The Sandbox is not full of Sand Its full of Hate

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!! By protect you mean allowing millions of people to waltz right in with no consequences. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Perfect example of placing feelings over facts. Illegal border crossings are actually down now, compared to the days of Title 42. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY is "waltzing right in" across the border. Nobody.

The 14th Amendment. Equal protection is what those laws are based on. Notice that I specified in "many settings." One would not be legally allowed to spew their hate for "deranged trannys," or advocate for machine gunning immigrants at their office job, for example.

As for this site, that's up to the owners and mods to decide. The First Amendment does not guarantee one's right to say whatever they want on a private forum, as those of us centrists or slightly left of center, who have received the most nit picky of violation points are aware of. Originally Posted by 1pittsburgh

No, one most certainly can spew hate for whoever or whatever they want at an office job. The Constitution guarantees that right and keeps the government out of such matters. If you do so, your employer likely will fire you for it, but that isn’t the same as “modifying the Constitution”. The same rules were applicable prior to the ratification of the 14th. Are you telling me that behavior such as overt discrimination and segregation ended in 1866? There has been no applicable modification of the Constitution since then, and even that modification only outlawed (very theoretically, not so much in practice) acts of overt discrimination. It certainly did not modify or constrain the right to free speech.

An example: If I say “I can’t stand people who are purple with pink polka dots. Purple people with pink polka dots are all lazy, shiftless criminals.” (Using hypothetical race that doesn’t actually exist to avoid being quoted out of context), that is perfectly legal. It might get one ostracized from many societal groups. It might get one fired from a job and make finding future employment difficult. What it will not do is land one in prison or in legal trouble.

Now saying “I hate purple people with pink polka dots. Let’s get together and kill all the purple people! Anyone with me, meet me at 7PM here tomorrow and bring lots of guns and ammo,” will likely land one in legal trouble for inciting violence. Giving offense is perfectly legal; threatening or inciting violence is not. That is true now, and always has been, both before and after ratification of the 14th.

The 14th really only did two things, both aimed at constraining government actions, not individual ones. It made laws that overtly discriminate against one race illegal (again this was largely circumvented for many decades), and it incorporated the protections of the Bill of Rights into state law. Prior to the 14th, the protections in the BOR technically applies only to Congress “Congress shall pass no law…”. The 14th was what legally gave the same protections under state law.

I’ve always wondered if this site would ever get itself in trouble with what’s going on in this sandbox. Especially considering the original purpose of the site.
I’m sure there are other ECCIE cities that are the same but can only speak for here and the national political board.

No, one most certainly can spew hate for whoever or whatever they want at an office job. The Constitution guarantees that right and keeps the government out of such matters. If you do so, your employer likely will fire you for it, but that isn’t the same as “modifying the Constitution”. The same rules were applicable prior to the ratification of the 14th. Are you telling me that behavior such as overt discrimination and segregation ended in 1866? There has been no applicable modification of the Constitution since then, and even that modification only outlawed (very theoretically, not so much in practice) acts of overt discrimination. It certainly did not modify or constrain the right to free speech.

An example: If I say “I can’t stand people who are purple with pink polka dots. Purple people with pink polka dots are all lazy, shiftless criminals.” (Using hypothetical race that doesn’t actually exist to avoid being quoted out of context), that is perfectly legal. It might get one ostracized from many societal groups. It might get one fired from a job and make finding future employment difficult. What it will not do is land one in prison or in legal trouble.

Now saying “I hate purple people with pink polka dots. Let’s get together and kill all the purple people! Anyone with me, meet me at 7PM here tomorrow and bring lots of guns and ammo,” will likely land one in legal trouble for inciting violence. Giving offense is perfectly legal; threatening or inciting violence is not. That is true now, and always has been, both before and after ratification of the 14th.

The 14th really only did two things, both aimed at constraining government actions, not individual ones. It made laws that overtly discriminate against one race illegal (again this was largely circumvented for many decades), and it incorporated the protections of the Bill of Rights into state law. Prior to the 14th, the protections in the BOR technically applies only to Congress “Congress shall pass no law…”. The 14th was what legally gave the same protections under state law. Originally Posted by Smarty1

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to explain all that.

Perfect example of placing feelings over facts. Illegal border crossings are actually down now, compared to the days of Title 42. Nobody, and I mean, NOBODY is "waltzing right in" across the border. Nobody. Originally Posted by tommy156

Drop me a line when you’re back from Fantasyland.

Another non-response response. Your specialty.

No, one most certainly can spew hate for whoever or whatever they want at an office job. The Constitution guarantees that right and keeps the government out of such matters. If you do so, your employer likely will fire you for it, but that isn’t the same as “modifying the Constitution”. The same rules were applicable prior to the ratification of the 14th. Are you telling me that behavior such as overt discrimination and segregation ended in 1866? There has been no applicable modification of the Constitution since then, and even that modification only outlawed (very theoretically, not so much in practice) acts of overt discrimination. It certainly did not modify or constrain the right to free speech.

An example: If I say “I can’t stand people who are purple with pink polka dots. Purple people with pink polka dots are all lazy, shiftless criminals.” (Using hypothetical race that doesn’t actually exist to avoid being quoted out of context), that is perfectly legal. It might get one ostracized from many societal groups. It might get one fired from a job and make finding future employment difficult. What it will not do is land one in prison or in legal trouble.

Now saying “I hate purple people with pink polka dots. Let’s get together and kill all the purple people! Anyone with me, meet me at 7PM here tomorrow and bring lots of guns and ammo,” will likely land one in legal trouble for inciting violence. Giving offense is perfectly legal; threatening or inciting violence is not. That is true now, and always has been, both before and after ratification of the 14th.

The 14th really only did two things, both aimed at constraining government actions, not individual ones. It made laws that overtly discriminate against one race illegal (again this was largely circumvented for many decades), and it incorporated the protections of the Bill of Rights into state law. Prior to the 14th, the protections in the BOR technically applies only to Congress “Congress shall pass no law…”. The 14th was what legally gave the same protections under state law. Originally Posted by Smarty1

No one said that there's been applicable modification of the constitution since then. That's a whole lot of typing just to put up a straw man. It's the consensus interpretation of the 14th that has changed over time. The interpretations of what the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection means have improved over the years, and have been codified by the consensus of the American people through various civil rights legislation, making "circumvention" less and less viable, though there are those who still illegally circumvent it, as has been admitted to before in here. In a certain size of office, it's absolutely illegal to allow cultures of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious persecution, etc., and civil rights attorneys have won billions upon billions of judgements based on this fact.


As far as "free speech" is concerned, no one is advocating that the government come and shut down the hate speech in here, so as you should know, this isn't really a first amendment issue at all. It's really not a legal issue either. It's a moral issue. The reasonable folks are against the constant spewing of hate against immigrants and LGBTQ that goes on in this sandbox, and from time to time we have made threads like this one which point that out. The majority of posters in this sandbox are against it. Right now it's only a few people spewing it and a few more occasionally defending them.

Another non-response response. Your specialty. Originally Posted by tommy156

A statement so idiotic deserves nothing less. You reap what you sow.

... Let's NOT get silly about this, mate.

I've seen people in these forums advocate and shout
that more of the 6th Jan people at the Capitol
should have been shot and killed by police.

The so-called "Hate" and "mean-spirited comments"
don't just come from ONE political side.

Now "scumbag illegals" may be mean-spirited, but then
some people DO believe that the illegals should NOT
be here and should be deported.
Maybe THAT view is NOT "mean-spirited"...

And as far as "deranged trannys" goes - THAT is opinion also.
Perhaps "mean-spirited" - but maybe not... Opinions vary.
Did I see earlier today - "trannys" marching in the streets
with signs and chanting - "We're coming for your children!"??

... Yes, I DID see that. ...

... And lastly, --- Cody - in his first post also
mentioned "Un-True Storys" in the forum everyday.

... Hopefully Cody will surely enlighten us all
to which "storys" are Un-True.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Salty, how are you mate? Hope all is well with you.



I can give you one, I actually could give you dozens, but I will stick with one. Trump was robbed of the election! Complete with proof and facts including the voting machines that give Biden votes when they pushed Trump. 3/4 of a Billion Dollars later for a settlement, how did that work out?



There were months of facts and stories of that topic if you remember.

Gentlemen this thread is closed.

It was open to discuss hate in the sandbox and directed at several active members and has turned into a off topic guideline ignoring mess

#1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.
#2 - Derogatory racial remarks are simply unacceptable, period. Disrespect another's ethnic background and you will most certainly regret it.
#3 - Disrespect to others, IN GENERAL, will be considered an item of low tolerance, especially when posting in our coed forums. Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you wish to be treated yourself.

#4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.