The Follies of Activism

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The definition of activism has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.

The OP just doesn't like any activism at all mate, lost cause, he should live in the UK and bow to the queen like a good peasant subject lol

I would much rather bow then engage in groupthink and narcissism. Have fun making signs no one will read.

I'm just back in to say that your comment is an incredibly hilarious irony because you put a picture of people holding up signs in your OP and we read those signs.

Those aren’t actual activists, by the way.

What are "actual activists?"

Generally people who use “vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”

"Vigorous." Would you not support their right to do so [vigorously campaign for change]?

trampling on the rights of others, they can do what they wish.

Do those rights include the right to discriminate?

Yes.

Does a person have the right to not be discriminated against?

No.

Why?

Discrimination is a precious faculty.

You'll have to explain that one. Only the *privileged* can appreciate it?

Or is there something better?

One has to have the freedom to discriminate between one thing or another. That goes for everyone.

One has to have the freedom and right to not be discriminated against by another. That goes for everyone.

Why?

Not being discriminated against is a precious right in a free society.

No it isn’t. No one has a right to not be discriminated against by another.

No one has the right to discriminate, either.

Yes we do. We discriminate who we associate with and don’t on a near daily basis.

Not if you own a business that accommodates the public.

a reply to: Liquesence

The Nazis had the right to discriminate against Jews and the Jews didn't have the right not to be discriminate against.

Now I've heard it all.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The definition of activism has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.

The OP just doesn't like any activism at all mate, lost cause, he should live in the UK and bow to the queen like a good peasant subject lol

I would much rather bow then engage in groupthink and narcissism. Have fun making signs no one will read.

I'm just back in to say that your comment is an incredibly hilarious irony because you put a picture of people holding up signs in your OP and we read those signs.

Those aren’t actual activists, by the way.

What are "actual activists?"

Generally people who use “vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”

"Vigorous." Would you not support their right to do so [vigorously campaign for change]?

trampling on the rights of others, they can do what they wish.

Do those rights include the right to discriminate?

Yes.

Does a person have the right to not be discriminated against?

No.

Why?

Discrimination is a precious faculty.

You'll have to explain that one. Only the *privileged* can appreciate it?

Or is there something better?

One has to have the freedom to discriminate between one thing or another. That goes for everyone.

One has to have the freedom and right to not be discriminated against by another. That goes for everyone.

Why?

Not being discriminated against is a precious right in a free society.

No it isn’t. No one has a right to not be discriminated against by another.

No one has the right to discriminate, either.

Yes we do. We discriminate who we associate with and don’t on a near daily basis.

Not if you own a business that accommodates the public.

That’s true. This is what happens when you give your human rights away.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The definition of activism has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.

The OP just doesn't like any activism at all mate, lost cause, he should live in the UK and bow to the queen like a good peasant subject lol

I would much rather bow then engage in groupthink and narcissism. Have fun making signs no one will read.

I'm just back in to say that your comment is an incredibly hilarious irony because you put a picture of people holding up signs in your OP and we read those signs.

Those aren’t actual activists, by the way.

What are "actual activists?"

Generally people who use “vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”

"Vigorous." Would you not support their right to do so [vigorously campaign for change]?

trampling on the rights of others, they can do what they wish.

Do those rights include the right to discriminate?

Yes.

Does a person have the right to not be discriminated against?

No.

Why?

Discrimination is a precious faculty.

You'll have to explain that one. Only the *privileged* can appreciate it?

Or is there something better?

One has to have the freedom to discriminate between one thing or another. That goes for everyone.

One has to have the freedom and right to not be discriminated against by another. That goes for everyone.

Why?

Not being discriminated against is a precious right in a free society.

No it isn’t. No one has a right to not be discriminated against by another.

No one has the right to discriminate, either.

Yes we do. We discriminate who we associate with and don’t on a near daily basis.

Not if you own a business that accommodates the public.

That’s true. This is what happens when you give your human rights away.

Lol, yeah. They gave nothing away. Humans have a right to not be discriminated against.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The definition of activism has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.

The OP just doesn't like any activism at all mate, lost cause, he should live in the UK and bow to the queen like a good peasant subject lol

I would much rather bow then engage in groupthink and narcissism. Have fun making signs no one will read.

I'm just back in to say that your comment is an incredibly hilarious irony because you put a picture of people holding up signs in your OP and we read those signs.

Those aren’t actual activists, by the way.

What are "actual activists?"

Generally people who use “vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”

"Vigorous." Would you not support their right to do so [vigorously campaign for change]?

trampling on the rights of others, they can do what they wish.

Do those rights include the right to discriminate?

Yes.

Does a person have the right to not be discriminated against?

No.

Why?

Discrimination is a precious faculty.

You'll have to explain that one. Only the *privileged* can appreciate it?

Or is there something better?

One has to have the freedom to discriminate between one thing or another. That goes for everyone.

One has to have the freedom and right to not be discriminated against by another. That goes for everyone.

Why?

Not being discriminated against is a precious right in a free society.

No it isn’t. No one has a right to not be discriminated against by another.

No one has the right to discriminate, either.

Yes we do. We discriminate who we associate with and don’t on a near daily basis.

Not if you own a business that accommodates the public.

That’s true. This is what happens when you give your human rights away.

Lol, yeah. They gave nothing away. Humans have a right to not be discriminated against.

No, humans have property rights, freedom to assemble and associate, and the freedom of speech. Statist would rather piss on those for “the right to not be discriminated against”, the “right to not be offended”, and so on.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

I understand. Basically the Nazi Germany piss on Jews' right not to be discriminated against.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

I understand. Basically the Nazi Germany piss on Jews' right not to be discriminated against.

No, I don’t believe in racism, censorship, political violence and genocide.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

freedom to assemble and associate, and the freedom of speech

We do.

Statist would rather piss on those for “the right to not be discriminated against”

DO you actually understand rights, or just those that fit your argument?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

I understand. Basically the Nazi Germany piss on Jews' right not to be discriminated against.

No, I don’t believe in racism, censorship, political violence and genocide.

So you do agree that the Jews have the right not to be discriminated against?

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

I understand. Basically the Nazi Germany piss on Jews' right not to be discriminated against.

No, I don’t believe in racism, censorship, political violence and genocide.

So you do agree that the Jews have the right not to be discriminated against?

No. I believe they have human rights. Do you believe, like the Nazis, that the state should be given powers over human choice?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

I understand. Basically the Nazi Germany piss on Jews' right not to be discriminated against.

No, I don’t believe in racism, censorship, political violence and genocide.

But discrimination is ok?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Ha! You know didn't there used to be a guy around here with a avatar of a sign which read "I am so mad I made a sign"

Who knows what activism is or who these people are, its like a sudden craze that shows up for whatever reason, and all of them or at least the majority are so bad at communicating things through that nobody really listens or definitely does not read there signs. I mean who has time to read signs when your driving on the highways going to and fro to work and a bunch of other various places. There is a time and place for everything, and its not there.

The majority of them are doing it wrong. Even the whole hype machines from people like Soros are doing it wrong, there just pumping so much garbage out there that the majority are completely desensitized to it. There main mission and goal seems to be keeping there quotas relevant in a irrelevant world.

I believe activism is a sort of fad now a days, you know like back in the day when parachute pants were in style, last for a bit, then it just poof gone with the wind. To make way for the new craze of the day. Same can be said for activism. And besides you can achieve a thousand fold more with a few well placed words on the world wide web or even elsewhere then years and years of sign waving can.

But like you said, activism in its truer form or at least from history, it was just the promise of violence if certain things are not meet, or changed. Now a days, what people want changed is so silly its not even worth looking at. Arguing about Obama and Trump, what silly nonesense is that, as if it mattered or there was much of a difference between the two.

And believe it or not one of the greatest activists in all of history was not Ghandi or Che quevera or your Hollywood stars of today, or even the hippies with there signs. I do believe the greatest activist may just have been Julius Caesar, he quite literally changed the whole outcome of a the world, and was known of quoting "one should only break the law, when one can overthrow the law"

And now everybody remembers ol Julius there as something other then the underdog. Funny no? How history can change.

Again that there to the layman is translated as...I promise violence, if you step over this line. Which again, is why the civilized world was created, to cut back on the nonsense. There are likely an uncounted number of people who died, for something that but a few short years after was forgotten like a bad fad. Like parachute pants.

But now a days what is there to fight over or get so riled up over? And if people have grievances? Well let the meet like minded people and talk or do whatever they want about it, from democrats to larpers, to people meeting in there basements for a D&D game. Its had to tell a difference now a days. I am quite sure, there are actual real issues, I mean they must exist...Somewhere, somehow, who know maybe even on this planet.

But for the majority how hard would it be to get your point across by waving a sign to people going down the highway of life a hundred miles an hour? Like I said, I do believe for the majority and for the majority of all of history, well we just may have done it all wrong.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pretty sure that the right to not be discriminated against and the right to not be offended are two different things. One involves feeling. I'll let you figure out which one.

I didn’t say they are the same.

You did say that a statist would piss on both, whatever that means.

They definitely would and have, figuratively speaking.

I understand. Basically the Nazi Germany piss on Jews' right not to be discriminated against.

No, I don’t believe in racism, censorship, political violence and genocide.

But discrimination is ok?

I believe discrimination on the basis of race is not only stupid, immoral, superstious, but also that by thinking all members of a race are the same, the racist is proving himself to be incapable of discrimination.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you believe, like the Nazis, that the state should be given powers over human choice?

Nope. The state should not give power to people to discriminate against others.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you believe, like the Nazis, that the state should be given powers over human choice?

Nope. The state should not give power to people to discriminate against others.

By denying their very freedoms to choose who to associate with.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you believe, like the Nazis, that the state should be given powers over human choice?

Nope. The state should not give power to people to discriminate against others.

By denying their very freedoms to choose who to associate with.

You are talking about social circles. Private clubs.