Discussion:
Deadline: NBC Orders 'Law & Order: Hate Crimes' Series
Add Reply
Robin Miller
2018-09-04 19:52:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/


NBC Orders ‘Law & Order: Hate Crimes’ Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight

by Nellie Andreeva
September 4, 2018 12:06pm


As Law & Order: SVU is heading into its record-tying 20th season, NBC is
expanding the Law & Order franchise with a 13-episode order to Law &
Order: Hate Crimes, from Law & Order boss Dick Wolf.

Co-created with one of Wolf’s top lieutenants, former Law & Order: SVU
showrunner Warren Leight, the latest Law & Order installment is based on
New York’s actual Hate Crimes Task Force, the second oldest bias-based
task force in the U.S. The unit, which pledges to uphold a zero
tolerance policy against discrimination of any kind, works under the
NYPD’s real Special Victims Unit and often borrows SVU’s detectives to
assist in their investigations.

The new Law & Order series will be introduced as a planted spinoff from
SVU, with the first incarnation of the new unit appearing in the latter
part of the upcoming season of the Mariska Hargitay-starring series.

This is the seventh Law & Order series, following mothership Law &
Order, SVU, Criminal Intent, Trial By Jury, LA and last season’s
anthology True Crime.

“As Law & Order: SVU enters its remarkable 20th season, it is exciting
to get back into business with Dick Wolf on a new Law & Order
incarnation that feels extremely timely,” said Lisa Katz, Co-President
of Scripted Programming, NBC Entertainment. “Considering that last year
there was a double-digit rise in hate crimes in our 10 largest cities —
the highest total in over a decade — it seemed like this topic is
begging to be explored.”

Added Tracey Pakosta, Co-President of Scripted Programming, NBC
Entertainment: “We’re confident that Dick and Warren will examine these
cases in all their complexity and deliver another riveting series for
our country, currently grappling with an escalation of these crimes and
the motivations behind them.”

Law & Order: Hate Crimes is set in New York City, where crimes motivated
by discrimination are vigorously investigated by an elite, specially
trained team of investigators. Going behind the headlines and viral
videos, these diverse, dedicated and passionate detectives will stop at
nothing to bring these criminals to justice.

“As with all of my crime shows, I want to depict what’s really going on
in our cities and shine a light on the wide-ranging victims and show
that justice can prevail,” Wolf said. “Twenty years ago when SVU began,
very few people felt comfortable coming forward and reporting these
crimes, but when you bring the stories into people’s living rooms – with
characters as empathetic as Olivia Benson – a real dialogue can begin.
That’s what I hope we can do with this new show in a world where hate
crimes have reached an egregious level.”

Added Leight, “I’m extremely impressed by the actual men and women
investigating these cases in a city as complicated and diverse as New
York. The work they are doing puts them on the front lines in a battle
for the soul of our city and nation. I’m thrilled about the chance to
reunite with Dick and NBC to portray the reality of this crisis.”

At TCA last month, Wolf, 71, who has five drama series on the air (in
addition to 3 cable docuseries), indicated that he has no intention of
slowing down and hinted at expanding his current franchises. “There are
a lot of activities in the existing shows,” he told Deadline.

Law & Order: Hate Crimes follows the route that Wolf’s FBI drama
originally was supposed to take — launching characters on SVU before
becoming its own series on NBC. That project ultimately went to CBS and
debuts this fall. On NBC, Wolf has SVU and three Chicago dramas, Fire,
P.D. and Med.

There have been multiple attempts by the broadcast networks to launch a
series in the past few years about the workings of a hate crimes unit,
including one that went to pilot at CBS last year, untitled Jenny Lumet
drama.

Law & Order: Hate Crimes is a Wolf Entertainment production in
association with Universal Television. Dick Wolf and Warren Leight are
creators and executive producers. Peter Jankowski and Arthur Forney will
also serve as executive producers. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is
a Wolf Films production in association with Universal Television. Dick
Wolf is creator and executive producer. Michael Chernuchin, Julie
Martin, Mariska Hargitay, Alex Chapple, Arthur Forney and Peter
Jankowski are executive producers.

Wolf and Leight are repped by WME.
BTR1701
2018-09-04 20:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren
-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders ‘Law & Order: Hate Crimes’ Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
by Nellie Andreeva
September 4, 2018 12:06pm
As LAW & ORDER: SVU is heading into its record-tying 20th season, NBC is
HATE CRIMES, from Law & Order boss Dick Wolf.
Oh, this oughta be good. Nothing like a dose of weekly lecturing from
Hollywood on how hateful all of us great unwashed masses are.

After the first half-dozen episodes go by and they run out of real hate
crimes, they'll start arresting people for doing things like refusing to
paint a portrait of gay lesbian non-binary otherkin people or remaking
an old TV series without changing everyone's races and genders.
Post by Robin Miller
The unit, which pledges to uphold a zero tolerance policy against
discrimination of any kind
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?

Apparently the NYPD has as much trouble understanding the phrase "any
kind" as AT&T does understanding the term "unlimited".
Post by Robin Miller
"As LAW & ORDER: SVU enters its remarkable 20th season, it is exciting
to get back into business with Dick Wolf on a new LAW & ORDER
incarnation that feels extremely timely," said Lisa Katz, Co-President
of Scripted Programming, NBC Entertainment. "Considering that last year
there was a double-digit rise in hate crimes in our 10 largest cities
The main reason for that rise is the continuing expansion of the
definition of 'hate crime' to include just about anything a minority
person doesn't like.
kensi
2018-09-05 16:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-05 16:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.

And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.

Of course none of that changes the fact that the NY Hate Crimes Unit
claims a zero tolerance for discrimination OF ANY KIND, which means,
choice or not, they shouldn't tolerate discrimination against Trump
supporters.
kensi
2018-09-06 16:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though? Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.

https://young.scot/information/identity/myths-and-facts-about-sex-and-gender/

"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.

Fact: Being trans is no more a choice than being tall, straight or black."

Oh, and by the way, what is the premiere date for this show? The OP
failed to mention it and TVLine hasn't updated their premieres grid to
include it either.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-06 17:47:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though? Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
In a free society, one can choose one's religion or choose no religion
at all. That one was indoctrinated isn't an affirmative defense against
being charged with a violent crime or any other type of crime.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
hi seamus. You're not a progressive, seamus. You're a sockpuppet. Being
a sockpuppet was a choice. For you, putting on a sockpuppet, or
thousands in your case, has always been your choice. You choose to play
lunatic on Usenet.
Post by kensi
https://. . .
spammed Web page deleted
kensi
2018-09-07 11:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
hi seamus. You're not a progressive, seamus. You're a sockpuppet. Being
a sockpuppet was a choice. For you, putting on a sockpuppet, or
thousands in your case, has always been your choice. You choose to play
lunatic on Usenet.
I'm not the one showing signs of clinically-significant paranoia, k0Oky.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
https://. . .
spammed Web page deleted
By what definition was that spam, koOk? It was not bulk (BI over 20),
*nor* was it commercial advertising. Now you're pulling serious
accusations of net abuse out of your ass.

Oh, and since it apparently causes you serious butthurt to see it, here
is the link again:

https://young.scot/information/identity/myths-and-facts-about-sex-and-gender/

(BI: 2 and counting)
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-06 18:21:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Yes.
Post by kensi
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?

I'm talking about the people who say they are 'non-binary gender fluid'.

You've obviously missed a few issues of the Progressive Gender Daily
newsletter.

There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that college
'progressives' demand we recognize.
moviePig
2018-09-06 19:16:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Yes.
Post by kensi
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
I'm talking about the people who say they are 'non-binary gender fluid'.
You've obviously missed a few issues of the Progressive Gender Daily
newsletter.
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that college
'progressives' demand we recognize.
I'm pretty sure that 'non-binary gender fluid' is what you put in your
Continuously Variable Transmission...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
shawn
2018-09-06 20:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Yes.
Not Admiral Greer choose to become Muslim just so he could marry the
wife that now seems to hate him so apparently becoming Muslim is a
choice. (JACK RYAN reference.)
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
I don't think it's progressives. It's some subset of progressives that
are obsessed with what words people use to the point of decrying
someone using the wrong term as in people who called the person known
as Scout, male, instead of his preferred term, them. (This was from an
article about Scout at Ga Tech and how the police ended up killing
him.) That wasn't everyone that might be described as liberal or
progressive but a very active subset.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
I'm talking about the people who say they are 'non-binary gender fluid'.
You've obviously missed a few issues of the Progressive Gender Daily
newsletter.
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that college
'progressives' demand we recognize.
Which creates a landmine where you can only be safe from stepping on
one if you never deal with anyone, or at least anyone new. Because you
will invariably make a mistake eventually. At least we aren't at the
point that some countries have reached where making that mistake could
be considered hate speech.
BTR1701
2018-09-06 20:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
I don't think it's progressives. It's some subset of progressives that
are obsessed with what words people use to the point of decrying
someone using the wrong term as in people who called the person known
as Scout, male, instead of his preferred term, them. (This was from an
article about Scout at Ga Tech and how the police ended up killing
him.) That wasn't everyone that might be described as liberal or
progressive but a very active subset.
It may not be all 'progressives', but the larger body of 'progressives'
don't do or say anything to discourage their idiocy, so they own it. Just
like Republicans own the behavior of the crazy religious nutters amongst
them because they don't shut them down. And 'moderate' Islam owns the
violent savagery of the barbarians among them because they don't do
anything about it.
Rhino
2018-09-11 17:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Yes.
Not Admiral Greer choose to become Muslim just so he could marry the
wife that now seems to hate him so apparently becoming Muslim is a
choice. (JACK RYAN reference.)
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
I don't think it's progressives. It's some subset of progressives that
are obsessed with what words people use to the point of decrying
someone using the wrong term as in people who called the person known
as Scout, male, instead of his preferred term, them. (This was from an
article about Scout at Ga Tech and how the police ended up killing
him.) That wasn't everyone that might be described as liberal or
progressive but a very active subset.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
I'm talking about the people who say they are 'non-binary gender fluid'.
You've obviously missed a few issues of the Progressive Gender Daily
newsletter.
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that college
'progressives' demand we recognize.
Which creates a landmine where you can only be safe from stepping on
one if you never deal with anyone, or at least anyone new. Because you
will invariably make a mistake eventually. At least we aren't at the
point that some countries have reached where making that mistake could
be considered hate speech.
It's a criminal offense subject to up to 2 years in jail to "misgender"
someone in Canada. They are whatever gender they claim to be at that
moment and no one, like a doctor, needs to be consulted to determine if
they actually are whatever gender they claim to be.
--
Rhino
David Johnston
2018-09-11 21:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Yes.
Not Admiral Greer choose to become Muslim just so he could marry the
wife that now seems to hate him so apparently becoming Muslim is a
choice. (JACK RYAN reference.)
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
I don't think it's progressives. It's some subset of progressives that
are obsessed with what words people use to the point of decrying
someone using the wrong term as in people who called the person known
as Scout, male, instead of his preferred term, them. (This was from an
article about Scout at Ga Tech and how the police ended up killing
him.) That wasn't everyone that might be described as liberal or
progressive but a very active subset.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
I'm talking about the people who say they are  'non-binary gender
fluid'.
You've obviously missed a few issues of the Progressive Gender Daily
newsletter.
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that college
'progressives' demand we recognize.
Which creates a landmine where you can only be safe from stepping on
one if you never deal with anyone, or at least anyone new. Because you
will invariably make a mistake eventually. At least we aren't at the
point that some countries have reached where making that mistake could
be considered hate speech.
It's a criminal offense subject to up to 2 years in jail to "misgender"
someone in Canada.
Cite the law.
Ubiquitous
2018-09-13 15:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Rhino
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of
Trump supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or
gay, or etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Yes.
Not Admiral Greer choose to become Muslim just so he could marry the
wife that now seems to hate him so apparently becoming Muslim is a
choice. (JACK RYAN reference.)
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
I don't think it's progressives. It's some subset of progressives that
are obsessed with what words people use to the point of decrying
someone using the wrong term as in people who called the person known
as Scout, male, instead of his preferred term, them. (This was from an
article about Scout at Ga Tech and how the police ended up killing
him.) That wasn't everyone that might be described as liberal or
progressive but a very active subset.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
I'm talking about the people who say they are  'non-binary gender
fluid'.
You've obviously missed a few issues of the Progressive Gender Daily
newsletter.
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that
college 'progressives' demand we recognize.
Which creates a landmine where you can only be safe from stepping on
one if you never deal with anyone, or at least anyone new. Because you
will invariably make a mistake eventually. At least we aren't at the
point that some countries have reached where making that mistake could
be considered hate speech.
It's a criminal offense subject to up to 2 years in jail to "misgender"
someone in Canada.
Cite the law.
Aren't you familiar with current events in your own country?
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
kensi
2018-09-07 11:09:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world. I
myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad habit once
I was old enough to make my own choices.
It wasn't that easy for others, ko0k.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
No, we don't.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
You did, idiot. See above.
Post by BTR1701
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that college
'progressives' demand we recognize.
Actually, we only demand that you recognize the right of other people to
dignity, respect, equality, and basic courtesy, such as that you call
people what they wish you to call them. You've spent your whole life
getting "Ms." vs. "Mrs." vs. "Miss" vs. "Dr." right, and "Mr." vs.
"Dr.", and remembering people's names, and stuff like that. How much
harder can this be?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-07 14:32:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Being Muslim is a choice.
Is it really, though?
Most were indoctrinated from birth, after all. It
isn't easy or commonplace for someone to break free of a devoutly
religious upbringing in any religion.
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world.
I myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad
habit once I was old enough to make my own choices.
It wasn't that easy for others, ko0k.
Irrelevant. You were the one who set the benchline for legal protection
on the distinction between immutable characteristics and those which are
choices.

The fact remains that legions of people change their religion worldwide
all the time.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
You did, idiot. See above.
Nope. Never said anything about transgender. We've reached the point
where you start lying to cover your errors much quicker in this thread
than normal.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that
college 'progressives' demand we recognize.
Actually, we only demand
That's a lie. That's hardly the only demand you ko0ky people have
formulated.
Post by kensi
that you recognize the right of other people to dignity, respect,
equality, and basic courtesy, such as that you call people what
they wish you to call them.
Yeah, people don't get to demand I call them made up nonsense words like
"zhe" or to ignore the basic rules of grammar in the English language
and refer to one person with plural pronouns just because they had a
hormone blip that day.

Refusing to play that idiotic ko0ky game does not make a person a
'bigot'.
kensi
2018-09-08 17:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world.
I myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad
habit once I was old enough to make my own choices.
It wasn't that easy for others, ko0k.
Irrelevant.
Absolutely it's relevant. For people born to a religion who have
difficulty leaving it, or whose environment and peer group hides from
them the very existence of alternatives, it isn't much of a choice.

Regardless, the law says that religion is a protected class alongside
gender, race, etc. -- if you don't like that, lobby to have the law
changed to exclude religion.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
No, we don't.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
"Myth: Being transgender is a choice.
Who said anything about transgender?
You did, idiot. See above.
Nope. Never said anything about transgender.
We've reached the point where you start lying to cover your errors
much quicker in this thread than normal.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
There somewhere around 82 different genders and orientations that
college 'progressives' demand we recognize.
Actually, we only demand that you recognize the right of other people
to dignity, respect, equality, and basic courtesy, such as that you
call people what they wish you to call them.
Yeah, people don't get to demand I call them made up nonsense words like
"zhe"
And yet, they do get to demand you call them made up nonsense words like
"Mr.", "Ms.", "Dr.", etc. -- how is that any different? Because one is
newer? And *most* of the time it's just "he" or "she", but not the one
that corresponds to their assigned sex at birth.
Post by BTR1701
or to ignore the basic rules of grammar in the English language
and refer to one person with plural pronouns just because they had a
hormone blip that day.
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/gender-neutral-pronouns-singular-they

https://qz.com/923238/even-the-staunchest-grammarians-are-now-accepting-the-singular-gender-neutral-they/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/using-they-and-them-in-the-singular

It seems you disagree with the OED, ko0ky ... and with Shakespeare. Your
English grade for 2018 is an "F". You'll need to retake the course next
year.
Post by BTR1701
Refusing to play that idiotic ko0ky game does not make a person a
'bigot'.
Refusing to acknowledge trans and nonbinary people's preferred gender
and pronouns does make one a bigot.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-08 22:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
A multitude of of people change religions every day around the world.
I myself had no problem dropping decades of Catholicism like a bad
habit once I was old enough to make my own choices.
It wasn't that easy for others, ko0k.
Irrelevant.
Absolutely it's relevant. For people born to a religion who have
difficulty leaving it, or whose environment and peer group hides from
them the very existence of alternatives, it isn't much of a choice.
hi seamus. In a free society, one has the civil right to make that
choice regardless of what pressure is put upon one.
Post by kensi
Regardless, the law says that religion is a protected class alongside
gender, race, etc. -- if you don't like that, lobby to have the law
changed to exclude religion.
Depends on the law, seamus. Different anti-discrimination laws protect
different classes of persons. Do you recall what law you're talking about
any longer, seamus?
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
No, we don't.
Yes, you do.
No, we don't.
Even if you speak for all your sockpuppets jointly, seamus, you're not a
"we". You don't actually exist, seamus.

massive stupidity snip

hi seamus
Ubiquitous
2018-09-13 15:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
Being Muslim is a choice.
And the 'progressives' tell us that being male or female is a choice,
too. Gender is however you feel at any given moment.
Of course none of that changes the fact that the NY Hate Crimes Unit
claims a zero tolerance for discrimination OF ANY KIND, which means,
choice or not, they shouldn't tolerate discrimination against Trump
supporters.
Be sure to tune in for senses-shattering ep in which someone chooses Coke
over Pepsi!
@@
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 18:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
hi seamus

You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
kensi
2018-09-06 16:51:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which means the
government can't discriminate against someone for supporting Trump. But
a private business is free to do so because "Trump supporter" is not a
protected class and the First Amendment is not binding on private
enterprises, only on the public sector.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-06 17:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which means the
government can't discriminate against someone for supporting Trump. But
a private business is free to do so because "Trump supporter" is not a
protected class and the First Amendment is not binding on private
enterprises, only on the public sector.
hi seamus

Wrong again, seamus. Free speech doesn't mean that the speaker is
protected from discrimination by the government. It means that the
speech itself is not subject to censorship by the government. It means,
literally, that Congress shall pass no law restricting speech.

No one has ever been protected from the consequence of speech, which
means that it's perfectly constitutional for Congress to legislate that
the dirt shall be washed from filthy sockpuppets on a regular basis and
requiring holely sockpuppets be darned.
kensi
2018-09-07 11:11:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wrong again, seamus. Free speech doesn't mean that the speaker is
protected from discrimination by the government.
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It means that the speech itself is not subject to censorship by the
government.
Same thing. Discrimination by the government because of one's speech
would have a chilling effect and would amount to censorship. Thus has
the Supreme Court ruled on many an occasion.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-07 16:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wrong again, seamus. Free speech doesn't mean that the speaker is
protected from discrimination by the government.
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
hi seamus

No, seamus. It doesn't mean anything of the kind. An obvious example is
the Hatch Act, although that's become milder over the years.

Repeating your moronic statement doesn't make it true, seamus.
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It means that the speech itself is not subject to censorship by the
government.
Same thing.
It's completely different, seamus.
Post by kensi
Discrimination by the government because of one's speech would have a
chilling effect and would amount to censorship. Thus has the Supreme
Court ruled on many an occasion.
Name just one, seamus.
kensi
2018-09-08 17:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wrong again, seamus. Free speech doesn't mean that the speaker is
protected from discrimination by the government.
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It means that the speech itself is not subject to censorship by the
government.
Same thing.
Discrimination by the government because of one's speech would have a
chilling effect and would amount to censorship. Thus has the Supreme
Court ruled on many an occasion.
Name just one, seamus.
"A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of
content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional." --
Justice Anthony Kennedy and three other Justices in Matal v. Tam.

Content discrimination is "presumptively unconstitutional", according to
the Supremes. SPNAK!

For further research into this topic so that you can alleviate your
profound ignorance, I suggest these two links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

https://theamericanscholar.org/the-embattled-first-amendment/
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-08 22:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Wrong again, seamus. Free speech doesn't mean that the speaker is
protected from discrimination by the government.
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
It means that the speech itself is not subject to censorship by the
government.
Same thing.
Discrimination by the government because of one's speech would have a
chilling effect and would amount to censorship. Thus has the Supreme
Court ruled on many an occasion.
Name just one, seamus.
"A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of
content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional." --
Justice Anthony Kennedy and three other Justices in Matal v. Tam.
hi seamus

That case was about patent and trademark law. Government literally
censored their trademark application.

Censorship is unconstitutional because it's an abridgement of speech, not
because discrimination is a denial of equal protection. If you think
real real hard, seamus, you might be able to imagine a hypothetical in
which censorship isn't discriminatory in any way if the government
attempt to apply it to anyone, not just a member of a protected class.
Post by kensi
Content discrimination is "presumptively unconstitutional", according to
the Supremes. SPNAK!
That's what I was trying to tell you before, you blithering idiot. The
part of his sentence, "A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint"
would be denial of equal protection. Kennedy was saying, "is an egregious
form of content discrimination," that the viewpoint discrimination is a
subset of content discrimination. "Content discrimination" is abridgement
of speech; censorship. Censorship is unconstitutional.

In other words, the federal court does not need to find an act was
unconstitutional denial of equal protection in order to find it was
unconstitutional abridgement of speech.
Post by kensi
For further research into this topic so that you can alleviate your
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
https://theamericanscholar.org/the-embattled-first-amendment/
What do you have in there about falsely declaring victory on Usenet,
making a fool of yourself, because you cannot understand that denial of
equal protection and abridgement of speech are separate constitutional
issues? There is some overlap, of course.

hi seamus
kensi
2018-09-09 17:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Discrimination by the government because of one's speech would have a
chilling effect and would amount to censorship. Thus has the Supreme
Court ruled on many an occasion.
Name just one,
"A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of
content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional." --
Justice Anthony Kennedy and three other Justices in Matal v. Tam.
h<SMACKAK00K!>
I named one, as you requested. Game over. You don't get to froth some
more on this topic.
Post by kensi
Content discrimination is "presumptively unconstitutional", according to
the Supremes. SPNAK!
Tha<SMACKAK00K!>
That proves exactly the point that was in dispute. Game over. Stop
trying to weasel out of your loss.

Oh, and once again, for further research into this topic so that you can
alleviate your profound ignorance, I suggest these two links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

https://theamericanscholar.org/the-embattled-first-amendment/

HTH.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-09 18:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Discrimination by the government because of one's speech would have a
chilling effect and would amount to censorship. Thus has the Supreme
Court ruled on many an occasion.
Name just one,
"A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of
content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional." --
Justice Anthony Kennedy and three other Justices in Matal v. Tam.
h<SMACKAK00K!>
I named one, as you requested.
hi seamus

You didn't name one as I challenged you to do, seamus.

Repeating myself for the sockpuppet whose brain matter has congealed with
chronic odiferous foot sweat: Kennedy's opinion was in no way, shape,
or form that it was ever necessary for a court to find discrimination
(denial of equal protection under the 14th amendment) in order to find
censorhip (abridgement of speech under the 1st Amendment) and that the
law is unconstitutional. He clearly said one was a subset of the other,
which means that censorship can indeed be provable even if discrimination
is unprovable.

Repeating myself: There can indeed be overlap between discrimination and
censorship, which could have been a finding of law in the case you
cited. It's just that it's never necessary to find that discrimination
occurred to find that censorship occurred. All the court has to do is
make a finding of censorship.

massive stupidity snip

You're really stupid, seamus. I can't prevent you from making an even
bigger ass of yourself than you already have be repeating your same
misunderstanding of the law AND loudly declaring victory.

You've utterly shredded this sockpuppet. It's time to retire it
permanently.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-09 19:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/9/2018 11:17 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Adam, please stop playing with the troll.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
kensi
2018-09-10 18:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There can indeed be overlap between discrimination and
censorship, which could have been a finding of law in the case you
cited. It's just that it's never necessary to find that discrimination
occurred to find that censorship occurred. All the court has to do is
make a finding of censorship.
I never claimed it was necessary. I did claim that if the government
discriminates against people on the basis of their opinions, e.g. in the
provision of services, that would have a chilling effect on free speech,
and that the courts have ruled that the government isn't allowed to do
things with chilling effects on free speech as it violates the First
Amendment.

[the rest of your babbles, deflections, spins, and inevitable paranoid
burblings deleted]
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-10 18:39:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There can indeed be overlap between discrimination and
censorship, which could have been a finding of law in the case you
cited. It's just that it's never necessary to find that discrimination
occurred to find that censorship occurred. All the court has to do is
make a finding of censorship.
I never claimed it was necessary.
hi seamus

Here's the profoundly ignorant statement that you made:

Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which
means the government can't discriminate against someone for
supporting Trump.

There's no such thing as "protected speech", as distinguished from
"unprotected speech", in the First Amendment. There is a straightforward,
unequivocal civil right against laws that censor speech.

The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against the consequences
of speech. Hypothetically, Trump may fire someone for disloyalty for
criticizing Trump in an op-ed piece without violating his civil right to
free speech. The First Amendment doesn't say that one may write whatever
he likes in a published piece without getting fired from his job. The
First Amendment prevents government from preventing publication, which
is called prior restraint, but doesn't prevent adverse consequences to
the writer after publication.

You are profoundly ignorant of civil rights in the United States.
Post by kensi
I did claim that if the government discriminates against people on the
basis of their opinions, e.g. in the provision of services, that would
have a chilling effect on free speech, and that the courts have ruled
that the government isn't allowed to do things with chilling effects on
free speech as it violates the First Amendment.
You further compound your ignorance, seamussock, by repeating it. You
found no such case. Instead you found a Supreme Court case in which
the opinion supported what I told you to begin with, that speech isn't
subject to censorship under the First Amendment, period, without regard
to whether the court makes a finding of discrimination that would be a
denial of equal protection under the Fourtheenth Amendment.
Post by kensi
[the rest of your babbles, deflections, spins, and inevitable paranoid
burblings deleted]
Whether you quote to retain context or not, you didn't censor me. It
doesn't work like that.

hi seamus
kensi
2018-09-11 08:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There's no such thing as "protected speech"
Ridiculous. That phrase is rife in the legal literature around First
Amendment jurisprudence.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against the consequences
of speech.
It does protect the speaker against *government* consequences of speech,
as a rule, with maybe some exceptions for employees *of* the government,
and of course the giant carve-outs for copyright and for state secrets.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Hypothetically, Trump may fire someone for disloyalty for
Employee. Not random citizen. Try again.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-11 17:16:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There's no such thing as "protected speech"
hi seamus

seamus: You're so pathetic at arguing that you quote selectively,
thinking it fools anyone. You didn't even quote a full sentence.

I feel sorry for you.

I didn't write what you attributed to me. This is what I did write:

-----------------

Here's the profoundly ignorant statement that you [seamus] made:

Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which
means the government can't discriminate against someone for
supporting Trump.

There's no such thing as "protected speech", as distinguished from
"unprotected speech", in the First Amendment. There is a straightforward,
unequivocal civil right against laws that censor speech.

-----------------

Your intellect is so highly damaged because you never wash your filthy
socks any more. The caked-on dirt has somehow seeped through your ears
and turned your brain to mush.

You fail to notice the irony of your attempt to censor in a discussion
of free speech.

Too bad, seamus, that you cannot censor anybody. Deliberate misquoting
to destroy context isn't censorship. It's not within your power.

The rest snipped. You are being dishonest knowingly. That's an admission
that you never had an argument to begin with. It's sad. The United
States has all-encompassing speech protection which no other country on
the planet has. It's too bad you Canadians aren't mature enough to
understand that unfettered free speech isn't capable of destroying your
society.

hi seamus
kensi
2018-09-13 11:59:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There's no such thing as "protected speech"
I have restored the context that causes you such extreme fear.
Post by kensi
Ridiculous. That phrase is rife in the legal literature around First
Amendment jurisprudence.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against the consequences
of speech.
It does protect the speaker against *government* consequences of speech,
as a rule, with maybe some exceptions for employees *of* the government,
and of course the giant carve-outs for copyright and for state secrets.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Hypothetically, Trump may fire someone for disloyalty for
Employee. Not random citizen. Try again.
The United States has all-encompassing speech protection which no other
country on the planet has.
Non sequitur. Are you even going to *try* to address the points I made
in my previous post, ko0ky?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-13 21:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There's no such thing as "protected speech"
I have restored the context that causes you such extreme fear.
hi seamus

You restored context by removing context yet again? What a pathetic
lying sockpuppet you are.

I'll restore context by restoring context. My followup that seamus cut
out in its entirety followups:

hi seamus

seamus: You're so pathetic at arguing that you quote selectively,
thinking it fools anyone. You didn't even quote a full sentence.

I feel sorry for you.

I didn't write what you attributed to me. This is what I did write:

-----------------

Here's the profoundly ignorant statement that you [seamus] made:

Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which
means the government can't discriminate against someone for
supporting Trump.

There's no such thing as "protected speech", as distinguished from
"unprotected speech", in the First Amendment. There is a straightforward,
unequivocal civil right against laws that censor speech.

-----------------

Your intellect is so highly damaged because you never wash your filthy
socks any more. The caked-on dirt has somehow seeped through your ears
and turned your brain to mush.

You fail to notice the irony of your attempt to censor in a discussion
of free speech.

Too bad, seamus, that you cannot censor anybody. Deliberate misquoting
to destroy context isn't censorship. It's not within your power.

The rest snipped. You are being dishonest knowingly. That's an admission
that you never had an argument to begin with. It's sad. The United States
has all-encompassing speech protection which no other country on the planet
has. It's too bad you Canadians aren't mature enough to understand that
unfettered free speech isn't capable of destroying your society.

hi seamus
kensi
2018-09-14 10:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip Verman's butchered quoting, which once again omitted important
points from me rather than answering them]
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There's no such thing as "protected speech"
Ridiculous. That phrase is rife in the legal literature around First
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against the consequences
of speech.
It does protect the speaker against *government* consequences of speech,
as a rule, with maybe some exceptions for employees *of* the government,
and of course the giant carve-outs for copyright and for state secrets.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Hypothetically, Trump may fire someone for disloyalty for
Employee. Not random citizen. Try again.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-15 01:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Ridiculous. That phrase is rife in the legal literature around First
hi seamus

You're such an idiot that you took your own remarks out of context,
managing to quote only a sentence fragment from your earlier followup.

I feel sorry for you. The rest snipped to spare you from any further
loss of brain cells.

hi seamus
kensi
2018-09-15 10:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip Verman's evasion and paranoid rant, which once again omitted
important points from me rather than answering them]
Post by Adam H. Kerman
There's no such thing as "protected speech"
Ridiculous. That phrase is rife in the legal literature around First
Amendment jurisprudence.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The First Amendment doesn't protect the speaker against the consequences
of speech.
It does protect the speaker against *government* consequences of speech,
as a rule, with maybe some exceptions for employees *of* the government,
and of course the giant carve-outs for copyright and for state secrets.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Hypothetically, Trump may fire someone for disloyalty for
Employee. Not random citizen. Try again.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-06 18:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which means the
government can't discriminate against someone for supporting Trump. But
a private business is free to do so because "Trump supporter" is not a
protected class and the First Amendment is not binding on private
enterprises, only on the public sector.
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim, the NYPD does indeed
tolerate discrimination of *some* kind.
kensi
2018-09-07 11:12:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which means the
government can't discriminate against someone for supporting Trump. But
a private business is free to do so because "Trump supporter" is not a
protected class and the First Amendment is not binding on private
enterprises, only on the public sector.
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Post by BTR1701
the NYPD does indeed tolerate discrimination of *some* kind.
Tangent noted. Meanwhile, it is evident that you cannot back up your
scurrilous accusations quoted above. Now be a man and actually properly
retract them. And apologize.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-07 14:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free
association nor that political speech is protected speech.
Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which means the
government can't discriminate against someone for supporting Trump. But
a private business is free to do so because "Trump supporter" is not a
protected class and the First Amendment is not binding on private
enterprises, only on the public sector.
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut. It's not like that makes you look like a cowardly ko0k or
anything.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
the NYPD does indeed tolerate discrimination of *some* kind.
Tangent noted. Meanwhile, it is evident that you cannot back up your
scurrilous accusations quoted above. Now be a man and actually properly
retract them. And apologize.
That was Kerman, not me, dumbass.
kensi
2018-09-08 17:36:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/people-who-accuse-others-virtue-signalling-are-trying-stigmatise-empathy

People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy

The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur and it is everywhere; it is
part of the Trumpian scream. ...

The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right", which is what the Nazis are calling themselves these days
in a futile attempt to escape from the opprobrium that dogs their every
step.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-09 04:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy
Or just, ya know, pointing out virtue signaling.
Post by kensi
The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur
Good. Glad you guys don't like it. Maybe that'll incentivize you to stop
doing it.

"Everything we don't like is a slur! All criticism of us is bigotry!
Everyone who says words I don't like is a Nazi!"

You're a cartoon, ko0k.
Post by kensi
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
trotsky
2018-09-09 10:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy
Or just, ya know, pointing out virtue signaling.
Post by kensi
The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur
Good. Glad you guys don't like it. Maybe that'll incentivize you to stop
doing it.
"Everything we don't like is a slur! All criticism of us is bigotry!
Everyone who says words I don't like is a Nazi!"
You're a cartoon, ko0k.
Post by kensi
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
He's correct, what's funny about that?
kensi
2018-09-09 17:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
He
She
Post by trotsky
's correct, what's funny about that?
...
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-09 18:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
He
She
It

Stop misusing your pronouns, seamus, else you'll be reported to your
local human rights tribunal.
Post by trotsky
's correct, what's funny about that?
...
kensi
2018-09-09 17:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy
Or just, ya know, pointing out virtue signaling.
Same thing.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
There is nothing amusing about your being a neo-Nazi, ko0k.

Oh, and here's the link again that you snipped in a fit of butthurt:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/people-who-accuse-others-virtue-signalling-are-trying-stigmatise-empathy
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-10 02:04:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy
Or just, ya know, pointing out virtue signaling.
Same thing.
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
There is nothing amusing about your being a neo-Nazi, ko0k.
LOL!
kensi
2018-09-10 18:19:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
This is what makes it right wing propaganda: the implication that nobody
is ever *actually* virtuous, they just pretend to be for ulterior reasons.

This "logic" runs aground on an obvious paradox: if, as you right-wing
misanthropists k'lame, there is no such thing as genuine empathy and
altruism, in any humans, then who exactly is this "virtue signalling"
meant to impress? If there *are* humans who *genuinely* care about such
things, though, then how can you be so sure that someone you accuse of
"virtue signalling" is being insincere?

Oops. Got you!
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
BTR1701
2018-09-10 19:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
This is what makes it right wing propaganda: the implication that nobody
is ever *actually* virtuous, they just pretend to be for ulterior reasons.
Plenty of people are virtuous, but rarely are the ones who go out of their
way to let you know how virtuous they are actually virtuous.
kensi
2018-09-11 08:48:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
This is what makes it right wing propaganda: the implication that nobody
is ever *actually* virtuous, they just pretend to be for ulterior reasons.
Plenty of people are virtuous, but rarely are the ones who go out of their
way to let you know how virtuous they are actually virtuous.
On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

You realize what you are saying, right? It's fine for people to be
virtuous in private, but you'll lambaste them as "virtue signallers" and
vilify them if they dare to do it in public.

In other words, you're saying virtue should be treated like a vice!
Hidden away in private and clothed in shame.

Which is exactly the point of the article I posted: this is nothing less
than an attempt to stigmatize altruism, empathy, and compassion
themselves and drive them from the public sphere and from any public
visibility. Let no one have the audacity to actually *set a good
example* ... it makes you rightards look bad and you can't tolerate that.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Rhino
2018-09-11 17:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy
Or just, ya know, pointing out virtue signaling.
Same thing.
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
But the worst part of it is that they are making other people carry the
costs of signalling their virtue, not bearing it themselves. For
instance, when Bono says migrants are welcome (or should be welcome) in
some particular country, he's saying that (morally) that country MUST
welcome them to be good and decent people in his eyes and, by golly,
THEY are going to be the ones PAYING for all the consequences of that
welcome. He's not going to be out a dime of his substantial fortune and
he's not going to be putting a single one of them up in one of his
mansions or his enormous yacht.

By the same token, when our Prime Minister or his party insist that our
doors are open to anyone, he's not paying the costs out of his own
pocket, he's passing the cost on to the taxpayer WITHOUT HAVING EVEN
ASKED THEIR CONSENT in any direct manner.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
There is nothing amusing about your being a neo-Nazi, ko0k.
LOL!
--
Rhino
FPP
2018-09-11 22:44:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Yeah, just keep screaming "Nazi!" at everything you don't like and can't
rebut.
People who accuse others of "virtue signalling" are trying to stigmatise
empathy
Or just, ya know, pointing out virtue signaling.
Same thing.
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
But the worst part of it is that they are making other people carry the
costs of signalling their virtue, not bearing it themselves. For
instance, when Bono says migrants are welcome (or should be welcome) in
some particular country, he's saying that (morally) that country MUST
welcome them to be good and decent people in his eyes and, by golly,
THEY are going to be the ones PAYING for all the consequences of that
welcome. He's not going to be out a dime of his substantial fortune and
he's not going to be putting a single one of them up in one of his
mansions or his enormous yacht.
By the same token, when our Prime Minister or his party insist that our
doors are open to anyone, he's not paying the costs out of his own
pocket, he's passing the cost on to the taxpayer WITHOUT HAVING EVEN
ASKED THEIR CONSENT in any direct manner.
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
The phrase "virtue signalling" is a slur
The use of that term marks you clearly as be a member of the
"alt-right"
Hahahahahhahaha!
There is nothing amusing about your being a neo-Nazi, ko0k.
LOL!
Wrong, wrong, wrong... That's what you pay taxes for... so that your
government will take the money out of a general fund for worthwhile causes.

Being decent isn't a burden, except to selfish assholes. The same
clowns who drone on about Jesus and the Bible are some of the worst
offenders. They pretend to believe in it, but then do exactly the
opposite of what it teaches.

And you DO give your direct consent... at every election.
--
"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was
their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, 1949
"Just remember: what you’re seeing, and what you're reading is not
what’s happening." - Donald J. Trump, 2018
kensi
2018-09-13 12:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by BTR1701
Yep, people who make a public point of letting everyone else know how
supposedly virtuous they are.
But the worst part of it is that they are making other people carry the
costs of signalling their virtue, not bearing it themselves. For
instance, when Bono says migrants are welcome (or should be welcome) in
some particular country,
They will be expected to find jobs and participate in the economy like
anyone else. You're making out like they all come here in some ginormous
number and then sit around on government dole for the rest of their
lives. In reality, most immigrants are hard-working.

But then you and reality rarely meet anymore, do you? Same as with other
right-wingers.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-07 16:11:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Post by kensi
Post by Adam H. Kerman
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
Utter nonsense. Political speech is protected speech, which means the
government can't discriminate against someone for supporting Trump. But
a private business is free to do so because "Trump supporter" is not a
protected class and the First Amendment is not binding on private
enterprises, only on the public sector.
So then contrary to its virtue-signaling claim,
Aaaand "BTR1701" outs himself as an alt-right Nazoid.
Post by BTR1701
the NYPD does indeed tolerate discrimination of *some* kind.
Tangent noted. Meanwhile, it is evident that you cannot back up your
scurrilous accusations quoted above. Now be a man and actually properly
retract them. And apologize.
hi seamus

I pointed out that you're a fascist, seamus. It's even attributed to me,
right there in the attribution line.

Now be a sock and apologize.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-12 18:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by kensi
Post by BTR1701
Wasn't New York the place where they recently kicked a bunch of Trump
supporters out of bar for just being Trump supporters?
Being a Trump supporter is a choice. Being black, or female, or gay, or
etc. is not.
hi seamus
You've outed yourself as a fascist. You don't believe in free association
nor that political speech is protected speech.
I apologize. I made an error in my followup here. I didn't mean to qualify
"speech" with the word "protected" because there's no such qualification of
"protected" versus "unprotected" speech in the First Amendment, as I've
been lecuturing seamus in subsequent followups.

I shudder to think that I helped seamus get something very wrong in its
dirt-caked mind, given that seamus is perfectly capable of getting things
very wrong without help from anyone else.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-04 20:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders ‘Law & Order: Hate Crimes’ Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
"Master! Master! They haven't even started filming yet and the stupid
already burns so bad!!!" *scuttles away*
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
anim8rfsk
2018-09-04 20:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warr
en-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders ‘Law & Order: Hate Crimes’ Series From Dick Wolf& Warren
Leight
"Master! Master! They haven't even started filming yet and the stupid
already burns so bad!!!" *scuttles away*
If only the burning was that of the scripts.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
anim8rfsk
2018-09-04 20:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Deadline: NBC Orders 'Law & Order: Hate Crimes' Series
September 4, 2018 at 12:52:08 PM MST
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren
-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders ‘Law & Order: Hate Crimes’ Series From Dick Wolf& Warren
Leight
by Nellie Andreeva
September 4, 2018 12:06pm
As Law & Order: SVU is heading into its record-tying 20th season, NBC is
expanding the Law & Order franchise with a 13-episode order to Law &
Order: Hate Crimes, from Law & Order boss Dick Wolf.
Co-created with one of Wolf’s top lieutenants, former Law & Order: SVU
showrunner Warren Leight, the latest Law & Order installment is based on
New York’s actual Hate Crimes Task Force, the second oldest bias-based
task force in the U.S. The unit, which pledges to uphold a zero
tolerance policy against discrimination of any kind, works under the
NYPD’s real Special Victims Unit and often borrows SVU’s detectives to
assist in their investigations.
Isn't the SVU unit comprised of crazy psychotic murderers as it is?

I hate Hate Crimes.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-04 20:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!

I invented it right here on Usenet!
anim8rfsk
2018-09-04 20:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warr
en-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.

More than we hate Ian.

Ian is *really* going to hate that.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Ian J. Ball
2018-09-04 23:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
I hate Dick Wolf, as a matter of course.

But I'm also game for hating "mean as Adan" on this one...

;p
--
"Three light sabers? Is that overkill? Or just the right amount
of "kill"?" - M-OC, "A Perilous Rescue" (ep. #2.9), LSW:TFA (08-10-2017)
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 04:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.

My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
David Johnston
2018-09-05 05:09:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 05:19:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Shut up, Ian.
BTR1701
2018-09-05 05:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-w
arren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Shut up, Ian.
Holy shit! You told someone to shut up. You're anti-free speech!
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 06:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Shut up, Ian.
Holy shit! You told someone to shut up. You're anti-free speech!
I'm pro anti-free speech; that's where I'm getting all my plots from.
Ripped from the headlines, you know.
TeeJay1952
2018-09-05 11:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by BTR1701
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Shut up, Ian.
Holy shit! You told someone to shut up. You're anti-free speech!
I'm pro anti-free speech; that's where I'm getting all my plots from.
Ripped from the headlines, you know.
Should not the title be Chicago Hate?
Tee (not crying Wolf) Jay
BTR1701
2018-09-05 05:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-w
arren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders LAW & ORDER: HATE CRIMES Series From Dick Wolf & Warren
Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
It's what *some* hate crimes units do on college campuses. They're
usually called 'bias response teams' or some other PC jargony nonsense.
RichA
2018-09-05 07:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Law & Order: Gun Crimes Toronto. It's fictional story about a law enforcement agency that only goes after the perpetrators of gun crimes and they are all black. Oh, wait...
trotsky
2018-09-05 08:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law &  Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf &
Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
That is not what the Hate Crimes Unit does.
Doesn't the HCU primarily take people to the ICU?
anim8rfsk
2018-09-05 13:26:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-wa
rren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 14:19:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
anim8rfsk
2018-09-05 15:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-
warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren
Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
You're making it easier to hate him.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-05 15:14:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
Can he be a recurring guest on it?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 15:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
Can he be a recurring guest on it?
Good thought.
anim8rfsk
2018-09-05 15:34:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf
-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren
Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
Can he be a recurring guest on it?
You mean like kill him again every episode?
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
shawn
2018-09-05 17:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf
-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren
Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
Can he be a recurring guest on it?
You mean like kill him again every episode?
"They killed Ian"
anim8rfsk
2018-09-05 18:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by shawn
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wo
lf
-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren
Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
Can he be a recurring guest on it?
You mean like kill him again every episode?
"They killed Ian"
YOU BASTARDS!!!!11!!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Ian J. Ball
2018-09-05 16:21:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law & Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
They already stole "Greg The Bunny" from me!!
--
"Three light sabers? Is that overkill? Or just the right amount
of "kill"?" - M-OC, "A Perilous Rescue" (ep. #2.9), LSW:TFA (08-10-2017)
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-05 16:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian J. Ball
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders Law &  Order: Hate Crimes Series From Dick Wolf &  Warren
Leight
Hey! This is my show!
I invented it right here on Usenet!
Well then we hate you.
Read my proposal in the "Preventing hurtful speech on campus" thread. It
was to be an action-packed show on the men and women who put their lives
on the line every day suppressing speech on college campuses, keeping
unvetted ideas at bay, cracking down hard on anyone who would ever dream
of giving offense.
My idea was stolen.
Post by anim8rfsk
More than we hate Ian.
Ian is *really* going to hate that.
What does Ian have to do with this or anything else?
Ian wants to be the most hated man on RAT. The days you surpass him are
particularly difficult for him.
Let Ian propose his own tv show. He can't have mine.
They already stole "Greg The Bunny" from me!!
Now I'm wondering if Greg the Bunny was one of the victims of the
Happytime Murders. (But not enough to watch it.)
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
RichA
2018-09-05 07:18:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Law & Order: Some People Are More Equal Than Others. It's about a country where murder counts for more if you were mean about it...
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-05 13:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Law & Order: Some People Are More Equal Than Others. It's about a
country where murder counts for more if you were mean about it...
Not quite.

Murder, robbery, other violent crimes are all low-priority UNLESS there's
a hate crime element to it.
RichA
2018-09-10 03:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
Law & Order: Some People Are More Equal Than Others. It's about a
country where murder counts for more if you were mean about it...
Not quite.
Murder, robbery, other violent crimes are all low-priority UNLESS there's
a hate crime element to it.
Which is B.S. of course. Justice perverted.
weary flake
2018-09-05 17:49:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
NBC Orders ‘Law & Order: Hate Crimes’ Series From Dick Wolf & Warren Leight
by Nellie Andreeva
September 4, 2018 12:06pm
As Law & Order: SVU is heading into its record-tying 20th season, NBC
is expanding the Law & Order franchise with a 13-episode order to Law &
Order: Hate Crimes, from Law & Order boss Dick Wolf.
13 episodes? So I'll make a guess at the plots:

01) Whites attack African Americans
02) Whites go gay-bashing
03) Whites attack Jews
04) Whites attack Asian-Americans
05) Whites attack the disabled
06) Whites attack Muslims
07) Whites attack immigrants
08) Whites attack teenagers
09) Whites attack Puerto Ricans
10) Whites attack Salvodoran-Americans
11) Whites attack Mexican-Americans
12) Whites attack biracials
13) Whites attack Native Americans

your guess?
Ubiquitous
2018-09-13 15:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin Miller
https://deadline.com/2018/09/law-order-hate-crimes-series-nbc-dick-wolf-warren-leight-1202456899/
Co-created with one of Wolf's top lieutenants, former Law & Order: SVU
showrunner Warren Leight, the latest Law & Order installment is based on
New York's actual Hate Crimes Task Force, the second oldest bias-based
task force in the U.S.
They need to make the title more accurate, something like:

Law & Order: Thought Crimes
Post by Robin Miller
The unit, which pledges to uphold a zero tolerance policy against discrimination of any kind
@@

"Some thought crimes are more criminal than others."
Ta-DUN!
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Loading...