TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

37
38

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 52 points53 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Great comment from the original Men's Rights Thread on the end game of equal pay:

The end game is to force men into the difficult and dangerous manual labor jobs because they've been discriminated against heavily in education. Then when women are working the easy and safe air-conditioned jobs they will demand that women receive the same pay for the easy jobs as men get for the difficult jobs.

This will effectively transfer men's labor and resources to women without women having to give anything in return. This was the goal of Feminism all along.

[–]_Molon_Labe_ 6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The same thing is involved in the rationale behind making front line combat available to women. They can't move ahead in their careers without combat, but they won't take combat, and can't meet combat standards, or even basic PT standards... but they should get paid the same, and have the same advancement opportunities, even if they never choose to do the same work, or even can't do it.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And forget them enlisting in the draft. Lovely how that debate died already, yes?

[–]_Molon_Labe_ -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Amen.

[–]Ragnar09 -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

When a real World War breaks out I want to see what bitches do

[–]_Molon_Labe_ -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Find men to protect them, and do whatever they want.

[–]luxury_banana 14 points15 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I bet you that that the endgame will be to demand more pay for less work.

[–]toptrool 14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

the whole picture:

make women's lives that of princesses at the expenses of peasant men.

[–]ChaoticParadox 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We're already more than halfway there.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well they are getting more healthcare for the same price.

[–]luxury_banana -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes well I am sure the endgame will be attempt to rationalize more healthcare for the same price and "equal" pay--more pay for less hours worked in less dangerous and less demanding jobs, so that the numbers end up the same.

[–]braveathee 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The court didn't consider nursery as equal to manual labor :

It will now decide if the women's work should considered equivalent to the men's.

See also there :

Upholding the appeal, a unanimous five-strong panel of the Supreme Court ruled that working in different locations for the same employer is not a barrier to achieving equality, meaning that the women can take their claims, most of which were lodged in 2006, back to an employment tribunal. The tribunal will decide whether the women’s work is of equal value to their comparators’.

[–]santaincarnate 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The tribunal will decide whether the women’s work is of equal value to their comparators’.

Clearly a job for bureaucrats and not say, the employers, or the market.

[–]braveathee -3 points-2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Your argument is different from the one I was replying to. My comment was merely refuting some assertions in /u/redpillschool's comment.

[–]santaincarnate 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your sarcasm detector needs tuning

[–]braveathee -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I had understood your sarcasm. Why did you say I hadn't ?

[–]amatorfati 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Guys, come on, clean up your act a bit. If you're going to be passive aggressive and whine, try /r/MensRights.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]_Molon_Labe_ 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just FYI more men than women [or more male fetuses than female fetuses,] die in vitro, and under the age of 5, as well.

[–]bstard 26 points27 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So now we've gone from "equal pay for equal work" to just "equal pay".

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Next up will be more man taxes.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 29 points30 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

This is basically communism. These women are asking the government to determine the cost of labor for different jobs. They believe that the free market is wrong, and that services provided by people should be priced by an artificial scheme rather than supply and demand.

Britain has essentially surrendered to communism. This means that there will be less incentive for anyone to work hard in that country. In the near future, there will be less incentive for anyone to pick up trash. I wonder what the ladies will think about that glass cellar when they see their tampons piling up with no one to carry them to the refuse pile.

[–]random_reddit_accoun 19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In the near future, there will be less incentive for anyone to pick up trash.

This is a pet peeve of mine. You want to know why garbage collectors make so much? Because the job SUCKS.

Collecting garbage destroys bodies. It is very hard work. Almost every garbage collector eventually winds up with serious job related physical problems. It is smelly work. It has incredibly low social status. It is a horrid job.

Given all that, no sane person would do it unless it paid well.

[–]orographic 9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Feminism is a marxist movement

[–]Ragnar09 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It is and it needs to be destroyed just like communism was.

[–]amatorfati 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

My friend, if you believe communism was destroyed, you need to take a harder pill.

[–]Ragnar09 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh yea the Soviet Union is about to spread..o wait it collapsed right?

[–]amatorfati 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Forget what you were taught in school, just think about the question yourself. Is communism dead, or alive? Well, to answer that, you have to figure out what "communism" is. So go to the original holy texts. Read Marx himself and his immediate acolytes. Well, the early communists had a number of demands that they insisted democratic governments adopt.

I believe that if you apply your mind seriously and sincerely to the question, you will come to the conclusion that communism, in a somewhat adapted form that has come to coexist with capitalism, is alive and well.

[–][deleted]  (12 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes, insane, believing that people be compensated for the quality of their work instead of their ability to justify need, absolutely insane.

[–]MaoIsMyLeader -2 points-1 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

You still have no idea how communism works. Why don't you read Capital or something

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

No, wikipedia's fine, unless you consider that to be biased by those on the right too much. In which case, I think we've identified a head-case.

[–]MaoIsMyLeader -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

How you can expect to be taken seriously when you don't even know what communism is? You refuse to read what communism is by actual communists.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Is Wikipedia wrong in their description of communism?

[–]MaoIsMyLeader -4 points-3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's too simplistic. It ignores class analysis, centuries of critiques of capitalism by famous economists (Adam Smith, Marx, Wolff). You wouldn't even get paid in money for your work in communism. There is no money. The UK is in no way communist. Any self respecting communist would line practically every member of the UK government against the wall. Communism isn't an adjective you can just throw around.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's too simplistic. It ignores class analysis, centuries of critiques of capitalism by famous economists (Adam Smith, Marx, Wolff). You wouldn't even get paid in money for your work in communism. There is no money. The UK is in no way communist. Any self respecting communist would line practically every member of the UK government against the wall. Communism isn't an adjective you can just throw around.

Is English a second language for you? First of all, Communism is a NOUN, not an adjective. The fact that you called it an adjective tells me you're easily offended by being called one; that you consider it a dirty label somehow depending on who is using it. This isn't too different from the hypocrisy w.r.t. using the N word (where people of one color can use it, but another cannot).

Second, you just agreed with me. I never called the UK a communist country. I instead described the action by the government in siding with these women in this lawsuit as "basically communism". I stand by that as an accurate assessment. Money changing hands or not, people in a communist system are given what they need out of a pool of communal resources. This lawsuit had to do with the reclassification of a section of communal budget that deals with compensation to workers based on need rather than labor expended. That's basically communism.

[–]MaoIsMyLeader -4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, somebody failed reading comprehension. I said communism isn't an adjective, so excuse me for a moment while I laugh my ass off at how you raged over literally nothing.

Ok, as for the UK being "basically communist", that isn't how it works. It is one or the other. It is either a stateless, moneyless, classless society where everybody is equal, or it isnt. There are plenty of other political ideologies that rely on welfare, such as social democracy, which is a capitalist sect.

So, honey, you wouldn't know communism if Karl Marx beat you to death with a Hammer and Sickle.

[–]Ragnar09 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Get out of here commie

[–]MaoIsMyLeader -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, the intellectualism, it burns!

[–]Divinityfound 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The Red Pill is inherently right wing. You are in the wrong thread.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

You really have no idea what communism is do you? Try reading a book for once.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"literally hitler" right?

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I did once, but I disagreed with too much of it, so I tried another one, but I disagreed with too much of that book... I haven't broken that cycle yet.

While arguably different from Soviet era communism, the fact remains that centralized planning of compensation for a job from what is considered communal is not much different from generic communism. That's what this is. It is the government deciding who gets what based on need, rather than who works harder.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

centralized planning is one facet of communism. The facet of power-hungry bureaucrats. Some of the first people to face oppression under the Soviet system were communists and anarcho-syndicalists who were forming their own, independent, and liberty minded systems. George-Orwell fought with anrcho-syndicalists in the Spanish-American war, and his book was about the Soviet Union.

I'm just saying your brush is too broad. I'm a "communist" and I don't even think that there should be a state or government.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

centralized planning is one facet of communism. The facet of power-hungry bureaucrats.

I rest my case. Tell your alt Mao the same thing, oh wait...

I'm just saying your brush is too broad. I'm a "communist" and I don't even think that there should be a state or government.

No, if you feel there should be no state, you're an anarchist.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

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

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You could also make the same argument w.r.t. capitalism. Capitalism does not depend on the existence of a state of any kind but you would never jump all over me for inferring that the U.S. government removing compensation classification for civil-service jobs and instead letting market forces determine them is "basically capitalism". I find your argument that my statement is wrong little more than bitterness.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You can call me bitter, or just read what I posted. Communism's goal is by definition a stateless society. Capitalism does not mention explicitly require or forbid a state.

You could also make the same argument w.r.t. capitalism. Capitalism does not depend on the existence of a state of any kind but you would never jump all over me for inferring that the U.S. government removing compensation classification for civil-service jobs and instead letting market forces determine them is "basically capitalism".

Not sure what you're getting at here... Capitalism is about private ownership of capital, and competition in a free market. That is more capitalist.

There aren't even supposed to be wages in a communist society, so I couldn't see how forceful wage equalization is even relevant to communism. Nothing the state does is communist by definition; it's not even supposed to exist.

[–]Big_Man_On_Campus 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure what you're getting at here...

of course not, of course not...

[–]McMurphyCrazy 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

cough SRS cough

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]McMurphyCrazy 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah but that person was tagged as SRS by a mass listing in RES.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right. But that seems to be an old tag-list you're using. I used to post in SRS a while ago. You can check my history. I've been banned for a while because I argued against their disrespectful treatment of my religion, Catholicism. My views have changed quite a bit. I'm no longer a Catholic. I wasn't a communist then either. And I've made a few posts to TRP that have been well received.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

"We have won what is rightfully ours..."

"...money earned by men."

The only way back from this I see is to use their tools against them. Suing female heavy institutions for not hiring enough men, and making the case that women are under represented in physical labor jobs. But this will be considered a joke for the foreseeable future. It's not a good time to be a man, but a great time to be a woman in Western countries.

[–]1Krackor 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"...money earned by men."

What's so backwards about this is the standard being used to determine if these women are making enough money. They compare the pay they get with the pay men get, rather than comparing the pay they get with the work they do. Even if parity with men would leave them underpaid, that would be enough to satisfy them. It's a self-imposed glass ceiling.

[–]_Molon_Labe_ -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no glass ceiling. The top earners put in the work to earn the money they do. The top earners are mostly men, and they are still beating out MOSTLY MEN.

I don't see these women wanting to do the work of the men in the glass basement.

[–]p3ndulum 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Equal pay for completely different work."

[–]TRP VanguardVZPurp 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What the hell? That doesn't make any sense.

They'll stop at nothing, and why not? Looks like it's working out for them.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Shit-test after failed shit-test.

[–]TRP Vanguardlegendofpasta 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My economics degree is screaming right now

Maybe I should just bury it and go get a women's studies degree, because laws don't care about anything but estrogen anymore.

Brb, getting sex change

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]saint2e 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I may be wrong, but pretty sure they're saying "God Bless America" because it DIDN'T happen in America.

[–]GermanDude -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

These pay rulebooks applied to gender, not occupation.

Are you sure? The BBC article tries to make it sounds like this by using irrelevant gender adjectives such as here

"The appellants, including classroom assistants and nursery nurses, now have won the right to have their jobs compared to those of male manual workers, such as road workers and groundsmen.

But:

A total of 251 workers, mainly female, working in Dumfries and Galloway as classroom assistants and nursery nurses claimed their pay conditions should be the same as in predominantly male occupations such as refuse collectors and groundsmen. [the latter which] get a supplement to their basic pay; the classroom assistants do not.

So the rulebook does NOT "discriminate" along gender lines, but rather across different occupations! (i.e. different pay for different work, as it should be in a free market society!) And now they want to equalize those for no obvious reason - other than "WANT MORE MONEYZ !!!".

It really bugs me how many people seemingly skimmed over this

It seems obvious to me that you did.

[–]synnndstalker 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's important to not make this a male versus female battle. Because it's only indirectly a gender issue. You can't argue that women should be paid less than men, or you can but most people will assume that you're misogynistic and a bigot without listening to your points. Rather, it's much more difficult for even the most hardened of feminists to advocate that nursery workers of any gender should make as much as manual laborers of any gender without coming off sounding like a communist.

[–]GermanDude 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agree. But that is why the conniving BBC put those absolutely superfluent "male" / "female" attributes in there that totally should not be there, because it is mostly self-selection (and employer selectivity) that leads to manual laborers being male and nursery assistants being female!

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, the people that say that modern society will come crashing down is one step closer to being right. Every time the feminist-infested government messes in the free market, it brings us one step closer to revolution.

[–]ChaoticParadox -2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I for one, cannot wait for the revolution to begin.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

GENDER WAR

[–]Lok_Die 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You forget yourself.

Men war among ourselves for dominance, and resources.

Men put women back in their place. That is not war, but punishment.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd rather do manual labor than deal with screaming, shitting kids all day.

Also, by accepting this case, nursery workers are admitting they are equal to trash collectors, which is exactly what they are.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Time to become a nurse! Edit: I thought this was a medical nurse not a person who took care of kids, ma bad

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I admit this one flew over my head. I see why you are subtle.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, who would work a shit manual labour job when the same money can be made in the nursing field? time to jump into a cushy job. move aside ladies.

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads -3 points-2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh, I thought you meant become a nurse because most nurses are women and most doctors are men. So you can get doctors salary lol.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

More if I was ever doing a job that will be paid the same as these child care givers, i'd switch because it's easier and pays the same.

[–]DeltTerry-4 points [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

This is dumb.

They are seeking the same treatment as male manual workers such as leisure attendants, road workers, groundsmen, refuse drivers and collectors working at local depots and swimming pools.

Road workers are the only ones with a particularly difficult job here. "Refuse drivers and collectors"- seriously, trashmen. What's the big deal?

Particularly if the women are employees of the state (I couldn't tell from the article, but I'm guessing with teachers and nurses, there's a good chance much of this is through government), they're taking legal action to ask for a raise they wouldn't be getting otherwise.

And I don't see why having an education is shamed. I make good money in my air conditioned room, sitting in front of a computer, thank you very much. It's taken me 5 years of college (well, starting my 5th soon), but I don't see why someone who has a developed skill should be making less than, say, a trashman.

I like a lot of stuff TRP posts, but this is just dumb.

Queue downvotes.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What about equal outcome for inequality do you like?

[–]DeltTerry 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The Court of Session disagreed with that finding but still dismissed the appeal on the grounds that if the men were to be employed in schools their terms and conditions would not be "broadly similar" to their existing terms.

.

The [mens' conditions] allows for bonus payments and pay supplements while the [womens' conditions] does not.

From what I understand, they're not asking to be getting the same rates. The article doesn't mention that. From what I understand is their terms of employment do not allow for bonuses, and that's what they're looking for. That's fair.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Because (if I am interpreting this correctly) It doesn't matter who's working the job, labor for this activity is worth X amount and labor for another activity is worth Y amount. Your sexual organs do not have an effect on the free market (at least they shouldn't). If they want to make garbage collector money, they should go collect garbage. The market has deemed their position to be worth X. It should be apparent what happens when you run contrary to markets for too long...

[–]DeltTerry 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The Court of Session disagreed with that finding but still dismissed the appeal on the grounds that if the men were to be employed in schools their terms and conditions would not be "broadly similar" to their existing terms.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure it's saying that, even though they don't really see the men working in the schools, they would be making similar wages to what they were as trashmen. Meaning they would be making more for doing the same job as women.

I'm no expert either, I'm trying to do my best to understand this (rather poorly written, imo) article.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

So a group of people with a very publicly scrutinized position have decided, without any actual data or evidence for or agaisnt, that "if" men were to be employed in schools they would get paid the same. If someone walked up to these people and told them "If a french guy worked at my job he would get paid more. I should get paid more" and had NO evidence for this, would they raise their wages too?

[–]DeltTerry 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, I mean, they obviously had some sort of data or evidence. There was a whole court case about it, each side had data and evidence. That's kind of how courts work.

So I'm not quite understanding your argument..

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

we're both working off the limited information the article provides, and in that article

"An employment tribunal allowed the claim to proceed but an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overturned that decision.

It ruled there was no "real possibility" of the male workers doing their jobs in schools.

The Court of Session disagreed with that finding but still dismissed the appeal on the grounds that if the men were to be employed in schools their terms and conditions would not be "broadly similar" to their existing terms."

So the first lower court went about it the wrong way. "there are no men in this field, so there's nothing for you to complain about". The second lower court said "even if there were men in this field, they would not be compensated the same as men in the fields your citing." They went to the supreme court, because if you can get a raise through the legislative system instead of performing a higher demand job, why not? I don't see any quotes from the supreme court, so I'm not sure how they reached this ruling. If they had evidence, apparently both lower courts didn't think it was very persuasive.

I still can't fathom how comparing and prorating two entirely different jobs to match each other in compensation just because they are predominately staffed by different genders makes any sense. The job is worth that much because that's what it's worth in this market, not because you have a cock or a vagina.

I want to get paid equal to the Call Girls at the bunny ranch because it is primarily staffed by women, even though it has a totally different worth than what I do now. Where do I file my lawsuit?

[–]GermanDude 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, if you were a man working as a nursery assistant (already), you would (also) make more than previously due to this judgement. But that is morally wrong, because that's not a free market system anymore!

So actually it is kind of very counterproductive that this article is posted in /r/RedPill, because it has essentially nothing to do with mens rights (except for the fact that most garbage collectors are male, that's why they're colloquially called "garbage men" and not "garbage women", no?).

[–]DeltTerry 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, thanks for clarifying.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DeltTerry 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I totally agree that skills need to be useful and relevant, and there's only so many openings for a History degree. Despite wanting to go into philosophy myself, I went STEM because I wanted a stable income.

But, from what I understand, though, they were looking for similar benefits in the pay structure in that they would be afforded bonuses, where their current system didn't give them that privilege:

The female staff are employed on conditions set out in a what is known as the Blue Book while their male counterparts have a Green Book.

The latter allows for bonus payments and pay supplements while the former does not.

I don't think asking for this is outside a realm of fairness, particularly if they're both government employees.

I'm not saying people are wrong for saying different jobs deserve different pay rates and pay schema. That's fine. I do think it's silly to assume this is 100% due to them being women.

[–]AlwaysLateToThreads -1 points0 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

God Bless America.

[–]toptrool 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

leftism currently has a strong streak here in america. i'm pretty sure this country will eventually fall. the only reason it hasn't declined at the same rate of europe is because of the first amendment (free speech).

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

are you a troll? we have free speech in europe.

[–]toptrool 1 point2 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

you don't have free speech to the extent we have in america.

europe has plenty of "hate speech" laws that feminists and other activists hide behind.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

where is that supposed to be? do you even realize that europe isnt a single nation?

[–]toptrool 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

yes i realize europe isn't a single nation . . .

but do go ahead and name any european country that doesn't have its own hate speech laws on the books. hint: look for european countries that aren't in the european union, because the e.u. does have prohibition against hate speech.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

so does the USA. yeah.. the one thats reading your emails and FB. so much for free speech.

[–]toptrool 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

free speech isn't freedom of privacy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

i just googled a bit and the glorious USA has hate speech laws.

one source says this about it:Some limits on expression were contemplated by the framers and have been read into the Constitution by the Supreme Court. In 1942, Justice Frank Murphy summarized the case law as follows; "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

so basically anything that hurts feelings or any dirty word is hate speech.

compare that to germany: In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders".

and then of course you have the NSA reading your emails and FB. yeah MURICA, land of the free. (this doesnt mean that europe is better, it isnt. see the UK)

[–]toptrool 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

if you're going to cite wikipedia, why don't you cite the entire thing?

Traditionally, however, if the speech did not fall within one of the above categorical exceptions, it was protected speech. In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s racist and hate filled speech and created the ‘imminent danger’ test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[57] This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the US. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white racists burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder. Scalia, writing for SCOTUS, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the first amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey.”[58] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.[59]

only in america can you get away with this stuff.

meanwhile in europe:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/29/antifeminism-might-become-illegal-in-the-nordic-countries/

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

meanwhile in some nordic countries. stop referring to europe as a single nation.

tell me more about how awesome the mighty USA is. its not like american arrogance and ignorance isnt already a stereotype.

[–]toptrool 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

meanwhile in france, germany, italy, and england.

tell me more about how awesome the mighty USA is. its not like american arrogance and ignorance isnt already a stereotype.

it's literally the best country in the world. the less political correctness, the better.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

america has the much more absurd political correctnes than say germany.

[–]toptrool 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

proof?

[–]Mooshaq -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it just me or does that article read very poorly? It was all over the place and very poorly written.

What the hell is wrong with free market? Just more feminists kicking men out, yet demanding equal pay for lesser work.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same pay for much easier work! What a great country we live in.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Being born a man is a legal liability.

[–]GermanDude -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary, said: "I am delighted that the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of our women members.

What? Tell me I am wrong, but doesn't it have to be "female members"? A "general secretary" has difficulties with his English native language? O.o And yeah, I still ought to take him serious.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter