputational risk and damage is greater if you make it public than if you take legal action and therefore galvanize the opposition. I have seen the prior method work. 

I have been there. I have lived there. It's not hyperbolic. You could pick up the phone and randomly dial any number in that town, and any adult who answered the phone (from whichever side) would know exactly what you're talking about. 

One decent person's "reputational risk" is a deplorable person's mark of quality. 100 years of " reputational risk" didn't solve the issue, but the Civil Rights Act did. Protective legislation did.

And at any rate, demonstrably successful legislation and the resulting civil cases are in no way exclusive of reputational risk. It's a certainty that the cake shop was review bombed by people on both sides of the issue. 

Ultimately, we've had 50+ years of protecting minority access to places of public accommodation and it's worked. The difference is night and day for minority groups trying to live and function in this country. We can look from the past to the present and see how dramatic the change has been. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

I have been there. I have lived there. It's not hyperbolic. You could pick up the phone and randomly dial any number in that town, and any adult who answered the phone (from whichever side) would know exactly what you're talking about. 

One decent person's "reputational risk" is a deplorable person's mark of quality. 100 years of " reputational risk" didn't solve the issue, but the Civil Rights Act did. Protective legislation did.

And at any rate, demonstrably successful legislation and the resulting civil cases are in no way exclusive of reputational risk. It's a certainty that the cake shop was review bombed by people on both sides of the issue. 

Ultimately, we've had 50+ years of protecting minority access to places of public accommodation and it's worked. The difference is night and day for minority groups trying to live and function in this country. We can look from the past to the present and see how dramatic the change has been. 

100 years and we have only had the internet since roughly the mid - 90's. Unless you can show that we had public internet in 1971 or so. "review bombing" that you spoke of is purely an internet creation. 

Suing someone brings the state, city, county into the matter. This gives the defendant the perception of being ganged up on. What comes next? Oh.. that's right, the folks who support the defendant paint the picture of them being oppressed. Is this misrepresenting things? Oh yes. Nothing motivates or galvanizes a group more than a perceived attack. I would rather punish the baker with hitting him in the wallet. I have seen this approach work. What happened? The two businesses involved went away and the owner never resurfaced.. I have access to micro level qcew data and can look someone up by name, ssn, ui acct #, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I have been there. I have lived there. It's not hyperbolic. You could pick up the phone and randomly dial any number in that town, and any adult who answered the phone (from whichever side) would know exactly what you're talking about. 

McLuhan predicted the Balkanization of America.  We can see it in its early stages.  When there is no influential voice preaching unity anymore, disunity will happen.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

100 years and we have only had the internet since roughly the mid - 90's. Unless you can show that we had public internet in 1971 or so. "review bombing" that you spoke of is purely an internet creation. 

Suing someone brings the state, city, county into the matter. This gives the defendant the perception of being ganged up on. What comes next? Oh.. that's right, the folks who support the defendant paint the picture of them being oppressed. Is this misrepresenting things? Oh yes. Nothing motivates or galvanizes a group more than a perceived attack. I would rather punish the baker with hitting him in the wallet. I have seen this approach work. What happened? The two businesses involved went away and the owner never resurfaced.. I have access to micro level qcew data and can look someone up by name, ssn, ui acct #, etc. 

I'm glad you have seen this work in a couple of instances. I think that's nice. But it's certainly not a substitute for legal protection. A negative review isn't going to undo the trauma of some poor kid denied a restroom or some motorist being denied custom at the only gas station around. These laws exist for a reason. There should be no question.

The internet is also not the great equalizer you think it is though. We all imagined democratized access to information and publication would be a great thing. And in some ways it is. But it's also just made it a lot easier for crazies to validate their crazy ideas by finding like-minded people online. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

 We all imagined democratized access to information and publication would be a great thing. And in some ways it is. But it's also just made it a lot easier for crazies to validate their crazy ideas by finding like-minded people online. 

It's funny though, other media have gone through the same thing, specifically, radio. 

 

They thought it would be used for lectures, to transmit poetry, etc. As soon as advertising took off, a lot of people were angry with what was happening. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's funny though, other media have gone through the same thing, specifically, radio. 

 

They thought it would be used for lectures, to transmit poetry, etc. As soon as advertising took off, a lot of people were angry with what was happening. 

 

It gets better--and worse--every time we lower the cost of entry.

Nobody was going to fund the FERN (Flat Earth Radio Network) but now every dumb idea has unlimited cheap distribution. And before you know it lizard people secretly rule the world and the most scrutinized election in history was secretly "stolen" but nobody can quite say how. 

Back before the printing press, the standards were VERY high to merit copying and distributing a book. 😁

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It gets better--and worse--every time we lower the cost of entry. Back before the printing press, the standards were VERY high to merit copying and distributing a book. 😁

Yeah. Much harder for you on the left to control the message these days.  Poor guys.

No wonder you want to pass laws against "Misinformation" - which can be defined as anything you don't want to hear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

What kind of country do we want this to be? We can't make everyone be kind and accepting or friendly, but we can make sure that everyone has a right to exist and function in society. And that's why people bring cases like this. It's not because they couldn't have gotten a cake elsewhere. It's because they shouldn't have to--so that everyone else shouldn't have to, because that's not always an option. 

Welcome back! I see you have moved on from where we left off here and are back to making the same bad arguments to someone else instead. 

The baker, in this instance, was not refusing service to them because they were gay. Hell, how would you ever know someone was gay unless they told you?

No, he refused to participate in their marriage, as his deeply held religious convictions precluded him from doing so. They could have walked in and purchased any other baked goods and walked right out happy customers. 

And beyond that, the LGBTQ community relentlessly bullied the man, trying to force him to bake a satan dildo cake. 

In your world of tolerance, are you here to tell us this man should be compelled by the force of law to bake satan dildo cakes, too?

Look in the mirror. You are the one with the billy club beating people into submission while chanting tolerance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, User said:

Welcome back! I see you have moved on from where we left off here and are back to making the same bad arguments to someone else instead. 

The baker, in this instance, was not refusing service to them because they were gay. Hell, how would you ever know someone was gay unless they told you?

No, he refused to participate in their marriage, as his deeply held religious convictions precluded him from doing so. They could have walked in and purchased any other baked goods and walked right out happy customers. 

And beyond that, the LGBTQ community relentlessly bullied the man, trying to force him to bake a satan dildo cake. 

In your world of tolerance, are you here to tell us this man should be compelled by the force of law to bake satan dildo cakes, too?

Look in the mirror. You are the one with the billy club beating people into submission while chanting tolerance. 

You lost the thread completely. Wasn't much point 

Selling someone the exact same cake you'd sell to anyone else is not "participating in their wedding." That's patently absurd.

And yes, refusing to sell the exact same cake that you'd sell to anyone else, because the purchaser of the exact same cake is gay, absolutely is discriminating against the customer solely on the grounds of sexual orientation. It's a farking commodity product, not an artistic endeavor.

Next you will argue that he can refuse to serve interracial couples. Or perhaps Blacks altogether. Or that a Subway Sandwich Artists shouldn't have to make a veggie footlong for a gay person because they disapprove of such things. 

You're making a specious argument to rationalize hateful, bigoted behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It gets better--and worse--every time we lower the cost of entry.

Nobody was going to fund the FERN (Flat Earth Radio Network) but now every dumb idea has unlimited cheap distribution. And before you know it lizard people secretly rule the world and the most scrutinized election in history was secretly "stolen" but nobody can quite say how. 

Back before the printing press, the standards were VERY high to merit copying and distributing a book. 😁

I don't know about the cost. Radio and television were pretty expensive to get into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the internet does give free distribution to every hair brained idea. As long as someone is willing to type it out.. it can be put online and ready to consume. Like all things.. it has pros and cons. More is not always better but who is to decide what information is better/more valid. Music is another avenue where the once exclusive club of recording artists has greatly expanded. Again.. not all music is great but that is up to the audience to discern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You lost the thread completely. Wasn't much point 

Selling someone the exact same cake you'd sell to anyone else is not "participating in their wedding." That's patently absurd.

And yes, refusing to sell the exact same cake that you'd sell to anyone else, because the purchaser of the exact same cake is gay, absolutely is discriminating against the customer solely on the grounds of sexual orientation. It's a farking commodity product, not an artistic endeavor. 

LOL, more like you have been confronted with someone who picked apart your arguments bit by bit... so you just ignored the response and keep repeating the same thing again. 

No, not the exact same cake. Creating a wedding cake is an act of art, made for that specific occasion. They could come in and buy a birthday cake or any other cakes or baked goods. This has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court now. You call it patently absurd, but they provided quite an extensive legal review of this. 

A straight person could have come in and informed them they wanted a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding and been refused service as well. 

Even then, the point here was merely that they were not refused service for merely being gay as you keep trying to argue. 
 

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Next you will argue that he can refuse to serve interracial couples. Or perhaps Blacks altogether. Or that a Subway Sandwich Artists shouldn't have to make a veggie footlong for a gay person because they disapprove of such things. 

Nope. I already explained this to you, they were not refused service for being gay. 

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You're making a specious argument to rationalize hateful, bigoted behavior.

Says the guy who routinely has to interject your own hateful bigoted comments towards religion every chance you get. 

Are you going to keep ignoring the satan dildo cake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

McLuhan predicted the Balkanization of America.  We can see it in its early stages.  When there is no influential voice preaching unity anymore, disunity will happen.

You're putting way too much responsibility on politicians and not enough on journalists.

The reason that Biden and Trudeau can get away with lying and being completely worthless jackasses is because the MSM tells everyone that they're wearing new clothes, and leftists are suddenly able to see them.

You can believe whatever you choose, but we're no longer just at opposite ends of a political spectrum here. I have no more love or respect for Liberals and Dems than I do for flies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, more like you have been confronted with someone who picked apart your arguments bit by bit... so you just ignored the response and keep repeating the same thing again. 

No, not the exact same cake. Creating a wedding cake is an act of art, made for that specific occasion. They could come in and buy a birthday cake or any other cakes or baked goods. This has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court now. You call it patently absurd, but they provided quite an extensive legal review of this. 

A straight person could have come in and informed them they wanted a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding and been refused service as well. 

Even then, the point here was merely that they were not refused service for merely being gay as you keep trying to argue. 
 

Nope. I already explained this to you, they were not refused service for being gay. 

Says the guy who routinely has to interject your own hateful bigoted comments towards religion every chance you get. 

Are you going to keep ignoring the satan dildo cake?

The couple in question did not request a "Satan dildo cake" or anything at all other than the same exact commodity good they would sell to any straight person. 

And you WILDLY overestimate the quality of your "argument," which is just a retread of the nonsense defense the bigoted baker presented--an argument he lost twice. And the SCOTUS didn't give any ruling on the fundamental question. They punted. 

A "sandwich artist" is not an artist. A bakery churning out tiered cakes is not making art. It's not an act of self expression. You take the order, you make the food product. The end. And if either of those people are refusing service to protected classes, they are breaking the law. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

The couple in question did not request a "Satan dildo cake" or anything at all other than the same exact commodity good they would sell to any straight person. 

And you WILDLY overestimate the quality of your "argument," which is just a retread of the nonsense defense the bigoted baker presented--an argument he lost twice. And the SCOTUS didn't give any ruling on the fundamental question. They punted. 

A "sandwich artist" is not an artist. A bakery churning out tiered cakes is not making art. It's not an act of self expression. You take the order, you make the food product. The end. And if either of those people are refusing service to protected classes, they are breaking the law. 

 

The amusing irony here is that you DEMANDDDDD!!!! THat people respect their right to be gay and have a gay marriage, but are completely scornful and dismissive of the baker's right to his religious beliefs.

Nobody should be forced to do work against their will. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

1. The couple in question did not request a "Satan dildo cake" or anything at all other than the same exact commodity good they would sell to any straight person. 

2. And you WILDLY overestimate the quality of your "argument," which is just a retread of the nonsense defense the bigoted baker presented--an argument he lost twice. And the SCOTUS didn't give any ruling on the fundamental question. They punted. 

3. You take the order, you make the food product. The end. And if either of those people are refusing service to protected classes, they are breaking the law. 

 

1. No, the Satan dildo cake came later from a different set of cultist trash. 

2. No, the "bigoted" baker rejected the pervert degenerates and lost to activist judges which left him no choice but to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the only reason this guy is still in business. The truth is, I'm surprised you wokejobs haven't escalated the issue to violence. 

3. Wrong. You take an order if you feel like it. If you don't like something about the person who's giving the order then you refuse service. This is why the baker is still in business, and why crybabies, like you, need safe spaces. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hodad said:

The couple in question did not request a "Satan dildo cake" or anything at all other than the same exact commodity good they would sell to any straight person. 

And you WILDLY overestimate the quality of your "argument," which is just a retread of the nonsense defense the bigoted baker presented--an argument he lost twice. And the SCOTUS didn't give any ruling on the fundamental question. They punted. 

A "sandwich artist" is not an artist. A bakery churning out tiered cakes is not making art. It's not an act of self expression. You take the order, you make the food product. The end. And if either of those people are refusing service to protected classes, they are breaking the law. 

 

I never said the "couple in question" requested a Satan dildo cake. I said:

"And beyond that, the LGBTQ community relentlessly bullied the man, trying to force him to bake a satan dildo cake."

As I have repeatedly said now, it was the LGBTQ community trying to destroy this man and relentlessly bully him like this. And you KEEP ignoring this point. You ignore it now and you ignored it before when I proved you wrong when you mocked the notion that anyone in the LGBTQ side was intolerant forcing others to comply like this. 

No, the SCOTUS did, in fact, rule in his favor on the grounds we are discussing here; they punted on setting a larger precedent.

I did not say a sandwich artist was an artist. This is your bad attempt at an argument. He was not a bakery churning out cakes. As I already said, they could have come in and bought any average cake. He was one man creating cakes for various things, including weddings. It is not the end at all, the Court ruled in his favor, Colorado, just like you, had a clear bias and intolerance against his religious beliefs. 

You are the one here using "tolerance" like a billy club to beat people into submission. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The amusing irony here is that you DEMANDDDDD!!!! THat people respect their right to be gay and have a gay marriage, but are completely scornful and dismissive of the baker's right to his religious beliefs.

Nobody should be forced to do work against their will. 

He has to realize how beyond depraved he would be if he had to answer the satan dildo question along the same lines he has been arguing so he just keeps ignoring it or obfuscating to avoid it. 

And if he does own up to the fact that the satan dildo cake is so obviously disgusting and wrong to force on him and an example of LGBTQ intolerance... then he has to admit he was wrong earlier on trying to act like such intolerance doesn't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2024 at 9:51 PM, User said:

I never said the "couple in question" requested a Satan dildo cake. I said:

"And beyond that, the LGBTQ community relentlessly bullied the man, trying to force him to bake a satan dildo cake."

As I have repeatedly said now, it was the LGBTQ community trying to destroy this man and relentlessly bully him like this. And you KEEP ignoring this point. You ignore it now and you ignored it before when I proved you wrong when you mocked the notion that anyone in the LGBTQ side was intolerant forcing others to comply like this. 

No, the SCOTUS did, in fact, rule in his favor on the grounds we are discussing here; they punted on setting a larger precedent.

I did not say a sandwich artist was an artist. This is your bad attempt at an argument. He was not a bakery churning out cakes. As I already said, they could have come in and bought any average cake. He was one man creating cakes for various things, including weddings. It is not the end at all, the Court ruled in his favor, Colorado, just like you, had a clear bias and intolerance against his religious beliefs. 

You are the one here using "tolerance" like a billy club to beat people into submission. 

I don't care--at all--about some alleged "Satan dildo cake." It's not relevant. It has nothing to do with the Masterpiece case. It was not the reason he refused to sell a gay couple the same cake he would sell a straight couple. At BEST word got out that the man was discriminating against gay people and someone decided to troll him for it. A bigot got verbally trolled? Cry me a river.

If a basic farking 3-tiered cake (or whatever) is "art" then a sandwich artist has the same claim to making art. Painting houses is my "art"! Pumping gas is my "art"! Every time I drop crinkle-cut potatoes into a deep fryer it's a motherfarking transcendent expression of the glory of god!

That's all bullshit. Art CAN be expressed or executed in many mediums. A cake--or any commodity product--has to be an extraordinary and unique creation to become "art." 

And beyond being bullshit, it's an attempt to cynically use "god" as a legal facade to exclude ANYONE from anything about which a person claims to have religious feelings. I'm sure Jesus would be thrilled that people are being abused, marginalized or excluded in his name.

Edited by Hodad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Hodad said:

I'm sure Jesus would be thrilled that people are being abused, marginalized or excluded in his name.

No, Jesus just hates sin, and homosexuality is a sin. The baker is right, and you degenerates are wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...