Actually yes, a guilty man in court can plead for a lesser sentence, to the jury, if it not only affects his livelihood but also the people around him, like people he takes care of or family. If you researched Crowder you would see he's currently employing 10+
-
-
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Seems like those employees should have the self-agency to recognize just how toxic/tenuous their boss is and calculate the risks from there. I still don't see this as something that should be tolerated whatsoever just because some people are dependent on him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
He's a comedian, it's an act and a gig just like any other late night show host. To tell them to calculate their risks beforehand is heinous, that's like making fun of people who lost their homes in earthquakes for living in a earthquake prone zone
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Its still inexcusable behavior. If you want to set up an insurance fund for employees who lose their employment because their boss was an idiot who literally couldn't stop himself from pointlessly harassing others, I guess I'd be fine with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
But then again, like I said before, what if in the future this language isn't bad at all? Wouldn't that be very hypocritical just to go with how society is *feeling* at the moment? Imagine losing years and years of work only for it to have been lost for, in the end, nothing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
Speculating about what the future could hold doesn't mean we shouldn't react to and/or punish clearly abusive behavior in the present.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
I am going to be frank, that is terrible logic. That's like saying guilty until proven so, instead of innocent until proven guilty. Also, that was a great video you sent me thank you lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
I think the more apt analogy would be letting a guilty person who was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" walk free because "something in the future could possibly make that doubt more reasonable who knows *shrugs*"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @The_CO_Atheist @gaywonk and
Again, it's only reasonable beyond doubt because you make it out to be. Language and words change over time, which is why we have no hate speech laws and why YouTube persists to have vague rules on language. You used to be stoned to death for saying Jahoba, now do we condemn that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CallowaySutton @gaywonk and
I mean yeah, we go by the laws we have today, cause that's literally all we have. For all we know, his discourse/language could become even *more* offensive in the future, meaning we should actually punish even more now. It's just pointless to speculate on some distant future.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You're right, it is pointless. which is why we don't use speech that doesn't incite violence (since it's very hard to change a direct call to action in a language over time) in law. If he got more offensive or less offensive as time went by it shouldn't matter
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.