Parents' rights groups are the newest addition to 'Hate and Extremism' report

a reply to: quintessentone

"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair"

Good enough for you, or does it need to come from a tiktok video?

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: quintessentone

Are BLM, ANTIFA or any Left Wing group on their "Hatewatch" ?
Seems like it's only "hate" when a Conservative speaks out.

The question everyone needs to ask is who gets to decide what children are taught in schools. That's the crux of the problem.

If the majority of parents at a school say 'yes' to diversity and inclusion subject matter, then where does that leave the minority? Well, from what I've seen the minority have the freedom to opt their children out of learning any diversity and inclusion subject matter.

The minority also get to protest ... as loud as they want ... and not be labeled a hate group as a result.

When they do hate crimes like burning flags on school property, then, yes that is labelled a hate crime.

No burning flags isn't a hate crime; its been a legitimate form of protest in this country for a very long time.

It doesn't suddenly become a hate crime because the previously established triblistic and biased SPLG doesn't like the group doing it this time.

Well, it is considered a hate crime depending on the method and intent.

Nope; flag burning is a legitimate form of protest in this country for a very long time.

It is often carried out by the prevailing countercultures in society having very few alternate means to demonstrate their influence.

The interesting thing is; for most of the last century the liberal portion of our society was the dominant counterculture protesting the more conservative establishment. Now that the more wealthy liberals have all but taken the position of the establishment in this country; and conservatives now become the counterculture; suddenly "protesting" is seen as a crime.

It's actually a shame really; if the liberal counterculture of the past grow into an inclusive establishment with the ideals they claimed to possess the country would be in a much better place right now. Instead they are demonstrating that even a liberal establishment can be repressive with totalitarian tendencies. Power corrupts I guess.

However, said Robert Post, a law professor at Yale Law School (law.yale.edu/robert-c-post), the First Amendment does not protect an individual from liability for burning a pride flag or Bible.

Burning any type of flag as an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment if the individual owns the flag and is not committing other crimes, said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia School of Law (here).

“If I buy a gay pride flag and burn it as a protest, without endangering other people or property, there is no crime, and so my hateful motive is irrelevant,” he said.

“If you burn someone else’s Pride flag with the intent of trashing gays because of their status, it might be a hate crime,” Neuborne said. “But only because the flag was not yours to burn, and only if the necessary intent was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

www.reuters.com...

It's a shame all way round.

a reply to: quintessentone

Yup that's my point exactly; thank you for the example.

The liberal establishment (in this case the mouth piece being "Yale/Virginia Law Professor") is providing a word sald explanation why protesting by the minority is now considered a "hate crime"; when in the past "burning any type of flag as an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment". The rules have suddenly changed now that liberals are the establishment.

Yale/Virginia Law Professor could have simply said "burning a flag you own is not a crime; burning property you do not own is a crime" and no one would disagree with them.

But as establishment figures often do; Yale/Virginia Law Professor add their own righteousness to their opinions inorder provid "moral reasons" for why they must repress the protesting minority. Yale/Virginia Law Professor start with premise that "burning a particular flag is hatefull" and then find a way to explain why it might should be illegal.

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: quintessentone

Yup that's my point exactly; thank you for the example.

The liberal establishment (in this case the mouth piece being "Yale/Virginia Law Professor") is providing a word sald explanation why protesting by the minority is now considered a "hate crime"; when in the past "burning any type of flag as an act of protest is protected by the First Amendment". The rules have suddenly changed now that liberals are the establishment.

Yale/Virginia Law Professor could have simply said "burning a flag you own is not a crime; burning property you do not own is a crime" and no one would disagree with them.

But as establishment figures often do; Yale/Virginia Law Professor add their own righteousness to their opinions inorder provid "moral reasons" for why they must repress the protesting minority. Yale/Virginia Law Professor start with premise that "burning a particular flag is hatefull" and then find a way to explain why it might should be illegal.

That law professor is explaining the existing law to everyone not making it up as he goes.

especially now that ANTIFA picked a fight with a bunch of Armenian parents in Cali who werent effin having it

One wild melee, but this is the level its coming to, i dunno what they expected

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

"prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair"

Good enough for you, or does it need to come from a tiktok video?

Nope not good enough for me because bias is as bias does and one person's truth can be that person's confirmation bias in action.

That tik tok video comment is a snide remark and I would expect no better from you.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
especially now that ANTIFA picked a fight with a bunch of Armenian parents in Cali who werent effin having it

One wild melee, but this is the level its coming to, i dunno what they expected

If you read the articles about this you will see it is not parents that are protesting, it is parental rights activists. Totally different animal.

Several fights broke out between Antifa and parental rights activists outside of the Glendale Unified School District’s administration Tuesday night during a school board meeting discussing LGBTQ+ curriculum.

www.dailysignal.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

So then you are being blatantly obtuse.

Your track record in other threads show you value tiktok more than anyone else so am I inaccurate?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

So then you are being blatantly obtuse.

Your track record in other threads show you value tiktok more than anyone else so am I inaccurate?

The one and only time I sourced tik tok was in one thread with that student who refused to use the term 'biological women' and I was forced to because she would not talk to any other sources and she still will not. Before that I have never used tik tok for anything. I watched it once while someone else was using it and it had no interest for me.

I suggest you look to your own track record on threads for a wake up call.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

So then you are being blatantly obtuse.

Your track record in other threads show you value tiktok more than anyone else so am I inaccurate?

student who refused to use the term 'biological women'

From what I recall you were saying she shouldn't have been using it, it was "offensive and hurtful"

And what track record are you referring to where I cited tiktok as a reference?

originally posted by: PorkChop96

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

So then you are being blatantly obtuse.

Your track record in other threads show you value tiktok more than anyone else so am I inaccurate?

student who refused to use the term 'biological women'

From what I recall you were saying she shouldn't have been using it, it was "offensive and hurtful"

And what track record are you referring to where I cited tiktok as a reference?

I said that the university's rules said terms such as that are considered, by them, to be offensive and hurtful.

Nevermind, it's a losing battle with you and my energies can be best spent elsewhere.

a reply to: quintessentone

That is a very arbitrary/biased defense for not wanting an accurate term to be used.

You brought it up, just wanted to know what you were talking about. But since you can't show your work I can see why you will give up. Good job bud, want your participation trophy now?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

That is a very arbitrary/biased defense for not wanting an accurate term to be used.

You brought it up, just wanted to know what you were talking about. But since you can't show your work I can see why you will give up. Good job bud, want your participation trophy now?

Go back the the thread where the work is shown. There is something very wrong with you.

a reply to: quintessentone

The only thing wrong here is that you refuse to show the proof for things you claim and get very defensive when called out on your obvious bs

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

The only thing wrong here is that you refuse to show the proof for things you claim and get very defensive when called out on your obvious bs

The proof does not exist.

a reply to: quintessentone

Then how can you defend it? You can't so you don't, so you have no real arguments.

Thanks for playing

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

Then how can you defend it? You can't so you don't, so you have no real arguments.

Thanks for playing

You and the OP of the other thread have no proof - nobody has any proof.

a reply to: quintessentone

I am not claiming anything on this thread that hasn't been shown.

a reply to: DAVID64

The parents who actually give a # about their child(ren) are already on that list in the "Patriot" column anyways. Does anybody even care what the SPLC says anymore anyways, besides democrats?

a reply to: quintessentone

They fight for everyone except whitey. Nobody is racist or hateful except whitey.

The SPLC is everything they pretend to hate.