- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
SanFran literally called their anti-racist 911 law the Caren act.
More like the Karen act.
Last edited:
U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers
- Thread starter snailslime
- Start date
- Status
More like the Karen act.
Garth
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
Funny thing is, when Republicans do this with Dan Crenshaw (who is also a POS btw) libs and leftists will correctly point out having served and losing his eye is no excuse for neocon bullshit.
For Duckworth, I'll say something no lib would have the balls to: She was a servant of elite globalists in Iraq, so it makes perfect sense she'd fall in line with those same elite globalists' agenda here in America. The "Senseless carnage makes us freer and safer!" mindset shared by the political class about BLM now is a dead ringer for the mental gymnastics during Iraq.
Last edited:
Green-Machine
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2020
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
freedom of speach doesn't mean freedom of consequences.. unless we like you
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
Is this even legal?
i know just because its on the bill it may not necessarily be a law, but surely there's something on the books about having to accept cash as payment.
edit: looked it up apparently it is legal.
If cash is king, how can stores refuse to take your dollars?
The notes in your pocket say they're legal tender for all debts public and private. Are they lying?
theconversation.com
Last edited:
Gnostic American
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2020
Just walk in and ask if they take cash. If they say no, tell them you will go to Pizza Hut.
- Joined
- May 31, 2019
Patton Oswalt is basically MovieBob with talent, down to the nerd obsessions and obnoxious fedora-tipping. He also doesn't have a potato nose and is socially functional outside of Twitter.
Edit:
It's reasonable to allow establishments to regulate the type of money they'll accept, otherwise a business owner might walk into a competing business with 10 bags of pennies and demand they accept it to pay off their tab. Government offices will also tell you to go pound sand if you walk in with a grocery cart full of pennies to pay off your tax bill. When it comes to cash however, a business can refuse it, but it might get a snooty reputation if it does so. They're certainly not going to get business from anyone too poor to have a bank account. They would also be ripe for the pickings if a black advocacy group decided to declare them racist and protest their decision to exclude cash from their payment options.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
what? it was a pizza hut that had the sign up
Gnostic American
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2020
AH! You're right. Tell them you will go to a local shop and not corporate. Which BTW is much better than 90% dough Pizza Hut.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Harper's Magazine on Twitter: "A statement signed by 150 people incl.…
archived 7 Jul 2020 19:40:30 UTC
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
Tucker decided to start his segment today about the school system and how we seeing left wingers act like the science hating right wingers they talked about during the Bush and Obama years.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
Is this even legal?
View attachment 1434354
i know just because its on the bill it may not necessarily be a law, but surely there's something on the books about having to accept cash as payment.
edit: looked it up apparently it is legal.
one more seasoning in the pot of dystopian nightmare fuel.If cash is king, how can stores refuse to take your dollars?
The notes in your pocket say they're legal tender for all debts public and private. Are they lying?
Do you think Andrew Jackson was onto something when he shut down the global banks back then?
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
I've seen that a lot of places around my parts. This is even more reason we need a law that states payment processors can't deny access to them. Right now its just NewProject2, VidMe, Hatereon, and storm front. If the dems get their way, there'll be a national database of people who don't vote Democrate. Payment processors will use that to deny people from using their credit or debit card. And to get off the list, you have to publicly denounce the GOP for all time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2017
That Anti-Karen law is going to lead to a lot of jogger enriched white women with cunts full of jogger slime and busted up faces.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Holy shit, He doubling down and going after Tammy Duckworth again.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Oh he is about to talk about the forever war. He saying his best stuff for last in tonight's broadcast.
jje100010001
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2020
It’s like Idiocracy but propagated through the education system and less funny.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
I say Tucker took a soft shot at her, knowing she'd try to talk some mad shit and he'd be able to respond and just nuke her.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2015
If you say "I support free speech, except..." you don't actually support free speech.
- Status