Ben Shapiro is a hack. Theres a great article out there called "The Cool Kids Philosopher" that really documents the myriad ways that he has dragged in his audience. He doesn't debate or discuss; he overwhelms and calls you a moron, never letting you get in a word. It's a tactic my wiring professor used to call "baffling with bullshit."

That's basically what he did. American Airlines argued that he was approaching strangers to travel on his guest pass for the purpose of accumulating frequent flyer miles, which they said was fraudulent. They eventually settled out of court.

The whole story is: the mom grew up extremely poor, grew into a frugal adult, and saw the dress on sale for super cheap and bought it. According the bride, there was an initial shock, but the mom was super apologetic and they all had a good laugh afterwards. It's all in the thread.

What's the plural of pedant?

We do look to Legos for our topical political analysis.

Seeking asylum is not breaking the law.

Yeah, but only one of them matters.

See, I disagree. If you treat sex workers like any other employee, even a contractor, then they have legal recourse. As it is now, girls and women who are trafficked face legal problems because they were prostitutes, and they often fear reprisals from their pimps.

The use of social media is not an enumerated right provided by the constitution. People can say whatever they want, but nobody is required to give them a forum to say those things. Just like any other business, if you break their rules there will be consequences. I do think that the rules and guidelines of places like Twitter and Facebook are vague and unclear, but they are not required to offer their platform to anybody. If you involve the government, then you're forcing these platforms to make available to anybody and everybody their services. And a phone company can ban you for violating their rules, but it takes a lot to get that done.

Some people don't want to go their restaurants because of their political beliefs, and that's fine. You can also voice your opinion that that's a dumb ass stance to take against a chicken seller. Both are protected, and both are "right" depending on who you ask.

I think you're inferring something I haven't written. I disagree that social media platforms need to adhere to the same guidelines regarding speech as the federal government does, because that opens a lot of doors to governmental intervention and regulation that will betray the one of the core foundations of what a social media platform is. As for the consequences, I agree with you. Criticize, mock, oppose, do all that shit, but don't try to ruin a person's life. If they're racist fuckwits, they'll do that all on their own anyway.
But! To pose an example: if you notice a local business owner posting racist things online (such as not wanting to serve black people or something) then you can use your money as speech and not patronize that business anymore. You can also use your voice to highlight what this person has said, and others may take the same course of action. It's like the Chik-Fil-A thing...

Speech 100% is an action, and people can, and should, be held accountable for the things they say. The doctrine of free speech is a federal issue, not a personal one; if somebody says something racist or hateful, then they can be called out on it. Also, free speech has limits, such as hate speech and inciting violence.

He's in the army, which he takes every opportunity to tell us about. Violence should only be used when violence is being perpetrated, and to defend ones self and others.

Voicing your opinion and then having somebody voice the opposite opinion is a consequence. People are entitled to say whatever the hell they want, but if that opinion is racist, expect pushback.

I mean, racists should be afraid of the consequences of their own racist actions.