|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all.
Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before.
|
On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before.
Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations.
|
On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. In my past dealings with you, that's been one of the stand-out shortcomings.
obviously as the birth rate continues to decline we will have to outlaw abortion and use the teenage pregnancies for adoption babies
|
On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations.
If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate.
And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you.
|
Was reading up on the diahrrea that came out of trumps mouth at the Montana rally tonight. It included a mocking reference to rape kits and the me too movement (even though trump voters will shut off their brains and tell you his use of the word “kit” wasn’t to allude to rape kits). I really would be embarrassed for my party if we had chosen this guy.
|
On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you.
Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it!
You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play.
|
On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play.
It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity.
This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something.
|
On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know.
|
Conservatives love to pretend to be enslaved or discriminated against, it fulfills some weird psychological need.
|
On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know.
It's a categorically stupid thing to say even in the context you're attempting to limit it to. Not just because of the word "slavery" though admittedly that's the most obviously ridiculous part to most observers.
Your entire argument is ridiculous on it's face. That of all the things going on in the US that's the situation you choose to highlight as evidence of slavery having a resurgence among certain groups of people and in the hopes of painting these facilities as the victim or "slaves" in this construction says more than 100 posts could.
|
On July 06 2018 15:41 Grumbels wrote:
Conservatives love to pretend to be enslaved or discriminated against, it fulfills some weird psychological need.
Consequently, liberals never feel the need contemplate using state force against people that rate low on historical oppression or other postmodern measures. They're the scum of the earth! Why not throw them in jail or fine them ridiculously to remake their compliance?
I posted some twenty times on the Colorado baker early in this thread, and three to four people could only see the situation as one of discrimination that overrides any other consideration. That's the crazy part about all of this. Pick whatever justification you want that makes you feel good about what you're doing, but keep in mind that the target isn't some inanimate object to be acted upon.
|
On July 06 2018 15:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know. It's a categorically stupid thing to say even in the context you're attempting to limit it to. Not just because of the word "slavery" though admittedly that's the most obviously ridiculous part to most observers. Your entire argument is ridiculous on it's face. That of all the things going on in the US that's the situation you choose to highlight as evidence of slavery having a resurgence among certain groups of people and in the hopes of painting these facilities as the victim or "slaves" in this construction says more than 100 posts could.
Nope. You just lack empathy for victims that aren't the right kinds of people to claim their rights and stand on them. I don't submit to this philosophy of waiting in line for other "more oppressed" groups to register their claims and receive their relief before they themselves are acknowledged.
|
Isn't it important to inform people in a medical crisis of all of their medical options? This is basic good practice. I know I live in a country without free market healthcare but when it comes to medical issues the freedom to profit in relation to your competitors surely shouldn't outweigh common medical practice.
|
On July 06 2018 16:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know. It's a categorically stupid thing to say even in the context you're attempting to limit it to. Not just because of the word "slavery" though admittedly that's the most obviously ridiculous part to most observers. Your entire argument is ridiculous on it's face. That of all the things going on in the US that's the situation you choose to highlight as evidence of slavery having a resurgence among certain groups of people and in the hopes of painting these facilities as the victim or "slaves" in this construction says more than 100 posts could. Nope. You just lack empathy for victims that aren't the right kinds of people to claim their rights and stand on them. I don't submit to this philosophy of waiting in line for other "more oppressed" groups to register their claims and receive their relief before they themselves are acknowledged.
That you're completely serious in your attempt to frame this as a lack of empathy from me toward oppressed people is now the worst I've seen from you in a while and that's really saying something.
My comment was more directed at the prevalence of white nationalism, concentration camps, and white people calling 911 on Black people for being in public, that this is where you found the absurdly hyperbolic use of such rhetoric appropriate.
It wasn't particularly aimed at their concerns taking less precedent. I mean they do and for good reason, but that's not what that was aimed at.
|
On July 06 2018 15:41 Grumbels wrote:
Conservatives love to pretend to be enslaved or discriminated against, it fulfills some weird psychological need. this it's explained by control: conservatives are control freaks and can handle controlling things(happens based on how smart or stupid they are) and liberals fear control/controlling things(ordering people around, creating pseudorandom rules ..etc) so they try to disseminate that burden across various factions/agents to (be able to)run from the eventual responsibilities that come with that.
thing is, it comes down to the same shit in the end: responsibility for the outcome and neither of those factions own up to it.
Edit: oh and you should've said there 'they don't like to be judged/questioned'(on their rulings) because who's in control, is always right.(see God, he just knows best).
you can easily go into religious preferences based on the above.
|
On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something.
I think the part that follows it:And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play
Really demonstrates how far entrenched people like Danglars are in their beliefs. It's as if they fully subscribe to the "we must vote politically along the lines of culture war"-propaganda supported by major conservative funders people such as Robert Mercer - a major stakeholder in Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica, not to mention Renaissance Technologies.Robert Leroy Mercer (born July 11, 1946) is an American computer scientist, who was a developer in early artificial intelligence and co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund. Mercer has said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark federal statute arising from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, was a major mistake. In 2017, David Magerman, a former Renaissance employee, alleged in a lawsuit that Mercer had said that African Americans were economically better off before the civil rights movement, that white racists no longer existed in the United States, and that the only racists remaining were black racists. In 1988 Renaissance established its most famous and profitable portfolio, the Medallion fund, which used an improved and expanded form of Leonard Baum's mathematical models improved by pioneering algebraist James Ax to explore correlations from which they could profit. Simons and Ax started a hedge fund and named it Medallion in honor of the math awards that they had won. The mathematical models the company developed worked better and better each year, and by 1988, Simons had decided to base the company’s trades entirely on the models. "Since its inception in March 1988, Simons’ flagship $3.3 billion Medallion fund, has amassed annual returns of 35.6 percent, compared with 17.9 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. For the 11 full years ended December 1999, Medallion’s cumulative returns are an eye-popping 2,478.6 percent. Among all offshore funds over that same period, according to the database run by veteran hedge fund observer Antoine Bernheim, the next-best performer was Soros’ Quantum Fund, with a 1,710.1 percent return (see table, page 44). "Simons is No. 1," says Bernheim. "Ahead of George Soros. Ahead of Mark Kingdon. Ahead of Bruce Kovner. Ahead of Monroe Trout." "From 2001 through 2013, the fund’s worst year was a 21 percent gain, after subtracting fees. Medallion reaped a 98.2 percent gain in 2008, the year the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 38.5 percent."
On an unrelated note, did anyone catch wind of that "#walkaway" campaign? It seems so horribly manufactured, I can't even begin to describe it. Sounds like the Russians are at it again, just like they must have hacked the Ocasio-Cortez website that one time.
|
On July 06 2018 08:42 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 08:29 m4ini wrote:
So.. What exactly is Trumps obsession with picking the worst possible candidates for literally everything? Does he understand the concept "conflict of interest", or does he just not give a shit?
Wait, nevermind. Of course it makes sense to put a lawyer of a coal magnate in charge of the environmental protection agency. How can you even be a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Like that's the one thing that we know kills the planet. The hint is in the fucking name.
Climate change denier. Of course he is. What else would you put in charge of the agency that's supposed to protect the environment. If you think that's bad you should see who's running the USDA Poultry Division. + Show Spoiler +
Underrated comment right here.
Out of curiousity, how low can it go? Like, what's the most damage they can do without shutting the EPA down altogether?
On July 06 2018 16:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know. It's a categorically stupid thing to say even in the context you're attempting to limit it to. Not just because of the word "slavery" though admittedly that's the most obviously ridiculous part to most observers. Your entire argument is ridiculous on it's face. That of all the things going on in the US that's the situation you choose to highlight as evidence of slavery having a resurgence among certain groups of people and in the hopes of painting these facilities as the victim or "slaves" in this construction says more than 100 posts could. Nope. You just lack empathy for victims that aren't the right kinds of people to claim their rights and stand on them. I don't submit to this philosophy of waiting in line for other "more oppressed" groups to register their claims and receive their relief before they themselves are acknowledged.
God forbid people side with the oppressed over their oppressors. We'll end up with anarchy if people keep on down that path!
It's funny that you complain about someone else lacking empathy when you've clearly demonstrated - repeatedly - an inability to comprehend the situation of oppressed groups.
I mean, gay people in the US have been allowed to marry for just three years. They've only been legally able to have sex with each other for less than twenty (nationwide, at least, not sure if some states trailblazed). They still suffer discrimination in basically every arena where they aren't specifically, explicitly legally protected. I'm led to believe African Americans suffer from that in a lot of areas, as well (minus the marriage/sex part).
But you struggle to understand why they need empathy and support. Says a lot. Also this:
https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/06/01/florida-republicans-really-dont-understand-why-its-racist-to-compare-black-people-to-apes
|
On July 06 2018 15:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2018 15:01 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:43 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 14:21 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 14:11 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2018 13:36 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2018 13:12 micronesia wrote:
Garland isn’t a choice? Just an other? It's a very troll maneuver by Schumer, so it is my decision to be an 'other.' Conservatives are very recognizant of all the liberals (media and politicians) that basically asserted a Garland justice instead of a Gorsuch justice would've kept public unions intact (and free speech suppressed), forced advertisement of abortion services in crisis pregnancy centers, and judicial interference in Presidential powers over immigration. Trump's advisers know how important Supreme Court picks are to the ongoing culture wars with respect to legislating from the bench and overturning civil rights. The Senate Republicans have thus far made no overtures to Garland as a serious prospect. It's basically a pipe dream of Schumer, and he's trolled us all. Ah yes, the horrible act of making a service provider actually provide details as to the services they provide, and what they don't. Not to mention the rather revealing usage of "civil rights". But hey, we've had this dance before. Yep. I can imagine the roles reversed, where a culturally dominant pro-life movement made Planned Parenthood post "YOU DON'T HAVE TO KILL YOUR CHILD. THERE IS A SUBSIDIZED SAFE LABOR & DELIVERY CLINIC AROUND THE CORNER" 48pt font, plus every billboard advertising their services. Hell, throw in a "This abortion clinic does not pass standards for medical facilities" for good measure. It's just that the left finds itself in a rather culturally dominant position on the issue (in some states) and wants to compel policies. It's both short-sighted and overconfident. It also misdiagnoses why Trump won. If I was to say one big thing of our disagreements, it's that we really diverge on the very basic stuff on rights and generalizations. If your point is that we diverge on whether it's right that someone should have to say what's in the food they make, then you're right. I don't think places like CPC's should be able to deceive women into taking a harmful course of action for their lives, and I think they should be transparent about what they do and don't offer. That's just basic stuff that applies to nearly every other industry. The consumer should be at least somewhat informed. I don't think saying "but my civil rights" gives you carte blanche to prey on people who are already desperate. And if you think our difference of opinion constitutes a shortcoming on my part, just go ahead and say it. It'd be refreshingly forthcoming of you. Yes we do disagree on the basics. A can of soup's nutrition info is not equivalent to forcing you to advertise for the restaurant next door. You're perfectly able to embark on a campaign to inform people that these dangerous crisis pregnancy centers won't perform abortions for you. Have at it! You just can't force the nonprofits to be unwilling participants in your side of the debate. Well, apparently some people think you can force them ... but slavery is kind of having a second revival for certain groups. It's just basic stuff, as you say. And people count on pretend moderates like Garland to vote with them, kinda proving that moderates are nothing but a political play. It's not often I you impress me with how unbelievably awful your opinion is, but this one honestly impresses me in both boldness and absurdity. This is the most trash thing I've seen you say in a while and that's saying something. Just the extent to which certain justices and some posters think you can force people to act against their conscience does rise to the point of Americans being subjects or slaves and not citizens. I'm not talking about enslaving entire races, of course. Just that certain groups that have fallen out of favor are more routinely denied their civil rights for having opinions outside of certain culturally-enforced boundaries, or acting on one side of a political issue that you oppose. The word does have meaning besides literally the property of another, you know.
Hey, speaking about forcing people to act against their conscience, what's your opinion on conservative-passed mandatory ultrasound laws and informed consent laws that force doctors to give patients seeking abortions or information on abortions false or unverified information on the risks of abortion?
|
The details of our tax payer funded child abuse campaign are slowly coming to light. We have so little information, one of these kids could have died and we would never know. And it has come to light that immigrants who enlisted in the military because of the promise of citizenship are being quitely discharged and possibly deported.
Remember though, tax dollars cannot go towards funding abortion. That violates religious freedom for some people. Mass child abuse is cool though.
|
On July 06 2018 06:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 06:33 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media. I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape. It's more about the ubiquitous presence of neoliberal thought in media, not so much specifically about election coverage or the news. I mean, you had the FBI stomping out socialist thought in the 60s/70s/80s, no? So the ideas were never on the table to begin with, even though you did provide the basics of socialism -- I'm told -- under the New Deal. Which all went down the crapper under Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Meanwhile, the acceptable range of political discussion grows ever narrower. Fast forward to today, and it's about cakes and bathrooms, that's about it, isn't it? Two points were opinions are allowed to differ. Meanwhile, all the politicians must be for war and bombs, for law and order, for corporate freedom, pro-Israel. Oh, and whenever "your guy" isn't in charge, the President's a foreigner! That's also normal now, haha. I stand by my statement that the term neoliberal has essentially lost all meaning at this point. It has become the Alpha and Omega of politics, being everything and nothing that the same time. You just took three wildly different eras in US history, one that was super socialist and the rise of civil rights, one that was dominated by Nixon and one that was under Reagan and lumped them all into one, blaming neoliberalism for in the media for all of it. Oh yeah, and Kennedy and MLK died in there too. Do you know how much the media in the US changed from the 1960s to 1980s?
Consider how socialism (or any anti-capitalist thought) was actively fought against by the intelligence community in the 1960s/70s/80s. Over time, this anti-socialist view point was reflected in the manufactured consent by centralized corporate neoliberal media. In democratic societies, first the thought must be extinguished, then the policies will adopt to that lack of thought. It's a cycle, a proces that doesn't happen overnight, but something that happens over the years. That's why I brought up earlier times.
Funny that you bring up the murder of MLK. You might look at that as falling into that very same category of socialist oppression. I think the US could have been like socialist Europe if he'd been talking and spreading his message for 50 more years, rather than getting murdered when he did. And while his murder was not necessarily the motivation of someone with distinct anti-socialist thought, it certainly put a damper on the socialistic point of view if you look at how things proceeded from there -- especially when you consider the way his anti-imperialist pro-socialist message was filtered by the media in the years after his death. Was the FBI involved in this filtration at all, I wonder as an afterthought...
Anyway, the way you look at the term "neoliberalism" is how people like me might look at "racism".
First, it should be established that neoliberalism is a subset of liberalism (itself a very wide array of political and societal views) that is focused on corporate interests within that very wide array of views. There's many aspects that come along with this and you can see it everywhere if you look for it. Just like racism can be found everywhere if you look for it through that lens.
In the end, I think it's just about seeing elements of something in a larger picture and then labeling it as one thing or another. For example, I see the racist elements in the infamous Dove commercial. I can list them off quite easily, as I think I've proven before. You can call the commercial "racist" based on that. However, I also see what I could refer to as neoliberal elements (the capitalist marketing tricks they use to sell crap to people - which is effectively a derivative of a, arguably necessary in the name of freedom, lack of regulation on commercials), and can list those off easily as well.
What you want to call the Dove commercial when you label it therefore depends on your agenda and motivation. But it is, effectively, ALL of those things. NATO can be called white supremacy in that same light, for example, because it unifies the transatlantic white European people in their military domination of the world.
All of these views are real and all of them are subject to the type of lenses that Ocasio-Cortez is talking about in this interview (she explains the concept of the lens in about 5 minutes, starting at 21:40, you don't have to listen to the whole interview). She even brings up Palestine, maybe she can apply that kind of thinking to relationships with Russia, North Korea and Iran too! :-) Every time you ignore or dismiss any such lens, you're basically oppressing people in some way. Whether its justified or not to oppress certain people is another discussion.
Likewise, for some more arguments about how words should or should not be defined or used, someone around here posted a Washington Post article about virtue-signaling and how it's a "just a right wing thing" to argue that people are virtue signaling. The absurdity of that is beyond me as well. It's like reporters (or maybe "opinion piece writing individuals") are purely agenda driven when they write those kind of things (like I am sometimes when I write certain things). However, one objective look at Wikipedia should convince any person to dismiss the notion that 'virtue signaling' is somehow an exclusively right-wing slur for liberals. I can already hear the argument "but they use it the most so its valid to say that!". To that I say: for fucks sake, stop being so tribalistic about literally everything. It's making it impossible to talk about anything at all and everything get reduced to the kind of nonsense I'm spewing now.
I'm virtue signaling all the time when I talk about the troubles that black people face. I'm white, I don't see things through the lens of race at all. I don't really care who is in those prisons or who is being shot in the streets. The faceless skinless numbers are just staggeringly alarming to me, like the numbers regarding CO2 in the atmosphere absolutely horrify me. If I call out race, I'm almost always just furthering my own socialist agenda because I know that it's easy to guilt trip people into support for minorities that can push people towards socialism. It's the same tactics the corporate Democrats use to further their agenda. It's despicable, really.
In the end, the reason why I hate that Africa and other places (including areas in the rural United States) are so poor and that people on a global scale don't get the same chances is because I'm utterly selfish: I think there is untold scientific and engineering talent that is lost every day due to these imbalances -- and we need those talents in order to survive as a species, regardless of how "good" Western culture thinks it is by itself.
Just like this plutocrat dude is just trying to save his own ass when he warns about inequality and pitchforks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Gur4NvC.jpg)
