|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2016 04:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 04:54 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump.
It wasn't equally contributed at all.
The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. On March 06 2016 04:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump.
It wasn't equally contributed at all.
The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. You know the other side has no substantive reply to what you're saying when that's the extent of their retort. Doesn't take much to retort what you have going for. "Following a book" is such an empty statement. All religions to that to some extent or another. The point is that all those books, including the Koran, are open to interpretation. And ISIS has interpreted it to mean they have a religious obligation to behead heathens (despite it actually saying black-on-white in the Koran that you should not do that). Not all surahs are treated equally. Luckily, most Muslims interpret the Koran in a moderate manner and give more importance to those surahs emphasizing the love-thine-neighbour aspects of Islam. Just as most Christians ignore Leviticus in the bible. Is ISIS a problem? Absolutely. And a very real aspect of it is its religious philosophy, which needs to be dealt with. But equating ISIS to all muslims is about as useful to equating the westboro baptists to all Christians. Oh, and before someone starts: most Wahabists are a lot more political and pick and choose their religion to suit their political goals. Iran is also a far more political form of Islam. Just as plenty of other ideologies Islam can be used to repress people. So can Christianity. This has nothing to do with Islam, but far more with the horrendous governments in most of the middle east and northern Africa. And newsflash: most of the world has pretty horrendous governments, ranging from Russia and China to pretty much all of Africa. And then there are a lot of utterly corrupt democracies, starting in Brazil and India and ranging through most of eastern Europe and large parts of south Asia. Islam is really not needed for having shitty governments. Doesn't matter, if you are following a book that makes you a liability to society, it is plain horror. Just to be clear, what's your stance on Christianity?
A lot of Biblical stories doesn't make sense scientifically, so it isn't a book that I would follow.
I'm agnostic.
|
On March 05 2016 06:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:37 frazzle wrote:On March 05 2016 06:29 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 05 2016 06:27 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 06:14 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate? Hmm... I wonder why... Wait, why wouldn't SJW college types support a SJW candidate? Or do you really think it's because he's old and white? I would think young voters would be the one demographic that wouldn't care much about those designations. Even the socialist label doesn't turn many of them off. Also the fact that he's got this far has largely been due to young voter participation (check Reddit for example). It just hasn't translated to the polls for some reason. Yes SJWs are racist. Wow, that's a nice unsupported narrative you've got going there. Tell me more. Don't you believe Republicans are racist? Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On March 05 2016 06:48 oBlade wrote:On March 05 2016 06:37 frazzle wrote:On March 05 2016 06:29 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 05 2016 06:27 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 06:14 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate? Hmm... I wonder why... Wait, why wouldn't SJW college types support a SJW candidate? Or do you really think it's because he's old and white? I would think young voters would be the one demographic that wouldn't care much about those designations. Even the socialist label doesn't turn many of them off. Also the fact that he's got this far has largely been due to young voter participation (check Reddit for example). It just hasn't translated to the polls for some reason. Yes SJWs are racist. Wow, that's a nice unsupported narrative you've got going there. Tell me more. Don't you believe Republicans are racist? I think the only person who believes that is you, since you ask its so much. Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 05:00 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 04:26 Seuss wrote:On March 04 2016 04:12 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 03:53 Seuss wrote:On March 04 2016 03:05 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the problem for the Republican Establishment. Trump supporters, and the Republican base at large, already were thinking that the Republican Establishment had betrayed them and were corrupt and actively working against their interests. Now the Republican Establishment (and big money from Wall Street) is going out of its way to politically assassinate their guy. All that is going to do is reinforce their beliefs and convince more people to support Trump. Trump doesn't fit my political leanings particularly well, but I'll be damned if I'm not completely disgusted by what Trump has exposed from the Republican leadership. Here's a good perspective on Romney's tut tutting of Trump: https://goplifer.com/2016/03/02/why-republican-criticism-of-trump-fails/Romney’s attack on Trump is impotent because it is not about racism. It’s about manners. For well-mannered Americans from good backgrounds, racism is like Fight Club. Speaking openly about bigotry is a social faux pas. Outrage over Trump’s Klan gaffe is nothing more than tone-policing.
Remember, Mitt Romney is the same guy who whitesplained the opposition he got from the NAACP in 2012 by implying that they just want “free stuff.” Romney is the 47% guy. This year’s establishment moderate, Jeb Bush, repeated the same ‘free stuff’ line in South Carolina last fall. None of the GOP field drew any principled distinction from Trump on his refugee policy, his stupid border wall, or his foreign policy militancy. Sophisticated people cloak their racism in a well-turned phrase. Romney isn’t criticizing Trump for racism. He’s just ridiculing him for using the wrong fork. Good luck with that. That's a perspective; I wouldn't say it's a good one (a superficial clue is someone seriously used the word "whitesplain"). It's more like decrying "racism" is a tactic the establishment can try and use to discredit an outsider they're scared of. I mostly liked the point that calling out Trump on tone is dumb since a lot of his "controversial" statements come straight from past GOP platforms, Trump's just more blunt about it. But yeah "good" wasn't the correct word, and there's definitely an undercurrent of "conservatives are all racists" in the article that xDaunt is justified in calling out. Call it racism, or call it entitlement resentment, dogwhistle politics revolving around the premise that many if not most blacks are part of a moocher mentality, that they are 'bought' by the Democratic party through promises of welfare state giveaways, is a staple of Republican politics. This often extends to a criticism of black culture and a belief that Democrat policies serve to enable supposed counter-productive gangsta elements, whether it's an epidemic of black men not raising their children to a refusal of African-Americans to adopt societal norms in order to secure employment (i.e. pull up their pants), obsession with these topics is a central part of the Republican message .
I didn't say Republicans are racist, the article referenced by that comment did. My point was that use of the term racist aside, Republicans truck in race talk a lot. Saggy pants, personal responsibility, etc. I think using the term 'racist' outside the context of more traditionally racist actions is counterproductive.
Calling this nebulous poorly defined group derogatorily referenced as 'SJW's racist is absurd. I get it, in an ironic take on racism they are supposedly racist against white men. Whatever.
|
On March 06 2016 05:01 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 04:57 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 04:52 wei2coolman wrote:On March 06 2016 04:49 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 06 2016 04:47 wei2coolman wrote:On March 06 2016 04:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
Basically what I have gleamed from reading this thread over the last day or so is educational. I'm not from America so I am learning as I go here.
I have learned that:
Trump supporters are not all just idiots who have no idea what they really want.
Instead they are just people who will vote for absolutely anyone, regardless of what they actually say, as long as they are 'anti-establishment'.
That's super, super hardcore smart like.
I'm pretty sure, way fucking early in this thread I made a bid of Bernie Sanders + Barnie Frank, would be an awesome combo to run. I just find the demonization of Trump, and his supporters doesn't contribute shit to the conversation. If the left wasn't so fucking retarded regarding identity politics, they would strictly talk about Trump policies. Instead, by demonizing him, and his supporter, Trump grows stronger by the day. The guy isn't a demon, he isn't Satan, he's a moron, and that genuinely reflects on those who support him. Sorry Billionaire businessman who specializes in high-end luxury resorts Normies call him a moron. You wonder why people keep siding with Trump right? It's because of this cognitive dissonance, and guess which side is more believable? A Normie calling trump a moron? or the brash charismatic rich man they see on TV daily? Sigh again. He would have roughly the same money if he put daddies cash in stock and never touched it. A successful businessmen makes more with this money then sitting on his ass would. And a tv celebrity brand goes perfectly well with a moron. Reality tv is full of them. If anyone can make 10 billion out of 1 million please go ahead, what are you doing here? Go loan 1 million from a bank
Uhmm... Someone didn't read the fact check on that claim.
|
On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 02:41 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
False equivalence. I refer you to the post to which you replied. It isn't making equivalence of anything. Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them.
What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite.
|
On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
It isn't making equivalence of anything.
Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite.
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/uclauc-berkeley-black-students-demand-segregation-now-segregation-tomorrow-segregation-forever/
this is the kind of "equal and fair" treatment these kind of people are asking for.
|
|
|
On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
It isn't making equivalence of anything.
Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite.
If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely.
|
On March 06 2016 05:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/uclauc-berkeley-black-students-demand-segregation-now-segregation-tomorrow-segregation-forever/this is the kind of "equal and fair" treatment these kind of people are asking for.
roflmao. Yup that's it, SJW's are basically Wallace... jfc....
|
On March 06 2016 05:10 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 04:58 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 04:54 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. On March 06 2016 04:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. You know the other side has no substantive reply to what you're saying when that's the extent of their retort. Doesn't take much to retort what you have going for. "Following a book" is such an empty statement. All religions to that to some extent or another. The point is that all those books, including the Koran, are open to interpretation. And ISIS has interpreted it to mean they have a religious obligation to behead heathens (despite it actually saying black-on-white in the Koran that you should not do that). Not all surahs are treated equally. Luckily, most Muslims interpret the Koran in a moderate manner and give more importance to those surahs emphasizing the love-thine-neighbour aspects of Islam. Just as most Christians ignore Leviticus in the bible. Is ISIS a problem? Absolutely. And a very real aspect of it is its religious philosophy, which needs to be dealt with. But equating ISIS to all muslims is about as useful to equating the westboro baptists to all Christians. Oh, and before someone starts: most Wahabists are a lot more political and pick and choose their religion to suit their political goals. Iran is also a far more political form of Islam. Just as plenty of other ideologies Islam can be used to repress people. So can Christianity. This has nothing to do with Islam, but far more with the horrendous governments in most of the middle east and northern Africa. And newsflash: most of the world has pretty horrendous governments, ranging from Russia and China to pretty much all of Africa. And then there are a lot of utterly corrupt democracies, starting in Brazil and India and ranging through most of eastern Europe and large parts of south Asia. Islam is really not needed for having shitty governments. Doesn't matter, if you are following a book that makes you a liability to society, it is plain horror. Just to be clear, what's your stance on Christianity? A lot of Biblical stories doesn't make sense scientifically, so it isn't a book that I would follow. I'm agnostic.
Well, you seem to be in favour of some of Trump's policies, and specifically: ban all Muslims from entering America, because they follow a book that can be interpreted to make you a liability to society.
Christians also follow a book that can be interpreted to make you a liability to society. So following the same logic, they should be banned too.
This doesn't make any sense, because you're fixating on the book part instead of on the liability to society part. And luckily for you, your immigration office actually does focus on the liability to society part, and makes it INCREDIBLY hard for anybody (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) to immigrate into the States, ESPECIALLY as an asylum seeker... and they are very thoroughly screened to test whether they might be a liability.
|
On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
Is ISIS a problem? Absolutely. And a very real aspect of it is its religious philosophy, which needs to be dealt with. But equating ISIS to all muslims is about as useful to equating the westboro baptists to all Christians.
Nobody makes that equivalence. It's a self-serving strawman. Rather, there are problems in the Muslim world, and ISIS represents the combination of just about all the worst of those problems at once. Comparing the WBC to ISIS would be a fair analogy if the WBC did anything besides hold up signs calling soldiers "faggots" which is so common on the internet that I could probably use that fact to paint the WBC as an Xbox Live rather than religious problem and you would lap it up. Radical Islam has a near-monopoly in being the root cause or a factor of terrorism worldwide.
On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
Oh, and before someone starts: most Wahabists are a lot more political and pick and choose their religion to suit their political goals. Iran is also a far more political form of Islam. Just as plenty of other ideologies Islam can be used to repress people. So can Christianity. This has nothing to do with Islam, but far more with the horrendous governments in most of the middle east and northern Africa. And newsflash: most of the world has pretty horrendous governments, ranging from Russia and China to pretty much all of Africa. And then there are a lot of utterly corrupt democracies, starting in Brazil and India and ranging through most of eastern Europe and large parts of south Asia. Islam is really not needed for having shitty governments.
The problem is you go way too far when you say "'this' has nothing to do with Islam." Whether you think oppression is merely convenient political exploitation of belief systems, or the much more plausible, but more difficult to analyze, proposition that religion is intertwined with and inseparable from politics and culture in theocracies - nonetheless the religion is a very real thing for the hundreds of millions of people who follow it. You might concede something like it would be possible, but comparatively difficult, to oppress a society with Epicureanism. Yes, it might be possible, but it's not relevant to what's happening in the world today as far as what ideologies are doing the most damage. There are issues in Russia and China also, but that doesn't mean Russia and China are equally "bad" to put it simply. Here's an honest question - would you rather you and your family were reborn in China or Saudi Arabia?
|
On March 06 2016 05:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 05:15 wei2coolman wrote:On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump.
It wasn't equally contributed at all.
The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/uclauc-berkeley-black-students-demand-segregation-now-segregation-tomorrow-segregation-forever/this is the kind of "equal and fair" treatment these kind of people are asking for. roflmao. Yup that's it, SJW's are basically Wallace... jfc....
I didn't say that, but shit like this IS happening, and it's happening under the guise of Social Justice. I mean, do we need to talk about black graduations again?
|
On March 06 2016 05:17 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely.
Their "business model"? That's a very cynical way of approaching people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place. That's like saying that tutors don't want to actually help educate students- and in fact, will try to make them dumber- because that way, the tutors won't become obsolete and unemployed. It's partially paradoxical from a self-interest perspective, but it's not a matter of financial gain. Civil rights activists, much like educators, are pursuing their passion and vocation and expressing a purity of motive (barring the occasional nutjob or extremist that exists with any group of people). MLK Jr. wasn't fighting for civil rights because he was secretly in cahoots with screwing over blacks and profiting off it.
You can also look at the kinds of people who are successful (financially, politically, etc.) by spreading messages of fear and hate. Donald Trump, for example, is pretty much the opposite of a sincere advocate for social justice, and his message is all about "distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear" and "more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them".
|
On March 06 2016 05:21 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 05:10 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:58 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 04:54 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. On March 06 2016 04:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. You know the other side has no substantive reply to what you're saying when that's the extent of their retort. Doesn't take much to retort what you have going for. "Following a book" is such an empty statement. All religions to that to some extent or another. The point is that all those books, including the Koran, are open to interpretation. And ISIS has interpreted it to mean they have a religious obligation to behead heathens (despite it actually saying black-on-white in the Koran that you should not do that). Not all surahs are treated equally. Luckily, most Muslims interpret the Koran in a moderate manner and give more importance to those surahs emphasizing the love-thine-neighbour aspects of Islam. Just as most Christians ignore Leviticus in the bible. Is ISIS a problem? Absolutely. And a very real aspect of it is its religious philosophy, which needs to be dealt with. But equating ISIS to all muslims is about as useful to equating the westboro baptists to all Christians. Oh, and before someone starts: most Wahabists are a lot more political and pick and choose their religion to suit their political goals. Iran is also a far more political form of Islam. Just as plenty of other ideologies Islam can be used to repress people. So can Christianity. This has nothing to do with Islam, but far more with the horrendous governments in most of the middle east and northern Africa. And newsflash: most of the world has pretty horrendous governments, ranging from Russia and China to pretty much all of Africa. And then there are a lot of utterly corrupt democracies, starting in Brazil and India and ranging through most of eastern Europe and large parts of south Asia. Islam is really not needed for having shitty governments. Doesn't matter, if you are following a book that makes you a liability to society, it is plain horror. Just to be clear, what's your stance on Christianity? A lot of Biblical stories doesn't make sense scientifically, so it isn't a book that I would follow. I'm agnostic. Well, you seem to be in favour of some of Trump's policies, and specifically: ban all Muslims from entering America, because they follow a book that can be interpreted to make you a liability to society. Christians also follow a book that can be interpreted to make you a liability to society. So following the same logic, they should be banned too. This doesn't make any sense, because you're fixating on the book part instead of on the liability to society part. And luckily for you, your immigration office actually does focus on the liability to society part, and makes it INCREDIBLY hard for anybody (Muslim, Christian or otherwise) to immigrate into the States, ESPECIALLY as an asylum seeker... and they are very thoroughly screened to test whether they might be a liability.
You are right, I'm only in favor of some of Trump's policies but not all of them.
I think the Christian freaks should be viewed in the same light as Muslims.
However though, there are just more Muslims committing crimes across the world (or so the medias report), so ofc it is plain smart to prioritize Muslisms in the ladder of social liabilities.
|
On March 06 2016 05:17 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely.
You just described part of the platform of the Republican party, not "SJWs".
|
On March 06 2016 05:15 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front. edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/uclauc-berkeley-black-students-demand-segregation-now-segregation-tomorrow-segregation-forever/this is the kind of "equal and fair" treatment these kind of people are asking for.
Ideally, more affordable housing (much like financial aid) would be made available to those of lower socioeconomic status, and not based solely on race (similar to the affirmative action controversy). I also don't know enough about those specific college campuses to comment directly (for or against) regarding racial or social prejudices at those universities.
|
|
|
wtf is cruz gonna win kansas?
|
On March 06 2016 05:34 Mohdoo wrote:
wtf is cruz gonna win kansas?
Kansas has 2% reporting?
|
On March 06 2016 04:47 Sbrubbles wrote:
I learned that people like to have strong opinions about Trump. I doubt these last few pages can even be called a discussion.
And cling to them to the last!
Oh, don't forget he's some bombastic moron, but there's a lot of stupid people that aren't running a successful presidential campaign. So you must justify this characterization: his base is also morons operating out of malice, real haters. But now you have to explain why polls, I'll take Rasmussen for now, show that 36% of likely voters support him over Hillary, a whole 65% of the Republican party. So now you're stuck saying somewhere around 1/3 of people that show up to vote are stupid idiots, are racists and bigots, are just possessed of hate. Look to this thread to see just how easily posters make assertions like this.
You might say the great number of people spewing vitriolic attacks like racist/bigot are fueling the Trump phenomenon. Voters actually know in their hearts (say, Solar-) that they're not motivated out of hatred of Mexicans or want to see a white nationalist rise. They see a candidate that fights after years of mush put forward by the GOP, and he's hitting big on the issues they care about. The more wild the left and media allies become, the more Trump supporters realize the disgust with which they're viewed. They know they have to win an election fight and maybe several more before the other side will compromise because they are opposed by elites out of touch and dismissive of their concerns. You can't make the unreasonable see reason.
As the inveterate troll Jormundr shows, you can post showing you welcome black interests, share support of Trump with blacks, and want to kick back against the political elites in general, and there are still people in this country that only have two adjectives for you: Ignorant and self-righteous. Will this scornful class share the country with the Solar-'s of the world, or are they concerned with marginalizing your political voice as their own moral crusade demands?
|
The social Justice movement on the internet is an absolute nightmare. Its the only area where I differ with alot of my facebook friends. They use way oversimplified definitions of incredibly humiliating things like calling people misogynists and racist and shut down entire conversations in the process.
It completely ruins what could have been a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
