|
Poll: If your fave was racist, would you still stan?
View Poll Results: If your fave was racist, would you still stan for them?
|
Yes
|
|
38 |
42.70% |
No
|
|
33 |
37.08% |
I would be a casual fan but not a full stan
|
|
18 |
20.22% |
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 9/14/2010
Posts: 78,921
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennis Court
You don't have to agree with it for someone to have a belief. Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to be homophobic and anti military and the Courts protect them for having the right to believe what they want. Having racist opinions does not equate actions.
|
They're "allowed", yes, only by law. It's to safely protect them as citizens because even the court knows that their way of thinking is wrong and hateful, and they therefore need protecting from the rest of society (general people who aren't ignorant).
It's only the U.S. who is protecting this particular group btw. They're banned from entering the United Kingdom, for example.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 18,649
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennis Court
Laws protect people to have opinions. Do you not understand how the Court protects free speech/rights? The Courts protect people and their right to have an opinion.
When did I say people couldn't be criticized? I said people have a freedom to opinion. Maybe you need to understand a little more what the Courts are all about.
.
|
...but what does that have to do with not listening to someone's music? freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion mean you can't face legal action because of your opinion, not that people aren't allowed to not like you because of your opinion.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/5/2014
Posts: 3,097
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 10/1/2011
Posts: 15,669
|
I'd drop them like a bag of garbage. Bye.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 9,288
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennis Court
That person wasn't even defending me but say a bit I guess
Are you really that upset I don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source? Guess what, no scholar does.
|
I'm upset that it sounds like you haven't read much on the topic, like at all. And so because the information I gave you was on Wikipedia, it invalidates all of the information according to you right?
You're either very young and have a lot of growing to do or you're trolling.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,330
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
They're "allowed", yes, only by law. It's to frankly protect them as citizens because even the court knows that their way of thinking is wrong and hateful, and they therefore need protecting from the rest of society (general people who aren't ignorant).
It's only the U.S. who is protecting this particular group btw. They're banned from entering the United Kingdom, for example.
|
The Court has never issued an opinion on their beliefs, only their right to believe, which is true.
And I live in the US so that's what I'm speaking on. I, quite frankly, don't care what the UK does because if I did, I'd live there. In the US we protect more freedoms I guess.
Quote:
Originally posted by accelgors
...but what does that have to do with not listening to someone's music? freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion mean you can't face legal action because of your opinion, not that people aren't allowed to not like you because of your opinion.
|
You're allowed to do what you want with your money. When I first argued, I was speaking for myself. All I said was people are allowed to have their own opinion so I would still stan.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/26/2012
Posts: 3,272
|
definitely wouldn't stan for her, but I'd still find myself listening to her music.Oh Well.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,330
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenty The Great
I'm upset that it sounds like you haven't read much on the topic, like at all. And so because the information I gave you was on Wikipedia, it invalidates all of the information according to you right?
You're either very young and have a lot of growing to do or you're trolling.
|
Firstly, I've read a lot. Still doesn't invalidate my argument. And if the source is unreliable, then it is assumed, usually scholarly, that you cannot trust what is being presented.
And your last statement is an ad hominem attack, which is illogical.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 9,288
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennis Court
I never said it hasn't. But it doesn't automatically turn into action. Having an opinion and acting on that opinion are entirely different things.
|
Except there's been countless research that proves this is false, whether consciously or unconsciously
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/14/2011
Posts: 48,397
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennis Court
You don't have to agree with it for someone to have a belief. Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to be homophobic and anti military and the Courts protect them for having the right to believe what they want. Having racist opinions does not equate actions.
|
I actually understand what you are saying.
Racism is horrible and should not exist but unfortunately it does and people have the right to have racist thoughts. In fact, I think a lot of us have thought something racist at some point. Racism is ridiculous but humans tend to believe in lots of ridiculous things unfortunately
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,330
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenty The Great
Except there's been countless research that proves this is false, whether consciously or unconsciously
|
Reliable receipts?
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,330
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LoKoPaNdA
I actually understand what you are saying.
Racism is horrible and should not exist but unfortunately it does and people have the right to have racist thoughts. In fact, I think a lot of us have thought something racist at some point. Racism is ridiculous but humans tend to believe in lots of ridiculous things unfortunately
|
Thank you
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 9/14/2010
Posts: 78,921
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tennis Court
The Court has never issued an opinion on their beliefs, only their right to believe, which is true.
And I live in the US so that's what I'm speaking on. I, quite frankly, don't care what the UK does because if I did, I'd live there. In the US we protect more freedoms I guess.
|
But surely giving the United Kingdom's ban on them from entering suggests that the group's lives would be in danger and the United States wouldn't be able to protect them? The court does not agree with their beliefs, whether they state it or not. The laws are to protect their safety, otherwise other citizens would partake in grievous bodily harm and first degree murder.
It's like the court banning gay marriages in the Church of England but allowing same-sex marriages. Everyone's happy.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/6/2011
Posts: 26,891
|
Yeah. I'm racist too
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 9,288
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/14/2011
Posts: 48,397
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenty The Great
Except there's been countless research that proves this is false, whether consciously or unconsciously
|
I think religion is ridiculous but I don't treat religious people any different. I think it is possible to separate your actions and your beliefs....
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 2,855
|
I would never stan or pay for any of their products (not that I do that now anyway ) but I'd still listen to the music. I mean, a lot of musicians have done sh*tty things, but you have to learn to separate the person from the product. I don't look up to musicians or expect anything from them other than good music.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,330
|
Quote:
Originally posted by J a y
But surely giving the United Kingdom's ban on them from entering suggests that the group's lives would be in danger and the United States wouldn't be able to protect them? The court does not agree with their beliefs, whether they state it or not. The laws are to protect their safety, otherwise other citizens would partake in grievous bodily harm and first degree murder.
It's like the court banning gay marriages in the Church of England but allowing same-sex marriages. Everyone's happy.
|
the Court itself does not "agree" or "disagree" with a person's opinion. Please show me where any US Court has said "We disagree with Westboro's beliefs"? The Court determines whether they can express their rights, including their right to have an opinion. And the Court says, despite their opinion being unpopular, they are still allowed to have it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 8,569
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenty The Great
Yes, it does. No one's mistranslating anything, you're just one of those people who don't like people questioning ignorant statements because it makes you uncomfortable. Poor you.
|
No it doesn't, and yes, you are mistranslating the entire topic.
That's like saying someone who stans for Chris Brown is "okay" with domestic abuse. Um, no. It's still terrible.
But stanning for someone does not equate to co-signing every single thing they say or do. An intelligent person would realise that and recognise subtle differences in meaning and implication.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,330
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fenty The Great
|
None of those sources disproved what I said. Views do not equate action. And your first sentence is also ad hominem, which is still illogical.
|
|
|
|
|