4 ms·

Next time just man up and say you don't like what's being said instead of pretending you want sources. Pay attention to this part - "individual to FEEL terrori

Next time just man up and say you don't like what's being said instead of pretending you want sources. Pay attention to this part - "individual to FEEL terrorized, frightened, or18 threatened" This is a subjective law based on the FEELING of the "victim". No one has a legal right to not FEEL threatened, what in the world are you talking about? Nothing is being "twisted". Don't gaslight me. If it has been illegal there would be no reason for new law . Either you're a moron or you have malicious reasons for pretending there's no implication to basing a law on how the victim feels due to things said to them. I'm guessing it's the latter. I have no idea how in the world a semi-intelligent person could not see that as a direct threat to the 1st amendment. I also like that you completely ignored the UK article which shows exactly what the Michigan law would result in. Have a nice day.

daveguy 3y ago
I thought maybe you had sources. Of course your sources didn't support your point. Just a slippery slope mirage from a different country. I know you're the type that loves to point to how awful other people and countries are, so keep on whining. Have a great day!
- DrThunder 3y ago
  The source was literally the law. If you want to gaslight people into believing it doesn't say what it does maybe you need to look internally at why you're doing that. Why does it upset you that this law is being scrutinized? I have a feeling it's because you've been sucked into a cult like ideology that says a certain group should never be questioned.
  - daveguy 3y ago
    The language of the law is what you twisted to fit your own delusion. Sorry buddy. Scrutinize all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your outrage depends on your own sad interpretations. Just because you think there is some nefarious big bad cult coming to get you, doesn't mean there is. I'm sorry you don't recognize that harassment very much depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed. I'm sorry you feel insecure about the word "feel". Feel free to take it to court. I'm tired of your bad faith and personal attacks. I will not be responding again.
    - DrThunder 3y ago
      "depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed." That's my point bud. You don't believe in the 1st amendment, that's the problem, not the interpretation of the law. You cannot have free speech and have a law that bases prison time on subjective FEELINGS by the victim. You cannot be that dumb, therefore you're malicious in intent and gaslighting me. You're an authoritarian and anti-1st amendment and that's why this is hard for you to understand. There's no "twisting" going on other than your belief system. The irony here is you're just proving what I originally said every time you comment. Free speech rights are no longer respected and you're just living proof of the trend. If I might go to jail on the whim of how a person feels towards what I say on a specific day because they're in a bad mood then the 1st amendment doesn't exist.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - daveguy 3y ago
        Evidence of harassment is still required. If a person doesn't feel harassed there is no victim. So yes, FEELING harassed is a requirement. That's not the same as going to jail on a whim. You complete moron.
        DrThunder 3y ago
        Imagine defending this. Every comment you make is just reinforcing my point. It's hilarious to watch you fumble around with this. If you base a law on subjective feelings towards words said you do not have free speech. I'll say it again, you are an authoritarian and anti-free speech. Just own up to it. It is going to jail on a whim because you can't EVEN DEFINE WHAT THE HARASSMENT IS. What constitutes evidence of harassment?
        daveguy 3y ago
        Seriously? You again? Here's the federal definition: https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment And since you don't seem to be a big reader, I'll point out the passage that makes you look most like a fool. > Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people. Every time you respond you look more and more like a demagogic tool. Now run along.

daveguy 3y ago

I thought maybe you had sources. Of course your sources didn't support your point. Just a slippery slope mirage from a different country. I know you're the type that loves to point to how awful other people and countries are, so keep on whining. Have a great day!

DrThunder 3y ago
The source was literally the law. If you want to gaslight people into believing it doesn't say what it does maybe you need to look internally at why you're doing that. Why does it upset you that this law is being scrutinized? I have a feeling it's because you've been sucked into a cult like ideology that says a certain group should never be questioned.
- daveguy 3y ago
  The language of the law is what you twisted to fit your own delusion. Sorry buddy. Scrutinize all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your outrage depends on your own sad interpretations. Just because you think there is some nefarious big bad cult coming to get you, doesn't mean there is. I'm sorry you don't recognize that harassment very much depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed. I'm sorry you feel insecure about the word "feel". Feel free to take it to court. I'm tired of your bad faith and personal attacks. I will not be responding again.
  - DrThunder 3y ago
    "depends on the person harassed FEELING harassed." That's my point bud. You don't believe in the 1st amendment, that's the problem, not the interpretation of the law. You cannot have free speech and have a law that bases prison time on subjective FEELINGS by the victim. You cannot be that dumb, therefore you're malicious in intent and gaslighting me. You're an authoritarian and anti-1st amendment and that's why this is hard for you to understand. There's no "twisting" going on other than your belief system. The irony here is you're just proving what I originally said every time you comment. Free speech rights are no longer respected and you're just living proof of the trend. If I might go to jail on the whim of how a person feels towards what I say on a specific day because they're in a bad mood then the 1st amendment doesn't exist.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - daveguy 3y ago
      Evidence of harassment is still required. If a person doesn't feel harassed there is no victim. So yes, FEELING harassed is a requirement. That's not the same as going to jail on a whim. You complete moron.
      - DrThunder 3y ago
        Imagine defending this. Every comment you make is just reinforcing my point. It's hilarious to watch you fumble around with this. If you base a law on subjective feelings towards words said you do not have free speech. I'll say it again, you are an authoritarian and anti-free speech. Just own up to it. It is going to jail on a whim because you can't EVEN DEFINE WHAT THE HARASSMENT IS. What constitutes evidence of harassment?
        daveguy 3y ago
        Seriously? You again? Here's the federal definition: https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment And since you don't seem to be a big reader, I'll point out the passage that makes you look most like a fool. > Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people. Every time you respond you look more and more like a demagogic tool. Now run along.