You are not right about this, vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus, even if transmission is still possible.

https://www.nature.com/article...

Nice try. They weren't defending what the group had to say, they were defending their RIGHT to say it. Big difference.

Horseshit. Horseshit. Horseshit.

Private entities, be they lawyers in practice, finance companies, etc. have NO obligation, whatsoever, to cooperate with you if they don't want to. This is what's loosely referred to as "economic freedom". Even if you can pay me, I don't HAVE to take your case. You know, that whole "refuse the right to render service" shit you see everywhere? Protections of such, under the law, are EXACTLY for bullshit like this. The only mitigating factor here are cases of discrimination, which this CLEARLY is not, as the person is being refused service for their actions, not their inherent qualities.

Nothing about this impedes this person's right to a fair trial, as no matter what, they're still going to get a legal defense. So take you blatantly false upvoted bullshit somewhere else.

Good. Keep coming for them please.

He's still going to get a public defender, no matter what, but it doesn't mean ANYONE in the private sector has to take his case, or help facilitate the process. Lawyers are allowed to refuse cases, even if you can afford to pay. Similarly, GoFundMe and the like are PRIVATE fucking companies that can choose to not accept payment if they damn well please.

Fuck off with your slippery slope nonsense, as this is NOT a case of such, unless private entities don't actually have the right to "refuse service" if they so choose.

Bullshit. I obviously see the tactic here, just keep repeating a falsehood until the weakminded believe it, but it still doesn't make it any more true. BLM is not responsible for "hate speech", violence, etc. as this is just a blatant lie to try and force some kind of vague false equivalency, and keep people on the fence.

Their mission, and goals, are not ones of violence or hatred, unlike the FUCKING NAZIS.

God damn dude. It felt like there used to be a time where Nazis were basically treated like pedophiles, with people doing everything they could to avoid association with such, and rightfully so. It's legitimately fucking terrifying how many of you are pretty cozy with the most blatant enemies of human existence nowadays.

Black Lives Matter is not a hate group with a mission of violence. I have nothing good to say about any religion, but there' also nothing inherently violent about the Nation of Islam. There's no reason whatsoever to compare any of the things you mention to neo-nazis, unless we accept the tacit assumptions of your poisonous mentality.

In fact, any political movement is almost certainly fine SO LONG AS THEY AREN'T OPENLY ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. Like, seriously, do you REALLY not even see the fucking difference? Seriously? Scary fucking times.

Oh horseshit. The absolute epitome of the "far-left" spectrum would be anarcho-syndicalism, which by no means holds particular grudges against either white people or men, specifically, unless they happen to be active oppressors, and, indeed, it is possibly the most egalitarian political philosophy ever espoused. While I find a lot to criticize in this political belief system, it's mainly grounded in pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic expectations of humanity. There is certainly nothing that would begin to even remotely resemble "hate speech". And before it's even brought up, contrary to popular belief, state-sponsored Communism is NOT a leftist institution, having little to do with either the visions of Marx, or the utopias envisioned by post-industrial radicals. China is not a leftist nation, it's a market-backed dictatorship. Socialism - not communism - is much closer to a "leftist" institution, but a true far-left nation has never been seen, which is obviously not the case with far-right fascist dictatorships.

Meanwhile, the thing that seems to trigger a lot of you fragile types are what are usually referred to as "identity politics", which may or may not be leftist issues depending on the matter at hand. The overwhelming majority of such issues are simply harmless, such as gay marriage, but are seized upon like someone's asking you to cut one of your nuts off, or whatever. Fringe lunatics calling for the eradication of men via euginics, are obviously fucking fringe lunatics, which you certainly can't identify as the "far-left". History has had a lot of lunatics calling for this or that batshit manifesto to be honored, and rather than do the intelligent thing - ignore blatant idiots - some people try to use the ravings of a few to paint a certain image of a wide range of beliefs. While both are considered "far-right" belief structures, I'm not dumb enough to use the insane ramblings of someone like Richard Spencer to denigrate the beliefs of Libertarians, in general, or make ignorant generalizations about the "far-right". Use specifics, or you just sound like a fucking moron, as far too much debate happens in nebulae, where you're not ACTUALLY saying anything, but you sure are making a point.

The biggest problem, by far, is the human need to oversimplify things and put everything in some nice, digestible basket of a bullshit false equivalency, such as the one you're espousing. The end goal of the neo-nazi is a holocaust. The end goal of the anarcho-syndicalist is egalitarian utopia - without killing people. You'd have us simply see these groups as two sides of the same coin, which - again - is horseshit. It's been well understood by many leftists, since the inception of the atomic bomb, that you'll NEVER win a battle rooted in violence, against either the state, or any oppressive power. Thus, the end-goal of the far-left has always been organizing, in institutions such as unions. We can debate the merits of such approaches, but you sure as fuck can't find much "hate" here.

Beyond that, I'd say another huge issue is this concept of forced neutrality, which seems to drive a lot of floppy weiner "that settles that" posts such as yours. In other words, we're supposed to simply pretend that we live in a world without mass discrimination, oppression, and so on. and all conversation and debate should happen in a clean slate vacuum, with no historical context, and no personal context, informing our interpretations of criticisms being presented. It doesn't take a genius to realize that policies such as these dramatically favor those that are already in power. Telling women, minorities, and so on to "chill out" with their indignation is a tactic that mainly benefits people that aren't women or minorities.

If you read something by a person of color, a woman, a member of the LBGTQ community, and so on, and they sound fucking pissed, maybe they have a good fucking reason to be, and it's not all some overblown conspiracy against YOU specifically. You see, you have a couple of options here. One is to interpret the information you're being presented with as a natural human reaction to lifetimes of suffering and oppression, and the other is to simply assume that everyone's issues are overblown, and it's actually a selfish position of "hatred" that really motivates people.

For example...I don't think the average Trump voter is a terribly evil person, I think they were just conned. They have legitimate grievances against state oppression, and exploitation. They've felt cheated for years. It's just that a slimy fucking hucksters snuck in and took advantage of that situation to his own personal benefit, blaming things on non-issues, such as immigration, instead of the REAL issues, such as worker automation. When you combine that with a protest vote against the vague "PC" establishment, which is a battle with no discernible goals, you get the disaster we have right now.

In summary, quit spewing vague false equivalencies that do little but confuse people. If you have specific problems with specific issues, say them.

War is peace, my friend. Freedom is slavery.

You know...just because you spout some bullshit like "BLM is a hate group", in a passive, casual setting, doesn't make it any more true. I mean...do you think anyone actually falls for it, or what? Or is this just another shared delusion y'all believe so you don't actually have to address any of the criticisms BLM brings up? I'm thinking the latter.

I'm not saying you're wrong...but the whole "let them thrive so they make fools of themselves" approach obviously hasn't worked out very well in our past election. More must be done if we don't want evil to win, and fighting back against their vicious propaganda campaign, supported by some of the highest in command, is crucial.

Talks about how it's unfair to criticize the sitting president with no "insight" or "explanation"...

-insert funny meme image-

Accuses the entire left, somehow, of being responsible for the lone actions of a violent psychopath...

---------

Furthermore, there was was a right wing lunatic that killed a couple of people on a bus, in Portland, a little while ago, for politically motivated reasons. Do we get to pin that on all of the right wing? Is that the way logic works?

Like Netflix, you need to do it in a way that's, more or less, invisible to a consumer's monthly expenditures. If you roll something like this out at $20-30/m, people are going to tell you to kiss their ass. This is the #1 reason these buffet-style services never work. They are ALWAYS too expensive. $30/m will get you just about any game you want, if it's a bit older, and you get to KEEP it.

$10-12? Now you're talking. Enjoy your paychecks.

To whom it may concern...

There's an utterly mind-blowing, revolutionary notion called "customization".

There are ancient rumors that before the coming of the return of the Great Dark Apple, people that used shit used to have options on how to do so. Ye, let it be known that you can also give users the option to turn on or off certain UI elements instead of just removing them...so it is written in the ancient texts.

Yes, but what about her emails?

This is so much bullshit. The "seven words" schtick is all about censoring specific words, not an idea. "Fuckface" and "idiot" might have the same relative descriptive power, but one of those is acceptable for broadcast television, and one is not. That was the point of the bit - it doesn't make much of a difference to call some words "forbidden", and allow others to be acceptable, when they pretty much mean the same thing.

This scenario isn't about the words he used, but the underlying idea it represents. Even if we give this dumbass the benefit of the doubt, at best he's a rich white man paying poor people a pittance to do offensive things, in what is, unabashedly, a 21st century minstrel show - all done to enrich himself. Tack on all the weak horseshit you want, about "social commentary", or what the fuck ever. That defense could be used as a justification for just about anything that isn't illegal. Meanwhile, actions will continue to have consequences.

This is, obviously, someone trying to exploit the young male demographic by being "outrageous", due to the predictable tastes of such a market, who will consume anything they're convinced is supposed to be forbidden, like "funny" antisemitism, rape jokes, etc.. This is done in a puerile attempt to practice independent thought, and fight the vague battle against the "status quo", you predictably reference, all the while being quite well contained in the confines of marketing demographics, who's owners exploit this behavior, just like any other market.

Meanwhile, the dumbass got fired from his job. He'll simply find a more appropriate platform, where his market will follow.