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.
(CNN)In candid remarks Wednesday, former first lady Michelle Obama said women who voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton went against their "authentic voice" in the 2016 presidential election.
"Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," she said at the Inbound 2017 conference in Boston, according to video from inside the event.
"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."
How about he's a plainly bigoted man who doesn't understand tact, brags about sexually assaulting women, and is the reason why "grab 'em by the pussy" is even a phrase. Don't be thick.
Well after years of being demonized by feminist, this is a backlash from straight males.
nah, it's more a backlash from fools and jerks.
Maybe jerks to you because your party lost.
But for the most of the people that are sick of women vitctimizing themselves with the myth of doing the same job and getting paid 70% as male and also using false rape accusation to destroy innocent people's lives.
And then there are also industries based upon these scams like your mattress girls, Rolling Stones, and Anita Sarkeesians.
not jerks because my party lost; jerks from an objective standpoint. (as objective as such things can be at least). mostly fools though; with a sprinkling of jerks. not surprising you're incapable of seeing that. your understanding of the realities of sexual assault issues is as dismal as i'd expect.
Well you are deeply emotionally attached to the topic (or maybe there are peer pressure involved sorry about that).
So that's why you refuse to admit being factually wrong. I don't blame you. I pity you.
But however if you are involved in the victimizing industry and is getting paid for, then kudos to you. But you are still a menace to the society though just letting you know.
(CNN)In candid remarks Wednesday, former first lady Michelle Obama said women who voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton went against their "authentic voice" in the 2016 presidential election.
"Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," she said at the Inbound 2017 conference in Boston, according to video from inside the event.
"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."
How about he's a plainly bigoted man who doesn't understand tact, brags about sexually assaulting women, and is the reason why "grab 'em by the pussy" is even a phrase. Don't be thick.
Well after years of being demonized by feminist, this is a backlash from straight males.
nah, it's more a backlash from fools and jerks.
Maybe jerks to you because your party lost.
But for the most of the people that are sick of women vitctimizing themselves with the myth of doing the same job and getting paid 70% as male and also using false rape accusation to destroy innocent people's lives.
And then there are also industries based upon these scams like your mattress girls, Rolling Stones, and Anita Sarkeesians.
not jerks because my party lost; jerks from an objective standpoint. (as objective as such things can be at least). mostly fools though; with a sprinkling of jerks. not surprising you're incapable of seeing that. your understanding of the realities of sexual assault issues is as dismal as i'd expect.
Well you are deeply emotionally attached to the topic (or maybe there are peer pressure involved sorry about that).
So that's why you refuse to admit being factually wrong. I don't blame you. I pity you.
But however if you are involved in the victimizing industry and is getting paid for, then kudos to you. But you are still a menace to the society though just letting you know.
Just to clarify:
Are you claiming that a majority of straight white males support Trump's comments about women because they are straight white males and believe they are being persecuted because of it?
(CNN)In candid remarks Wednesday, former first lady Michelle Obama said women who voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton went against their "authentic voice" in the 2016 presidential election.
"Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," she said at the Inbound 2017 conference in Boston, according to video from inside the event.
"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."
How about he's a plainly bigoted man who doesn't understand tact, brags about sexually assaulting women, and is the reason why "grab 'em by the pussy" is even a phrase. Don't be thick.
Well after years of being demonized by feminist, this is a backlash from straight males.
nah, it's more a backlash from fools and jerks.
Maybe jerks to you because your party lost.
But for the most of the people that are sick of women vitctimizing themselves with the myth of doing the same job and getting paid 70% as male and also using false rape accusation to destroy innocent people's lives.
And then there are also industries based upon these scams like your mattress girls, Rolling Stones, and Anita Sarkeesians.
not jerks because my party lost; jerks from an objective standpoint. (as objective as such things can be at least). mostly fools though; with a sprinkling of jerks. not surprising you're incapable of seeing that. your understanding of the realities of sexual assault issues is as dismal as i'd expect.
Well you are deeply emotionally attached to the topic (or maybe there are peer pressure involved sorry about that).
So that's why you refuse to admit being factually wrong. I don't blame you. I pity you.
But however if you are involved in the victimizing industry and is getting paid for, then kudos to you. But you are still a menace to the society though just letting you know.
Yes you are indeed, yes you are. you can't admit to being wrong becaus eyou're not even able to recognize that you are. how does a sick mind recognize its own sickness? also: clever trolling, high quality stuff. good counter-rhetoric, much better than your usual. but you really shouldn't talk about the victimizing industry nonsense; people might think you're one of the mra/redpill folk
Why does anyone actually take Reality seriously? He shows up for a little while every few months to shit things up. I've never seen a single cognizant point. It's entirely T_D talking points and shitposting.
I mean... there's some points to be made about countering the current wave of feminism, but that doesn't mean dialing it up to 11 the other way makes any more sense.
On September 28 2017 11:29 OuchyDathurts wrote: Why does anyone actually take Reality seriously? He shows up for a little while every few months to shit things up. I've never seen a single cognizant point. It's entirely T_D talking points and shitposting.
well, I'm not taking him seriously; not most of the time anyways. I think some people like to always give everyone the benefit of the doubt; and some people are newer and aren't familiar with him yet.
(CNN)In candid remarks Wednesday, former first lady Michelle Obama said women who voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton went against their "authentic voice" in the 2016 presidential election.
"Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," she said at the Inbound 2017 conference in Boston, according to video from inside the event.
"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."
How about he's a plainly bigoted man who doesn't understand tact, brags about sexually assaulting women, and is the reason why "grab 'em by the pussy" is even a phrase. Don't be thick.
Well after years of being demonized by feminist, this is a backlash from straight males.
nah, it's more a backlash from fools and jerks.
Maybe jerks to you because your party lost.
But for the most of the people that are sick of women vitctimizing themselves with the myth of doing the same job and getting paid 70% as male and also using false rape accusation to destroy innocent people's lives.
And then there are also industries based upon these scams like your mattress girls, Rolling Stones, and Anita Sarkeesians.
not jerks because my party lost; jerks from an objective standpoint. (as objective as such things can be at least). mostly fools though; with a sprinkling of jerks. not surprising you're incapable of seeing that. your understanding of the realities of sexual assault issues is as dismal as i'd expect.
Well you are deeply emotionally attached to the topic (or maybe there are peer pressure involved sorry about that).
So that's why you refuse to admit being factually wrong. I don't blame you. I pity you.
But however if you are involved in the victimizing industry and is getting paid for, then kudos to you. But you are still a menace to the society though just letting you know.
Just to clarify:
Are you claiming that a majority of straight white males support Trump's comments about women because they are straight white males and believe they are being persecuted because of it?
On college campus, through social media, in the work force; if you even question the wage gap myth/rape "epidemic", you are immediately labeled as "sexist"! and would risk getting fired from work/banned.
And this is not even JUST a sex issue, this goes to anything from immigration policies and expressing Christian belief.
So when people are getting tired of fake news indoctrinating people, they have to rally for someone who is courageous enough to tackle the problem.
(CNN)In candid remarks Wednesday, former first lady Michelle Obama said women who voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton went against their "authentic voice" in the 2016 presidential election.
"Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice," she said at the Inbound 2017 conference in Boston, according to video from inside the event.
"What does it mean for us as women that we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, that guy, he's better for me, his voice is more true to me," Obama said. "Well, to me that just says you don't like your voice. You like the thing you're told to like."
How about he's a plainly bigoted man who doesn't understand tact, brags about sexually assaulting women, and is the reason why "grab 'em by the pussy" is even a phrase. Don't be thick.
Well after years of being demonized by feminist, this is a backlash from straight males.
Someone who has no idea what feminism is actually about, and has let people convince him it's some kind of anti-male initiative, doesn't deserve the time of day. People have been very generous in indulging RiK as much as they have.
I know I'm taking this more seriously than it appears to deserve, but nevertheless:
- If you question the degree or existence of the gender wage gap respectfully I'd expect that you're probably in the clear. I believe it's possible to find opinion pieces in mainstream media which do this (if necessary I will look, but I don't particularly want to). You don't hear about it happening in the workplace because "Person had a respectful discussion and didn't get fired" is not news.
(Whether "person had a disrespectful discussion and got fired" is or should be newsworthy is left as an exercise.)
If somebody would like to put forward an example of a discussion that they think was respectful and got somebody fired/etc anyway then we can discuss that case by case. Please make it something other than Google guy, that's been done to death already.
Do bear in mind that "respectful" is a pretty high bar for a conversation where some or all of the participants have a belief walking in that they are being persecuted based on their gender, ethnicity, orientation or religious beliefs. If you disagree with that statement please do so before getting tied up in specific instances.
- I acknowledge that the frequency with which women are raped is unacceptable, that the frequency with which men are raped is unacceptable, that the frequency with which anybody no matter how they identify are raped is unacceptable, and the frequency with which false accusations of rape ruin innocent people's lives is unacceptable. I do not think that any one of these issues is so much more or less frequent and/or important than the rest that any of them should be ignored or mimised.
This does not seem like a contentious position to me; if Reality or anybody else disagrees with it I would like to know why.
Of course this leaves out the devil in the details - how do you actually deter rape without encouraging false accusations, and vice versa? It's not an easy problem but ignoring either problem,as certain extremists on both sides would have us do, is not an acceptable solution.
I don't think that either extreme position dominates the one I've outlined above in mainstream debate in Australia. I can't speak with confidence about the US but my preliminary guess is that on average across the country the same probably applies.
- I am presently uninterested in discussing the details of the proposition that straight white males or whatever other group are persecuted for their opinions on immigration or their religious beliefs. If somebody else has something interesting to say I might engage with it.
It literally made no sense for Canada to do that anyways.
We'd be stuck on an older fighter platform, which no one else uses, and it'd cost more per aircraft over the lifetime of the plane than F-35s would anyways.
We'd also have to buy more planes anyways to fill the rest of our needs, which in all likelihood would be the F-35.
I have an anecdote from today that kinda falls in line with this
The DND is a client of mine and use my company's customs brokerage automation system. I mentioned this circus to my contact in Ottawa while I was working on some other brokerage shit with but him. He wouldn't have told me if it was some big secret so I might aswell share. There isn't any deal even remotely close for the F18's it was just a consideration. And it would've been a bad idea regardless.. For the most part you can't negotiate with leverage that doesn't exist. That's why slapping on the tariff was a no brainer for the US. Trudeau comes off slightly silly here since he has better points to make. (Which to his credit he did) but trade wars sound scarier so that's what gets picked up.
I'm not the biggest fan of bombardier. My roommate woks there and shes found it a complete clusterfuck since she joined this summer. That having been said Boeings claim is extremely bogus and the tarrif was slapped on just because the trade policy is about protectionism. Complaining about undercutting in a class of plane they don't even have. It's like Land Rover complaining the Toyota sedans are taking away their business... Free market my ass.
Pretty sure voter suppression was a little bit of a to do with the loss too. Just a little.
That article/headline is just horrendous.
It wasn't 17,000 people likely not voting because of voter ID laws. It was an estimated 17,000 people didn't vote, of which voter ID laws had a "partial affect" on their not voting, even if their main reason was something entirely different. It was only about a quarter of that which listed the ID law as the main reason for not voting...Of which most of them had a viable ID to vote with.
I have a hard time calling that voter suppression. That seems more like a news article stretching the findings of a study to make a catchy headline, ignoring the actual data, and glossing over the fact that most of the people who said they didn't vote because of the ID laws possessed the necessary ID.
I could understand an argument calling it voter suppression if it was actually thousands of people claiming they didn't vote because they couldn't afford an expensive ID, or be able to take the time off from work to obtain a free ID, or something along those lines...But that is not what the study shows at all.
On September 28 2017 02:26 Simberto wrote: Every student standing for the pledge of allegiance to country and flag in school every day is totally not fascist.
This is what that kind of ritual looks like to me. Sowjets also did the exact same shit btw. Only apparently not even every day, only to special occasions. It is still disgusting nationalistic indoctrination of the youth in my opinion.
It took just four short posts to go from the pledge of allegiance to full blown "look at the surface level similarity to HITLER and STALIN!" It would be funny if it weren't dangerous.
Sad thing is, the Europeans who are so quick to cry fascist at everything that moves are unwilling to draw attention to genuine fascism when it comes up. I don't doubt this utter lack of perspective will be lost on the individuals I am talking about.
What examples of genuine fascism are these Europeans unwilling to draw attention to? I've seen you claim 'it's ridiculous to claim this is fascism' on many occasions, but I've yet to see you go 'this looks like fascism', certainly not to the disagreement of these Europeans.
Was thinking of writing more, but actually I decided I prefer to keep this brief.
I guess the best way is to try to figure out what we mean by fascism in the first place. Obviously it's not like an academic or textbook definition of fascism, or even more nebulously, neofascism. Not because we wouldn't want to have a strict definition by the book, but because this is a term that is rooted far deeper in connotation than denotation. Otherwise maybe we would have a consideration like "the pledge of allegiance is fascist, but having fascist elements might not be so bad!" No, no one thinks that, not even for a moment. It's a direct and blatant reference to mid-1900s fascists and most directly, Hitler and the Nazis. Saying "X is fascist" in modern lingo is really not unlike saying "X is just like Hitler" when faced with the realities of what that term means in context.
I think it's perhaps important to note that I said "unwilling to draw attention to genuine fascism" not "willing to deny that real fascism is fascism." A few good examples of what I focus on as genuine fascism are Waffen SS supporters in East Europe and Banderites in Ukraine. Arguably the second iteration of the KKK had important fascist elements and a notable fondness for Hitler, but I would hesitate to use that term rather than perhaps seek a better one. The problem is that these genuine fascist groups tend to get buried for convenience. I still remember "Soviet invasion of Germany" and Merkel's reaction to that revisionism quite well: muted and uncritical. That multiplied by a large swath of similarly minded people makes genuine fascism never see light. Instead we focus on talking about trivial shit like if hand-on your heart "I pledge allegiance" is somehow going to lead to a movement very much akin to Hitler's Nazi movement. Why not focus on the movements like it that already exist? By overusing and abusing fascism to try to silence any right-wing ideas, good or bad, real fascism falls by the wayside. Though few would probably say "those Waffen SS marches aren't fascist" people sure as hell are willing to close their eyes, shut their ears, and pretend that that doesn't exist.
On September 27 2017 23:35 RealityIsKing wrote: Dave Rubin summarized the NFL situation perfectly here
I'll take the "I watch sports to escape politics." seriously when the same people want to remove the pledge from sporting events.
The pledge is not present at any sporting events.
Damn colleges indoctrinating kids.
Since the 10th anniversary of 9/11, University of Connecticut fans, players and coaches have been asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, first at football and now men's and women's basketball games. UConn interim athletic director Paul Pendergast has made it a policy.
So we're in agreement if we want to get the politics out of sports we have to remove the national anthem and the other stuff?
I had no idea there was this basketball team out in Connecticut that recited the pledge. I’d only ever heard the anthem up until now to my recollection.
And no, we absolutely disagree.
Are you saying that the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance aren't political?
If we want to get politics out of sports, GH’s proposal is absolutely the wrong approach.
So you do agree, they are political?
Symbols of political unity beyond partisanship You know that the sentiment of “letting politics ruin X” means the left/right vicious political divide, but there are other symbols with political content that (in a sane society) show unity and country identity. We may have our problems, but we are still Americans. Let’s hear a rousing remembrance of the war of 1812!
But in the era of politicization of everything (read the article, please), the whole topic is repurposed and everybody loses. There’s a distinct lack of things that bring us together as Americans. Watching sports, flag, and anthem are seen as last vestiges of national “put down the pitchforks and watch a ballgame” experiences ... and making them into political acts (first Kaep, more recently exacerbated by Trump) really sets back your cause. But you don’t want the help so keep at it, I guess.
On September 27 2017 23:49 Gahlo wrote: [quote] I'll take the "I watch sports to escape politics." seriously when the same people want to remove the pledge from sporting events.
The pledge is not present at any sporting events.
Damn colleges indoctrinating kids.
Since the 10th anniversary of 9/11, University of Connecticut fans, players and coaches have been asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, first at football and now men's and women's basketball games. UConn interim athletic director Paul Pendergast has made it a policy.
So we're in agreement if we want to get the politics out of sports we have to remove the national anthem and the other stuff?
I had no idea there was this basketball team out in Connecticut that recited the pledge. I’d only ever heard the anthem up until now to my recollection.
And no, we absolutely disagree.
Are you saying that the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance aren't political?
If we want to get politics out of sports, GH’s proposal is absolutely the wrong approach.
So you do agree, they are political?
Watching sports, flag, and anthem are seen as last vestiges of national “put down the pitchforks and watch a ballgame” experiences ... and making them into political acts (first Kaep, more recently exacerbated by Trump) really sets back your cause. But you don’t want the help so keep at it, I guess.
Weird how similar this sounds to the arguments referenced earlier in the thread from peaceful demonstrations in the 1960s.... Easy to say 'lets forget about X injustice and enjoy some sports!' when you aren't a member of the persecuted group. These types of demonstrations will never be the 'right time' or 'right place' because they're uncomfortable.
I always find it interesting when people respond to protest with the whole "I agree with what you're doing, but I just don't think you're using the right methods. You're really hurting your cause" thing. Not only have these people been consistently shown to not actually agree with what's being protested, but they've also been proven wrong, time and time again, about the "hurting your own cause" bit. People have used that tired line about protests since before the Civil Rights Movement, and they've been sidelined in the face of real progress each time. You would think they'd catch on and just stop saying it.
On September 27 2017 23:49 Gahlo wrote: [quote] I'll take the "I watch sports to escape politics." seriously when the same people want to remove the pledge from sporting events.
The pledge is not present at any sporting events.
Damn colleges indoctrinating kids.
Since the 10th anniversary of 9/11, University of Connecticut fans, players and coaches have been asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, first at football and now men's and women's basketball games. UConn interim athletic director Paul Pendergast has made it a policy.
So we're in agreement if we want to get the politics out of sports we have to remove the national anthem and the other stuff?
I had no idea there was this basketball team out in Connecticut that recited the pledge. I’d only ever heard the anthem up until now to my recollection.
And no, we absolutely disagree.
Are you saying that the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance aren't political?
If we want to get politics out of sports, GH’s proposal is absolutely the wrong approach.
So you do agree, they are political?
Symbols of political unity beyond partisanship You know that the sentiment of “letting politics ruin X” means the left/right vicious political divide, but there are other symbols with political content that (in a sane society) show unity and country identity. We may have our problems, but we are still Americans. Let’s hear a rousing remembrance of the war of 1812!
But in the era of politicization of everything (read the article, please), the whole topic is repurposed and everybody loses. There’s a distinct lack of things that bring us together as Americans. Watching sports, flag, and anthem are seen as last vestiges of national “put down the pitchforks and watch a ballgame” experiences ... and making them into political acts (first Kaep, more recently exacerbated by Trump) really sets back your cause. But you don’t want the help so keep at it, I guess.
What (if anything) do you feel is unreasonable about the position of "I believe that the country is profoundly not politically (and morally) united, so I choose not to act in a way that would lead people to think otherwise about my beliefs"?
On September 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote: [quote] The pledge is not present at any sporting events.
Damn colleges indoctrinating kids.
Since the 10th anniversary of 9/11, University of Connecticut fans, players and coaches have been asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, first at football and now men's and women's basketball games. UConn interim athletic director Paul Pendergast has made it a policy.
So we're in agreement if we want to get the politics out of sports we have to remove the national anthem and the other stuff?
I had no idea there was this basketball team out in Connecticut that recited the pledge. I’d only ever heard the anthem up until now to my recollection.
And no, we absolutely disagree.
Are you saying that the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance aren't political?
If we want to get politics out of sports, GH’s proposal is absolutely the wrong approach.
So you do agree, they are political?
Watching sports, flag, and anthem are seen as last vestiges of national “put down the pitchforks and watch a ballgame” experiences ... and making them into political acts (first Kaep, more recently exacerbated by Trump) really sets back your cause. But you don’t want the help so keep at it, I guess.
Weird how similar this sounds to the arguments referenced earlier in the thread from peaceful demonstrations in the 1960s.... Easy to say 'lets forget about X injustice and enjoy some sports!' when you aren't a member of the persecuted groups. These types of demonstrations will never be the 'right time' or 'right place' because they're uncomfortable.
We went through this rodeo before with xDaunt/RiK so I doubt we'll make much progress here. It's like you're fine with Trump in 2020 because at least you showed whitey he can't have his sports without remembering how the left racialized and politicized the country. Okay, bro. Enjoy drawing all your parallels to 1960s and MLK and "white moderates." At some point you gotta let people vent that would rather blacks suffer so long as they have another group to yell at.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.fg.vs.bw.schule.de/abi/abi47/chronik/appell.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.rothenburg-unterm-hakenkreuz.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Schule-Paam-anfang-udn-am-Schluss-des-Unterrichtstages1.jpg)
You know that the sentiment of “letting politics ruin X” means the left/right vicious political divide, but there are other symbols with political content that (in a sane society) show unity and country identity. We may have our problems, but we are still Americans. Let’s hear a rousing remembrance of the war of 1812!
