It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reza Aslan calls for rape of congressman Todd Akin

page: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you keep saying censorship. It is not censorship to say you don't like what this guy is saying, if you are not claling for his job or legal action.

Mob outrage is not censorship.

I assume their is mob outrage at the ramblings of westboro baptist. Are you saying that these people are somehow not welcome to act out their free speech saying they hate what westboro is saying?

No matter how much you want it to be so, a large group of people expressing outrage at something is not censorship.


edit on 6-6-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That's the best you can do? A thread from February of last year? I don't know if you noticed but its already past February of this year. Surely you can find me complaining about a Trump tweet more recently and not something when he first announced his candidacy.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

That's the best you can do? A thread from February of last year? I don't know if you noticed but its already past February of this year. Surely you can find me complaining about a Trump tweet more recently and not something when he first announced his candidacy.


I thought your meltdown over his tweet after the 1st primary (long after he announced) would be sufficient to highlight the importance you placed in tweets. Have you changed your views on twitter since then? Funny how your views change depending on whose tweet it is... **cough**hypocrite**





edit on 6/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well since I don't use Twitter then I can't say what my views on it are. The point is that I realized a while back that complaining about Trump's tweets is a waste of time and energy of mine. That's why you had to dig so deep into my post history to find that (I truly forgot I even wrote it). There are better targets to go after Trump with than his idiotic Twitter posts. I can just laugh in private at them.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

I think, with absolutely no proof, that the vast majority of folks like myself who think this tweet and the follow up confirmation were in bad form do not actually advocate the bombing, much less nuking, of Al Kaaba Al Musharrafah.

I think the dude was over the top. I think he was, and is, an idiot. I also think he needs some lessons in compassion, as using the phrase he did so casually rather takes away from the seriousness that is an actual rape. But that's just me. Lose his job? Naah. I had little respect for the man to begin with, now I've none. Any respect I have for the MSM news is now gone, too...so it's a perfect fit for him. He's on CNN, which I no longer watch, so I don't run the risk of seeing him.

No, he's free to say it, wouldn't change that. I'm also free to think, and to type, that he's rather a bottom dwelling sort of creature--extraordinarily comfortable in slime and muck.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yep, there is. Though the newness has worn off. Since the death of ol' Fred, they've kinda fallen off the radar, though they're still out there with their lovely signs.

I, too, fail to see how this "outrage"--my feelings aren't really strong enough to be called outrage--is censorship. Consequences, maybe? No amendment protects against that.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But you keep saying censorship. It is not censorship to say you don't like what this guy is saying, if you are not claling for his job or legal action.

Mob outrage is not censorship.

I assume their is mob outrage at the ramblings of westboro baptist. Are you saying that these people are somehow not welcome to act out their free speech saying they hate what westboro is saying?

No matter how much you want it to be so, a large group of people expressing outrage at something is not censorship.


You can read what I am saying to see what I am saying.

Yes it is. It has a chilling effect. It is coercive political correctness of the worst sort. And it is especially hilarious given that it comes from people who have been calling others snowflakes for the last couple of years over the exact same fake moral outrage.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well since I don't use Twitter then I can't say what my views on it are. The point is that I realized a while back that complaining about Trump's tweets is a waste of time and energy of mine. That's why you had to dig so deep into my post history to find that (I truly forgot I even wrote it). There are better targets to go after Trump with than his idiotic Twitter posts. I can just laugh in private at them.


Fair enough, and i wouldn't have posted it but you asked me to!

My view remains. You either hold all people accountable for what they post on twitter - or anywhere else - or you hold no one accountable. Regardless of what the idiot being referred to by Reza Aslan said, his comment that it justifies a person being raped is disgusting, and wholly hypocritical of him to then start swiping at Trump because he tweeted about the travel ban after London.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ok, good to know. I still don't see how this one man represents the views of everyone who leans to the left though. 99.9999% of people, regardless of their political leanings, is against rape.

Stop acting like every time one of these politicians says something just to piss people off that automatically means everyone else in his particular party believes the same thing.

Reverse groupthink is just as bad as regular groupthink.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, as you can see, I don't hold people accountable for what they post on Twitter since I ignore the social media outlet altogether. Besides that one thread that CLEARLY didn't work out since Trump ended up as the President, I don't have a habit of whining about things said on Twitter. Or Facebook. Or really any social media outlet.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

Ok, good to know. I still don't see how this one man represents the views of everyone who leans to the left though. 99.9999% of people, regardless of their political leanings, is against rape.

Stop acting like every time one of these politicians says something just to piss people off that automatically means everyone else in his particular party believes the same thing.

Reverse groupthink is just as bad as regular groupthink.


That's of course true, but do not underplay the hero worship this guy got from many because he tweeted an insult at Trump... and CNN seem not to care about his vile behaviour - whether it be when they employed him or after his unprofessional behaviour more recently. CNN have most certainly become the voice of the left. Perhaps more should call them out on it.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It obvious we're going to disagree on this, but that sounds like consequences, not censorship. If you squint, they're much the same, but censorship, as you know, would forbid him from being an idiot, and rather a nasty individual. Consequences in no way forbid him from saying/tweeting idiotic nasty things, they merely point out there may be a price to pay for the continued idiocy.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: queenofswords
I am absolutely serious when I say this: They need to investigate what these people are on! Something is not right. This kind of rhetoric has gone beyond journalistic criticism, beyond partisanship, and into dangerous territory. Drugs? Maybe. Some kind of psychological experiment? Maybe.

Mental illness or psychosis due to something is a definite possibility. I'm really not kidding.

Who is "they" and on what legal authority is this allowed?


I'm not sure. I am sure it is not on any legal authority.

Social experiment? Psychological experiment? Remember when the Obama administration launched The Brain Initiative? It was supposed to map all aspects of the brain like the Genome Project did with DNA.

Behavioral Science was a part of that. DARPA is involved, so who knows what could be going on with social, behavioral, and mental health experiments.

I know this sounds like one big CT, but I am dead serious. You might be interested in this thread on DREADDs



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull



It obvious we're going to disagree on this, but that sounds like consequences, not censorship. If you squint, they're much the same, but censorship, as you know, would forbid him from being an idiot, and rather a nasty individual. Consequences in no way forbid him from saying/tweeting idiotic nasty things, they merely point out there may be a price to pay for the continued idiocy.


Like Charlie Hebdo? They payed quite the price.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler




But you keep saying censorship. It is not censorship to say you don't like what this guy is saying, if you are not claling for his job or legal action.

Mob outrage is not censorship.

I assume their is mob outrage at the ramblings of westboro baptist. Are you saying that these people are somehow not welcome to act out their free speech saying they hate what westboro is saying?

No matter how much you want it to be so, a large group of people expressing outrage at something is not censorship.


You can read what I am saying to see what I am saying.

Yes it is. It has a chilling effect. It is coercive political correctness of the worst sort. And it is especially hilarious given that it comes from people who have been calling others snowflakes for the last couple of years over the exact same fake moral outrage.


And yet here you are, calling for the chilling of these people free speech because you are accusing them of being snowflakes.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: seagull



It obvious we're going to disagree on this, but that sounds like consequences, not censorship. If you squint, they're much the same, but censorship, as you know, would forbid him from being an idiot, and rather a nasty individual. Consequences in no way forbid him from saying/tweeting idiotic nasty things, they merely point out there may be a price to pay for the continued idiocy.


Like Charlie Hebdo? They payed quite the price.


You are dealing in extremes with that argument.
Are you saying there should be no consequences for any form of speech? Not sure if you mean that, but want to clarify...



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




And yet here you are, calling for the chilling of these people free speech because you are accusing them of being snowflakes.


I've never called anyone a snowflake, and you can dredge up my entire posting history to prove it. All you've done is accuse others of "calling" for this and that, when no one has called for anything except those you are defending.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




You are dealing in extremes with that argument.
Are you saying there should be no consequences for any form of speech? Not sure if you mean that, but want to clarify...


Not that there should be, but that there is no consequence to any form of speech.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Going by the whole PC thing last year you would think that some wouldn't want ANY kind of punishment for something that is said.

"PC culture is ruining our country", remember that? Why does it no longer apply now? I think he should be fired by the way, that just came to mind when I read your reply.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
What i see is everyone doing the same thing but defining it differently.

One person is critisizing somebody.

Another is critisizing the person that is critisizing somebody.

Another is critisizing the person that is critisizing the person that is critisizing somebody.

And here I am.. doing the same thing now.

We are all a bunch of critisizers.


This is why freedom of speech should be absolute, there would be no critisizing!!




top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join