The cancel culture is getting out of control

[n_huffhines]

Companies trying to require and force employees to get vaccinated is not a libertarian principle. I suggest reading the first paragraph of the Preamble, section 1.1 - Self Ownership of the libertarian platform itself, and also see what Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen have said on the matter. You claim to be a libertarian but much of what you post goes directly against their platform.
And yes you claimed Chappelle is the trans joke comedian. Prove it. And show where that consists of most of his act.

It's two parties voluntarily negotiating a contract. You don't understand libertarianism if you think letting them be isn't libertarian. Preventing a company from using that requirement necessitates government force and infringement on their right to contract. You'll have to find the Jo Jorgensen (who I voted for) quotes for me. I highly doubt she is saying the government should intercede. If she is saying that, then she is the one straying.

Libertarianism is so simple. Does what you want require government force? If the answer is no, then it's not antithetical to libertarianism.

 

[DonjoVol]

It's two parties voluntarily negotiating a contract. You don't understand libertarianism if you think letting them be isn't libertarian. Preventing a company from using that requirement necessitates government force and infringement on their right to contract. You'll have to find the Jo Jorgensen (who I voted for) quotes for me. I highly doubt she is saying the government should intercede. If she is saying that, then she is the one straying.

Libertarianism is so simple. Does what you want require government force? If the answer is no, then it's not antithetical to libertarianism.

Read the first paragraph of the preamble and section 1.1. Or do I need to provide you the link as well. The LP Party's stance on what decisions individuals make is very clear. No government, group, or individual should try and force something on another person that is against their will or that would do them harm. What you believe is not libertarianism. Sounds like you believe in corporate totalitarianism.

 

[n_huffhines]

Read the first paragraph of the preamble and section 1.1. Or do I need to provide you the link as well. The LP Party's stance on what decisions individuals make is very clear. No government, group, or individual should try and force something on another person that is against their will or that would do them harm. What you believe is not libertarianism. Sounds like you believe in corporate totalitarianism.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not force if you voluntarily agree to it. If you can say 'no' without fear of losing life, liberty, or property, then it's not force.

 

[DonjoVol]

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not force if you voluntarily agree to it. If you can say 'no' without fear of losing life, liberty, or property, then it's not force.

If a company requires a vaccine as a condition of employment. That itself goes against the principles of libertarianism.

 

[n_huffhines]

If a company requires a vaccine as a condition of employment. That itself goes against the principles of libertarianism.

No, dude. You don't get it. Personally, I don't want employers to require stuff like this (except maybe hospitals) because I think it's overreach, but libertarianism only determines where I stand on what the government should do about it. I don't tell the employer what to do. I don't tell the employee what to do. I let them figure it out. That's libertarianism, and it's not complicated.

You've successfully derailed the topic of the thread and you're embarrassing yourself. Let's move on.

 

[DonjoVol]

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's not force if you voluntarily agree to it. If you can say 'no' without fear of losing life, liberty, or property, then it's not force.

This is directly from the Libertarian Party preamble and section 1.1 on Self Ownership

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."

"Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate."

Those two statements alone make it pretty clear and there is a reason that first statement I posted is the first sentence of their preamble. If an employer gives an employee an ultimatum - "get the vaccine or lose your job" - that in itself is forcing that employee to make a tough decision. It is one thing if a church says you can not enter unless you are fully vaccinate. They can just go to another church down the road. However, getting another job with the current salary might not be easy for someone to find.

I also understand that sometimes publications like Reason magazine posts articles which go directly against the basic fundamentals of libertarianism. Which is why I stopped following them a few years ago. I see freedom now being advocated more from conservatives and traditional liberals than I do from many of the self proclaimed libertarians like yourself.

 

[n_huffhines]

Those two statements alone make it pretty clear and there is a reason that first statement I posted is the first sentence of their preamble. If an employer gives an employee an ultimatum - "get the vaccine or lose your job" - that in itself is forcing that employee to make a tough decision. It is one thing if a church says you can not enter unless you are fully vaccinate. They can just go to another church down the road. However, getting another job with the current salary might not be easy for someone to find.

I also understand that sometimes publications like Reason magazine posts articles which go directly against the basic fundamentals of libertarianism. Which is why I stopped following them a few years ago. I see freedom now being advocated more from conservatives and traditional liberals than I do from many of the self proclaimed libertarians like yourself.

So ban ultimatums among parties that are voluntarily contracting with one another? That's what you think libertarianism is?

 

[VolStrom]

Japan bans same sex marriage, oh no's what will happen to the world of LGBTQIA+?

 

[DonjoVol]

So ban ultimatums among parties that are voluntarily contracting with one another? That's what you think libertarianism is?

I am going to post these two statements for you to read again. If you cannot comprehend what these two statements mean then you definitely are not a libertarian.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."

"Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate."

There is also a reason libertarians like Shane Hazel are against company vaccine mandates. I also have not seen Jo Jorgensen, who you and others claimed to vote for, advocate for ANY vaccine mandate. And neither did her running mate Spike Cohen.

 

[n_huffhines]

I am going to post these two statements for you to read again. If you cannot comprehend what these two statements mean then you definitely are not a libertarian.

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefit of others."

"Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate."

There is also a reason libertarians like Shane Hazel are against company vaccine mandates. I also have not seen Jo Jorgensen, who you and others claimed to vote for, advocate for ANY vaccine mandate. And neither did her running mate Spike Cohen.

An ultimatum is not force. It's a perfectly legitimate negotiation tactic. Losing future income because of a choice you voluntarily make is not the same thing as loss of life, liberty, or property, ipso facto, it's not force. Think about it like this....if libertarians are against force, then how can they advocate that the government force employers to employ unvaccinated people? Quite the conundrum.

I don't advocate for vaccine mandates. Why are you talking about that?

You may never get this point about force. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Maybe take a break from the keyboard.

 

[n_huffhines]

Japan bans same sex marriage, oh no's what will happen to the world of LGBTQIA+?

Bro, that's pretty sad.

 

[VolStrom]

Bro, that's pretty sad.

Maybe debauchery won't become the norm in Japan?

 

[DonjoVol]

An ultimatum is not force. It's a perfectly legitimate negotiation tactic. Losing future income because of a choice you voluntarily make is not the same thing as loss of life, liberty, or property, ipso facto, it's not force.

I don't advocate for vaccine mandates. Why are you talking about that?

You may never get this point about force. Take a break from the keyboard.

It is force as that company is trying to get their employee to possibly sacrifice their personal values in order to keep their job. Plain and simple.

You said companies mandating vaccines were perfectly acceptable. That is against basic libertarian principles and I provided not only statements for the LP Party itself to back it up but many of your own LP Party candidates do not even agree that vaccine mandates are acceptable. You have once again embarrassed yourself to the point that you are now backtracking from your statements. This is not the only time you have done this either. You are no libertarian and I have every right to say that. Perhaps you should try listening to podcasts from actual libertarians. That is if you can manage to escape from your mainstream news sources for a bit. As a matter of fact, Ron DeSantis is more libertarian than you are. I bet Dave Chappelle is too.

Better yet go to Barnes and Noble and buy some classical literature to read or maybe the most recent copy of Asimov's Science Fiction.

 

[ButchPlz]

It is force as that company is trying to get their employee to possibly sacrifice their personal values in order to keep their job. Plain and simple.

You said companies mandating vaccines were perfectly acceptable. That is against basic libertarian principles and I provided not only statements for the LP Party itself to back it up but many of your own LP Party candidates do not even agree that vaccine mandates are acceptable. You have once again embarrassed yourself to the point that you are now backtracking from your statements. This is not the only time you have done this either. You are no libertarian and I have every right to say that. Perhaps you should try listening to podcasts from actual libertarians. That is if you can manage to escape from your mainstream news sources for a bit. As a matter of fact, Ron DeSantis is more libertarian than you are. I bet Dave Chappelle is too.

Better yet go to Barnes and Noble and buy some classical literature to read or maybe the most recent copy of Asimov's Science Fiction.

The guy's rolling on half a scrambled brain cell, I think you have given him enough. He's the only one that thinks he's "libertarian", everyone else sees him for what he is.

 

[DonjoVol]

The guy's rolling on half a scrambled brain cell, I think you have given him enough. He's the only one that thinks he's "libertarian", everyone else sees him for what he is.

It's also funny the number of people on this forum that claim they voted for Jo Jorgensen. Yet she only received 1.18% of the vote. You would think they would be the first to question the outcome of the last presidential election.

 

[Vol8188]

Libertarianism is so simple. Does what you want require government force? If the answer is no, then it's not antithetical to libertarianism.

That’s not true at all. You seem to be confusing libertarianism and anarchy. There’s plenty of legitimate uses of government force that the majority of libertarians would agree with.

There’s no libertarian movement to legalize homicide and rape. Rather we all agree that is a legitimate use of government force

 

[TRUEFANVol]

It is force as that company is trying to get their employee to possibly sacrifice their personal values in order to keep their job. Plain and simple.

You said companies mandating vaccines were perfectly acceptable. That is against basic libertarian principles and I provided not only statements for the LP Party itself to back it up but many of your own LP Party candidates do not even agree that vaccine mandates are acceptable. You have once again embarrassed yourself to the point that you are now backtracking from your statements. This is not the only time you have done this either. You are no libertarian and I have every right to say that. Perhaps you should try listening to podcasts from actual libertarians. That is if you can manage to escape from your mainstream news sources for a bit. As a matter of fact, Ron DeSantis is more libertarian than you are. I bet Dave Chappelle is too.

Better yet go to Barnes and Noble and buy some classical literature to read or maybe the most recent copy of Asimov's Science Fiction.

I might agree with Dave Chappelle, but DeSantis is a reach

 

[walkenvol]

Not the whole act, but his last two specials were largely about that, and then you get little clips about it and then it's the topic of news articles about him. Hell, he seemingly got attacked on stage for being the trans joke guy.

I can't believe I'm providing support for the idea that he's the trans joke guy. This is incontrovertible. I thought I would get replies about it being OK to joke about trans, but you're in full blown denial.

You should be smart enough to recognize what’s happening with Chappell as through his long career he’s learned to be savvy in dealing with the media. He makes more money when he’s in the public eye. The media is currently fixated on alternative sexual lifestyles. Chappell is using that all the way to the bank. Includes a few jokes in his shows and generates a bunch of added attention and in his business attention equals money.

 

[n_huffhines]

You should be smart enough to recognize what’s happening with Chappell as through his long career he’s learned to be savvy in dealing with the media. He makes more money when he’s in the public eye. The media is currently fixated on alternative sexual lifestyles. Chappell is using that all the way to the bank. Includes a few jokes in his shows and generates a bunch of added attention and in his business attention equals money.

So his motive is $? If I accept that, what does that change about anything? He's still the trans joke guy. Should I call him the "doing it for $ trans joke guy"?

The dude who walked away from $50m for no apparent reason is doing this all for $?

 

[SamRebel35]

I prefer Ricky Gervais' trans jokes to Chappelle's. Funnier and more biting.

 

[walkenvol]

So his motive is $? If I accept that, what does that change about anything? He's still the trans joke guy. Should I call him the "doing it for $ trans joke guy"?

The dude who walked away from $50m for no apparent reason is doing this all for $?

That was 25 years ago when he was young had never had any significant money. Now he’s middle aged with a family and money has a different perspective IMO. He will drift off into obscurity if he doesn’t do things to stay in the public eye which kills any entertainer’s earning potential.

The only folks who get their feathers ruffled by a trans joke are trans folk and the woke crowd….I think Chappell has been pretty clear on his lack of concern for the woke movement

 

[n_huffhines]

That was 25 years ago when he was young had never had any significant money. Now he’s middle aged with a family and money has a different perspective IMO. He will drift off into obscurity if he doesn’t do things to stay in the public eye which kills any entertainer’s earning potential.

The only folks who get their feathers ruffled by a trans joke are trans folk and the woke crowd….I think Chappell has been pretty clear on his lack of concern for the woke movement

It was more like 15 years ago and Dave needs $ far less now than he did then. I think it actually put him in a little bit of financial trouble, IIRC.

Again, none of this is a judgment of the content, it's an opinion about what content he'll be remembered for.

I think you should be able to make fun of everybody. Some jokes do cross the line, but I appreciate comedians for pushing that line. I watched DC's first trans special. I laughed. I wasn't offended. IDK why he spent so much time on it. It wasn't that great of a special. And then he did it again. And then he went to his alma mater and ****ed with the kids there that were offended about it. He can do whatever he wants. I'm not going to say he should be canceled, nor do I want him to be, but...I respect George Carlin's rules of engagement much more than I respect what Dave is doing. And Dave was funnier before 2017.

 

[McDad]

It was more like 15 years ago and Dave needs $ far less now than he did then. I think it actually put him in a little bit of financial trouble, IIRC.

Again, none of this is a judgment of the content, it's an opinion about what content he'll be remembered for.

I think you should be able to make fun of everybody. Some jokes do cross the line, but I appreciate comedians for pushing that line. I watched DC's first trans special. I laughed. I wasn't offended. IDK why he spent so much time on it. It wasn't that great of a special. And then he did it again. And then he went to his alma mater and ****ed with the kids there that were offended about it. He can do whatever he wants. I'm not going to say he should be canceled, nor do I want him to be, but...I respect George Carlin's rules of engagement much more than I respect what Dave is doing. And Dave was funnier before 2017.

Carlin is bright. I understand his take. I don't fully agree, in retrospect, with his view.

 

[n_huffhines]

Carlin is bright. I understand his take. I don't fully agree, in retrospect, with his view.

I just think there are levels to comedy. I don't think Carlin is saying that jokes about Puerto Ricans are out of bounds. I would bet all my $ that Carlin made those kinds of jokes. But I think he is saying that if your schtick is to appeal to a big demographic by slamming the underdog demographics, it's a lower level of comedy and you may be helping ugly people justify their ideas.

Personally, I'm most impressed by comics who use crutches* sparingly. I'm not saying that stuff isn't funny, I'm just saying it takes a lot more intelligence to make Gary Gulman jokes than it does to make Andrew Dice Clay jokes. Nate Bargatze is my favorite comic right now. He's very dry and he doesn't swear and he pretty much just makes fun of himself and his wife and his kid.

*vulgarity, racial jokes, crowd work, physicality/voices, political jokes that aren't insightful

 

[McDad]

I just think there are levels to comedy. I don't think Carlin is saying that jokes about Puerto Ricans are out of bounds. I would bet all my $ that Carlin made those kinds of jokes. But I think he is saying that if your schtick is to appeal to a big demographic by slamming the underdog demographics, it's a lower level of comedy and you may be helping ugly people justify their ideas.

Personally, I'm most impressed by comics who use crutches* sparingly. I'm not saying that stuff isn't funny, I'm just saying it takes a lot more intelligence to make Gary Gulman jokes than it does to make Andrew Dice Clay jokes. Nate Bargatze is my favorite comic right now. He's very dry and he doesn't swear and he pretty much just makes fun of himself and his wife and his kid.

*vulgarity, racial jokes, crowd work, physicality/voices, political jokes that aren't insightful

I agree. And that's why I understand Carlin's opinion. In retrospect, ADC was a hit bc he was novel. I'd never seen anyone do what he did. But it wore off quickly as all novel things do.
That demographic who found ADC appealing is still present in a new generation of young males. But no one is doing ADC brand comedy anymore. Unless his brand spilled over to present day comics who incorporated the concept. Entirely possible.