Greatoneshere

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Hey, I granted we've never achieved those ideals, but we had them. People believed in them. As I said, I've always been critical of the US. But there was a bent towards something resembling a positive direction.

Now, we're actively in a negative direction. That is a big change, even if it seems small when written out.  

To be clear, my issue isn't with double jeopardy. I actually agree with TwinIon and SFLUFAN that on its face, it shouldn't be possible (except in cases where an extreme misappropriation of the law or justice has occurred). 

But it's the timing. That's what gets me. Like with approving the Muslim Ban, it's like saying it should be legal "normally" so we'll make it legal "in this case" even though "in this case" IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.

Meh. Fuggit I guess. 

I am 100% sure that I am 0% proud to be an American. 

I used to be when I thought that to some degree we were the liberal, progressive ideal in the world. The "shining city on a hill". The "bring your meek, your poor, your huddled masses".  Not overly proud, I've always been critical of America and its policies.

But since Trump? This is next level. Nope. We're an actively "shithole country" now. 

1 hour ago, legend said:

 

I honestly just don't know what to say anymore. It's absolutely mind blowing to me that there are so many people this fucked up. When people are this far gone, how the fuck do you fix the situation?

THE question every sane American has been asking themselves since other Americans have been taking Trump seriously (so, since 2015?). I never knew a portion of America was this dumb. It's been quite the wake up call for me these past 2+ years. I should have known after we elected Bush again in 2004 that, yep, Americans are this dumb.

I've been arguing this whole time that even if you don't care about undocumented immigrants, asylum seeking is a legal process and that is being denied undocumented immigrants as well, ripping families seeking asylum legally as well as actual "illegal" immigrants.

Meanwhile, American citizens continue shooting and killing each other en masse. 

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

I feel like all of you are forcibly ignoring old bikini Leia. 

Trust me, I'm not forcibly ignoring it. I've simply been trained well in the force to block things out that need blocking out. 

As a Philadelphia native who lives here who loved The Fresh Prince (and Will Smith, but not so much anymore) growing up, this is cool. 

2 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

 

 

Yeah, fuck all these sycophants! I love it.

Word.

Wow. Even I hadn't considered that possible. Welp, jig's up. After the shitty news of the last few weeks, it's clear. We lose. We lost. We never won. 

Let's get drunk. 

55 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

More of this, please. 

33 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

I'm sure they will, but the show really needs to focus on the pre Halo CE era starting out IMO. Fall of Reach and all that. And while I don't want them to remake the games in show form it would be a travesty not to touch on the story in the first three games of the trilogy.

I am in agreement with all of that. 

Movies like this are so unique but niche, I love it. Beyond the Black Rainbow was more film experience than me just watching a movie. It's great when you are in the right mood and mind set. 

That's a hell of a showrunner/writer in Kyle Killen. Awake was incredibly good (never saw the other two shows he created, Lone Star or Mind Games). He also wrote the films The Beaver and Scenic Route, for what that's worth. Rupert Wyatt as pilot director is pretty great too (The Escapist, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Gambler). I'm tired of Halo games and that convoluted backstory/mythology it's created since Halo 4, but this has a lot of potential. I'm intrigued. 

Beyond the Black Rainbow is one of my personal favorite trippy movies of all time. I am absolutely all fucking in for this. 

I hope it has the same composer and cinematographer of that film too. 

13 minutes ago, Jason said:

And let's not act like it's news that there are distinct legal treatments for politicians/government officials and regular private citizens.

Literally been saying this since my first post.

Sanders, and people like her, are unique and thus completely different than any other example. It's our only way to shame our politicians into moral behavior, which is important in a democracy, which is why they are uniquely not protected, to indicate that: "hey, you can't eat here because you rip parents from kids" whereas in totalitarian states, people like Hitler and Goebbels and whoever else could walk into any restaurant and eat wherever they wanted. That's why it's allowed here, to keep them scared, in a way. It's the entire point of non-violent political protest. 

It's the same reason that you can yell shame at Kristjen Nielsen too. It's totally legal, and it should remain that way, for the above reasons. The cake one, totally different, and should be illegal, for reasons everyone previously outlined.

Like I said, there's a reason the law separates private and public figures when it comes to libel and slander laws (there's even further breakdowns from there within those groups in the law, because it is important to have exceptions like Sanders, where you can refuse them service). 

2 minutes ago, Komusha said:

Saying that gay people shouldn’t marry is to support their status as second class citizens. The very position itself is discriminatory against gay people. If one didn’t rhink less of gay people they wouldn’t hold that position.

Precisely why it should (and basically is) illegal in the case of gay people, but isn't in the case of Sanders, exactly. 

41 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Did the baker refuse service to homosexual customers previously on the basis that they were homosexual?

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The cake shop serves homosexuals, including previously the couple they wouldn’t make the wedding cake for.

It doesn't matter - there doesn't need to be a pattern of behavior for it to be bigotry, it's bigotry based on its type-ifying even if it is in one instance, that is, basing the refusal of service on the couples' grouping rather than their specific person that is in a uniquely protected way (as in, if they were public figures, like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, and it was based on the politics they push, like Sanders does).

One instance is enough for it to be illegal. Sanders is a unique case of political protest in which service refusal is protected. 

10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I'm going to side with @sblfilms in this particular debate.

 

The fact fact of the matter is that there were "political acts" involved in both cases, though in the case of one there was more likely an underlying sense of anti-homosexual bigotry.  

 

In regard to the equivalence of a relationship of any sort (heterosexual/homosexual/familial/etc.) to the inhumanity of the Imbecile-in-Chief's administration, I'm going to stake out the radical position that they are both expressions of "politics".  A relationship is an expression of cultural norms and values which are invariably shaped by "politics" in the broadest sense of the word.  The fact that "love" is involved doesn't change the notion that a society's norms and values shape how that particular physiological/psychological motivation is expressed.  The act of loving someone is therefore inherently "political".

I don't know about others, but I'm not arguing that distinction. Both expressions are political, but as I explained (as well as CastlevaniaNut), there's a difference between refusing service based on who you are as part of a group you are refusing rather than refusing service to you because of who you are specifically in terms of a political public figure. 

It has nothing to do with love. The baker refuses all homosexuality, which is bigotry. The Red Hen serves conservatives and Trump voters, just not Sarah Huckabee Sanders. One is bigotry, which is illegal, and one isn't. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but there's a clear difference regardless of both being of a political nature.

5 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

The restaurant serves conservatives. Even if they turned down other people in the Trump admin, it's still not the same. 

Exactly. 

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Fair enough. 

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

They would have done the same if any of the other Trump folks came in. It wasn’t Sanders specific. 

Right, it's specific to the public figures in the White House Trump administration. I agree. I'm saying that still makes it facially different than the gay couple case.

Politicians and public government officials are not a protected class like gay people are and it isn't bigotry to refuse an individual part of the Trump administration specifically whereas it is bigotry to do it to a specific gay couple because they happen to be gay generally. That's the legal (and moral) distinction I'm drawing. 

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Agree to disagree. 

If you want to leave it at that, I'm happy to, but I'm not sure how you can "agree to disagree" when the person who asked Sanders to leave had gathered the entire staff and had a vote beforehand and the premise of asking her to leave was because she was Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically (she got recognized by staff when she came into th restauarant), mouth piece of separating children from their parents (among many other evils). 

I think their intent makes it pretty clear who it was aimed at, no?

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That is an inaccurate assement of the Masterpiece situation, and it’s actually very much like refusing Sanders service over her political beliefs.

 

Masterpiece served homosexual customers regularly, including the couple to whom they eventually refused service. Masterpiece took issue with a political stance (that the government should sanction same sex marriages) and refused service on that basis.

 

Red Hen did the same thing, refusing service as a matter of political principle.

 

The difference boils down to your view of the righteousness of the political views at play as well as the relative status and power of the aggreived parties (press secretary for White House vs. couple of average joes).

Right, but the difference being that the refusal was based on a problem with the type of person the gay couple actually were rather than about anything with them specifically as Bob or Ed (in terms of their specific personalities, etc.). It may have been a stance against the government, but the net effect is bigotry towards a group of people. 

The net effect in Sarah Huckabee Sanders' situation is the protest was political in nature directed directly at the specific person that is, in part, responsible for what is causing their protest in the first place. It is aimed at her and only her. 

Group of people (gay people) vs. individual (Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically). Private people (random gay couple) vs. public figure (senior White House official / press secretary). 

That difference between generally and specifically is very important, even if both beliefs are political in nature. How it is aimed and who it is aimed at matters, which is why libel and slander laws (as a for instance) differentiate between private and public figures. I'm happy to discuss more if I'm truly misunderstanding something.

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

double standards confirmed only libtards are allowed to be bigoted

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Stupid libtards are bigoted toward Sarah.

The thing is, that's true!  

We are bigoted against, specifically, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, due to who she is, what she's done, who she represents, etc. 

That's totally the same thing as refusing service to all gay people because they are gay! Totally the same thing GUYS.

Being bigoted against one person and being bigoted against an entire group = SAME THING GUYS.