UC Berkeley at it again
-
As for the giant chip on your shoulder about the DNC and Berkeley hating white people…it's just bizarre. I mean apparently you got scarred at some point by a bad experience or you've been programmed by neo-Nazi propaganda to the point that you've lost complete perspective. Does the left take things too far at times? Absolutely. Just like the right. That's why I'm against extremism in general. But categorizing entire groups of people as being of a hive mind and that large groups of people hate white people and are trying to keep them down (including other white people)? You've pretty much jumped the shark on that point.
That's the kind of bullshit that got Trump elected.
"Crackers who are against anti-white racism are scared and brainwashed neo-nazis with chips on their shoulders."
The "white people go around" protest shows that abusing whites is completely ok at Berkeley or the police would have shut it down immediately like they would have if the races were reversed.
Similarly with the DNC. When the people running to head the DNC are openly white bashing and the audience is hootin' n hollerin', it shows it's a party wide thing.
-
Even considering that the violent leftists at Berkeley were Milo henchmen is absolutely absurd and has no basis in reality.
Except neither of us have proof for or against this. So sorry but it's up in the air until we get more confirmation from trusted sources. Neither you or I were there, so for you to make assumptions about something that you didn't directly experience just displays your bias and prejudices. You know what they say about people who ASSume.
Radical left terror groups like antifa and anarchists took credit for it, secondly these tactics are straight out of the lefts playbook (Weather underground anyone?).
Source?
I don't consider the "radical left" to be "liberal" or part of the "left". Just like I don't consider the "radical right" to be "conservative" or part of the "right". I consider radicals to be that…radicals. I prefer to look at the logic and efforts of the best people from both political parties not focus on the worst elements of society and then use those idiots to discredit entire ideologies. We can do that for anything. If somebody like an anarchist wants to cause violence, then why should that reflect on a liberal who wants peace and love? If somebody is a Nazi on the right, why would I assume all conservatives want that when those individuals may be focused on serving Jesus Christ or worried about the government sucking at implementing wealth redistribution?
So if Anarchists caused the problems as you are asserted that would exonerate UC Berkeley, so not sure why you'd be making that point.
Secondly the "peaceful protest" narrative is a complete myth stirred up by mainstream media in order to minimize how horrible/violent and childish the left really is.
Possibly…But again you are making too big of an assumption given that you were not there yourself and CLEARLY have a strong political bias and identity. Are you one of those people who think your gut or perspective is 100% right on EVERYTHING? :blink:
Nobody on the left has yet to denounce the violence committed by the protestors.
I know liberals who have denounced the violence already, so I know that is untrue. Villainizing entire groups of people isn't a good look.
They only say "both sides needs to calm down". I don't recall the last time Conservatives rioted and burned down a city and looted businesses.
That's because neither of us are probably counting extremists (like neo-Nazis who have been being violent and targeting individuals) to be a "Conservative". So by that same token, we shouldn't be counting left extremists (thugs) to represent the term "Liberals". Again, we can always look to the worst elements of either political party, but that really just leads to inaccuracy, villainizing, and over-politicalization which is where our country is today. If we all truly want to come together, we need to be more intelligent with our distinctions and be fair not constantly be in attack mode. Do we agree on this?
Remember when one old guy at a Trump rally punched someone and the media kept airing that same clip for days and days on end and saying that ALL Trump supporters were violent? But leftist burn down a city, and they just brush over it and say "not all protesters, most were peaceful"
I'm sure it happens all the time. We've got biased people from both sides of the nation. Our country is more divided than ever, and it's sad. But stooping to that level helps nobody right? Easier said than done of course. I think it starts with all of us trying to be the example we want the world to be. It's highly idealistic I know, but really it does start there otherwise we're just being hypocrites and adding to the problem right? People on both sides will claim that the other party started it first, but there's no way to verify it and it's not helpful in any case.
- "indicting an entire group of people for the bad actions of a few is not intelligent and leads to over-generalizations and stereotyping. "
Wow… Kinda like calling all Conservatives/Trump supporters racist/bigot/homophobes/every other -phobe in the book is nonconstructive and pisses off millions of people..
I agree. I didn't say that. That's why I feel you're really angry, because apparently you've been attacked. I just don't think you should fall into those same habits either.
- " Does a university HAVE to allow anybody speak at their university if any of its student groups pay somebody to come? "
Yes, that's called FREEDOM of speech.
So a Hitler-type could pay a school to make a speech about how Jews are ruining our country and the source of all our problems and that would be "freedom of speech"? I'm seriously asking for real. Because my gut tells me there's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "entitled speech". There's a thin line for sure, so it's tough. But I just feel like the word "freedom" has a very lofty nice feeling to it and it gets thrown around a lot. But clearly, we're not "free" to do ANYTHING that we want like robbing banks or killing people. Some lines on freedom must be drawn. Freedom of speech to criticize to provide productive solutions is one thing. Freedom of speech to breed hate, scapegoat groups of people, and incite violence or oppression is another. I'm not saying Milo was going to do that. But to me, my guess is that a university's platform isn't up to sale for just ANYBODY who pays for it. I could be wrong, but that's my current gut feeling. What do you think about that?
Secondly, you go on to mention NAZIs in the next sentence, which is a very intellectually shallow and dishonest argument and you know it. Care to explain how a gay immigrant Jew who ONLY dates black guys and hates white nationalism is somehow a nazi? (protip you can't explain it because it's not true).
Talking about "Neo-Nazi's" (I didn't say "Nazi" which is different), was an extreme example for sure, but it was to display my point that even "free" speech has SOME limits. I'm always wary of any kind of censorship. But there's a difference between giving somebody a large platform to speak disruptive opinions (which to me is a "privilege" not a "freedom"), versus being able to speak your opinion without a college giving their opinion a big audience. How is that "shallow" or "dishonest"?
I didn't call Milo a Nazi, so no need for you to get twisted over that. Are you him by the way?
But nice job being tolerant leftists and silencing a gay immigrant Jewish guy, Hitler would be proud.
He could've still spoke, but he chose not to. Let's be real. He knew he was walking into the lion's den and went anyways, so it was probably a political maneuver as part of a propaganda campaign. He's in politics, so there's a lot of gamesmanship involved. The non-violent leftist protestors certainly had a right to criticize and campaign against him (their right to free speech). I disagree with the property-destroying antics of the extremists or troublemakers though. But again I have no clue who those people were.
Also, tolerance doesn't mean you have to be tolerant of those who are intolerant or enabling intolerance. It's not a 0-100% thing. We all have different levels of tolerance and intolerance, and not everybody agrees on that sweet spot including those of the same political orientation. An asshole (I'm not talking about Milo, I'm talking generally about any jerk) doesn't get to be a jerk and then say anybody getting mad at him is a hypocrite for daring to stand up against them. That's political gaming.
- "indicting an entire group of people for the bad actions of a few is not intelligent and leads to over-generalizations and stereotyping. "
-
As for the giant chip on your shoulder about the DNC and Berkeley hating white people…it's just bizarre. I mean apparently you got scarred at some point by a bad experience or you've been programmed by neo-Nazi propaganda to the point that you've lost complete perspective. Does the left take things too far at times? Absolutely. Just like the right. That's why I'm against extremism in general. But categorizing entire groups of people as being of a hive mind and that large groups of people hate white people and are trying to keep them down (including other white people)? You've pretty much jumped the shark on that point.
I mean Bernie Sander's press secretary and Democratic strategist Symone Sanders was on CNN mocking a white guy that got beat up saying"Oh poor white people" and she said The Democrat party doesn't need white people, fake news sites like The Hill, Washington Post, Huffington Post have ALL written articles saying basically that The Democratic party doesn't need appeal to white men to win and doesn't care what white men think.
We can all pick out idiots from BOTH political parties. My whole point is that we should be looking at the ISSUES and debating about that. Not finding "terrible examples of the opposition party" to make us feel good about our own political identity and that we are with the GOOD TEAM–or with this year, many of us were just trying to be part of the lesser of 2 evils team.
And if we are going to look at representatives of each party or ideology, we should be looking at the BEST examples of both groups to really understand what policies are best for our country. If you want to be rich, do you study poor people and just try to do the opposite of that? Or do you look at what the wealthy are doing? Do you think it's fair or accurate for an anti-American propagandist to highlight a kid who shot up a school as an example of how terrible all "Americans" are?
It's this villainizing, politicking, bias, etc. that has disturbed me about America far more than the actual parties or politicians themselves. The politicians are going to do what they've done, because it's their CAREER. I don't like it, but I get it. When citizens do it, that's mostly EGO, IGNORANCE, or WILLFUL MANIPULATION, and that scares me.
Can you cite sources for your claims about Symone Sanders, The Hill, Washington Post, and Huffington Post? I don't know about most of them, but the Washington Post doesn't strike me as a source that would say something like that. I'd definitely have to see an example of that for myself. You call them "fake news," but I've seen "fake news" come out of Trump's mouth for myself (him starting the racist Birther movement). So if you're going to attack these sources (which may very well be true), I'd hope you'd be objective enough to say the same about Trump.
-
Free speech means EVERYONE CAN TELL what they think.
"Free speech" has different levels.
100% free speech is the definition you just gave.
But I would argue 80-95% "free speech" is probably better.
I also think there's a difference between:
1. Positive/productive speech vs. hate speech or harmful speech
2. Political speech or propaganda vs. fact-based or data driven speech; is this person creating noise and confusion based on their own agendas, disturbed life, or outspoken personality–or are they genuinely adding value based on sincere motivations?
3. The location and environment one is speaking at whether that be in public, at work, in a church, in a school, etc.
4. The audience = Are they independent thinkers? Are they impressionable individuals? Children? Students? Uneducated? etc.
5. Size of audience = Are you influencing 1 person or trying to influence a country or the world?
6. The platform = Is this somebody speaking their opinion? Or is their opinion representing a group of people or an institution?"Free speech" is a lofty concept, but the situation is more nuanced than that. As I outlined some of the many factors to be considered, there needs to be a lot more critical intelligent thinking involved about each context before we just subscribe to an ideal 100%. I find that many times in life, some balance is best. Usually too much of anything makes something bad.
If you don't like it, don't hear it, no one is forcing you to.
Free speech also includes the right to protest against those with opinions you dislike or disagree with. So it goes both ways. Technically, nobody silenced Milo.
Also, it doesn't mean you are allowing intolerant ideas to spread.
Based on Milo's history, that is a concern a lot of protestors had. It doesn't mean that's the case, but where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. Few people want this country to go down the route of Nazi Germany, numerous dictatorships, North Korea, etc. route. And right now, the alt-right has shown a history of promoting a disturbing brand of white nationalism and white supremacy which is a type of racism. So yes, that is a type of intolerance and a problem if those kind of dangerous ideas take a foothold in our society (let alone ANY society).
People are responsible for what ideas they decide to make theirs.
They are and they aren't. Our minds (especially our subconscious) is constantly programmed by both our biology and our environment. We can shape and control our own minds to a degree, but other forces are constantly shaping it as well whether we are aware of it or not. You may be able to control your mind, but you can't help it if a lot of people's minds are programmed to hate and hurt you, and that's what scares many people.
Free speech allows ideas to face against it other.
My person issue is that Milo has the right to free speech which any of us can Google. Does that mean he should be ENTITLED to speak at and be backed by a reputable intellectual institution like Berkeley when he is representing political interests as his career? And Berkeley DID let him come. So why is Milo/Trump attacking the school, because HE decided it wasn't safe enough for him because his controversial opinions sparked so much outrage that his presence attracted a bunch of protestors? Where's the individual accountability? Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences, responsibility, or backlash.
If someone uses free speech to express intolerant ideas, you use your own right to free speech to debunk them or spread your own ideas about tolerance.
That's idealistic and I agree to an extent, but practically speaking, the flipside is that sadly there are way too many impressionable non-educated individuals who lack critical independent thinking skills and can get swept up in dangerous ideologies. Re: Hitler's rise to power with the help of his famous speeches. So then, those ideas can help create an army against you (because sadly, people are often dumb and irresponsible) who then limit your freedom of speech and fuck you over. So you want to strive for ideals but not be naive. Free speech =/= tolerating hate speech. Also free speech includes the right to protest which is other people's right to "free speech". Milo is manipulatively trying to attach his situation to the lofty idea of "free speech" to position himself as a victim, but sorry, he doesn't get to claim the moral high ground when he's either spreading or enabling racist ideas.
I thought Americans took great pride in their debate skills. Now you throw them an uncomfortable idea in front of them and they just spout nonsense, like some child in a tantrum.
Don't be naive. If debate and ideas solved the world's problems, we wouldn't have all the issues that we have. Protests are erupting, because people feel disenfranchised and the traditional channels aren't working for large numbers of people. Did you say the Tea Party or Republicans threw a tantrum when they protested? Are we really being impartial about this? Protests helped give women the right to vote, so in our history, sometimes it's much better than simply relying on the politicians to fix our problems or trusting our executive or legislative system. So dismissing the protests as "child in a tantrum" isn't something I'd do before actually debating about the issues at stake.
-
NO BODY has the right to riot, loot, or assault people.
Trump supporters have assaulted people
White supremacists have attacked minorities (especially Middle Easterns here) in greater numbers after the election
Technically, this country was founded on looting the land of the Native Americans and "riots" helped make us independent from Great BritainBasically, you're cherry picking and selectively applying your logic and principles to some situations and not others which is a bias. We're all affected by confirmation bias to a degree, but for your own sake and for society's reign it in a little. The political atmosphere has become way too biased, emotional, and quite frankly…stupid. It's hurting all of us, because people can't be objective about issues, and the scapegoating, blaming, villainizing, etc. is not productive, honest, or truthful. We're human so we can't help but be a little flawed and hypocritical at times. But we should at least TRY not to be blatantly biased and contradicting ourselves sheesh.
The Supreme Court has defined what speech is allowed under free speech and what is not. I haven't heard Trump, Milo or anyone else on the right violate this, but I've seen a lot of it from the left.
That's because of your confirmation bias. There's no way to say this nicely, so I'm just going to be blunt but your strong political identity and self-righteousness is making you delusional. And no, I'm not liberal or Democratic and have never voted for them.
I heard Trump on TV with my own ears, speaking with his own mouth, bash and attack people viciously verbally on camera for his own political interests. I've seen him threaten to sue and wage his economic and political leverage against people he deemed his enemies. He attacked the parents of a military hero, and tried to discredit them using their ethnic background against them, because they weren't helping him politically. Not to mention he's ADMITTED he loves sabotage on his TV show the Apprentice. There is a ridiculous amount of content contradicting your perspective, to the point where you'd had to have been reading/watching absolutely nothing during the elections to have missed that all. In other words, you're selectively only paying attention to that fits in with your current political identity psychologically.
Members of the alt-right have also targeted journalists they don't agree with both overtly and using code which is a type of systematic oppression which limits free speech. Milo is a supposedly part of that movement. So even if he's not doing it himself, he is arguably an enabler of those kind of people and behaviors. And that includes limiting free speech.
So please, spare us all the left does it but the right are sweet innocent angels argument. It's embarrassing and it just makes you look overly biased and delusional. There are bad examples on both sides of the aisle, and you're much better focusing on political issues rather than playing the identity politics game.
It does appear that the Mayor of Berkeley conspired to prevent the Milo event by telling the police to hold back and not stop the rioting.
While your conspiracy theory might be true, the Mayor would've been more effective in just outright not letting Milo come at all if that was his genuine intention.
Also, while Milo says some things i agree with, I'm not a fan of his. I do support the right of the Young Republicans to hold the event and for Milo to speak, without fear of being killed by a bunch of lunatics who think only their side is allowed to speak.
Since you are such a champion of all types of free speech, I trust you will display this same level of vigilance in attacking Republican Congress for not allowing Elizabeth Warren to her 100% free speech which just happened recently. I'll be waiting for you to create a new thread for that just like you did for this one.
-
That's the kind of bullshit that got Trump elected.
"Crackers who are against anti-white racism are scared and brainwashed neo-nazis with chips on their shoulders."
The moderate left is against racism. That includes anti-white racism. White supremacists get brought into the conversation because the white supremacists are the type to feel that anti-racism is somehow a threat to their power and privilege (which feels like anti-white racism to them, because white supremacy is all about…supremacy).
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might be brainwashed instead of an actual white supremacist. If you are none of those things then can you explain why you see anti-white racism way more than most people? How are liberals attacking white people? And I'm talking about moderate liberals not the extremist crazies who don't count (just like you don't want to get bunched in with the neo-nazis, you shouldn't be a hypocrite and bunch the liberals with the anti-white racists right?).
The "white people go around" protest shows that abusing whites is completely ok at Berkeley or the police would have shut it down immediately like they would have if the races were reversed.
I definitely don't agree with their approach for sure. However, you have to understand, this country has never been an even-playing field for people of different races. But due to US history, the nature of structural and institutionalized racism and the psychologically subtle ways racism is expressed (which includes financial, social, and political discrimination), and our political system (a Constitutional Republic where numbers matter and minorities thus have less power and voices), it's not accurate to take an apples to apples approach, since the situation is weighted against minorities in the first place. Genuine merit can't thrive in those environments. Sometimes, people do crazy things to get their points across or to get noticed. And so, the point of that march wasn't to prevent white (or Asian) people from actually going to Berkeley and being racist to them. But to attract attention to their true purpose for protesting and the issues they wanted to raise. It's not the approach I would've taken, but I think we should definitely look at the ideas being put forth rather than rush to snap judgments and turn this into another we're the victims!!1!!1 thing.
You're interpreting that protest as an anti-white thing, but that is missing the point entirely. I'm asking you to look at the issue from different points of view as well as the current one you have. You can always stick with the one you have, but at least try to understand where others are coming from.
Similarly with the DNC. When the people running to head the DNC are openly white bashing and the audience is hootin' n hollerin', it shows it's a party wide thing.
Example and source?
-
So you are gonna play the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN card. Gottcha.
"Bad people can't be liberals".
Shouting "white people go around" and forcing them to walk through a creek to get to class is anti-white racist. The fact that the police didn't break it up, shows institutional anti-white racism at both the city and university of Berkeley. If the races were reversed, would you be so desperate to excuse it away? Of course not, you'd (and most everyone else) would be screaming RACISM.
I do love how the left has "heard" that it's Milo's people doing all the bad stuff to prove him right.
The "moderate left" has been using identity politics for political gain for ages.
BLM chanted about killing cops in several marches and the left was silent.
Transvestite Bruce Jenner is doing real harm to actual transsexuals, while being praised by the left. Blaire White and Skylar are real transsexual heroes.
As for the DNC, just search DNC CHAIRMAN on YouTube.
-
So you are gonna play the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN card. Gottcha.
I'm playing the card of civility instead of divisiveness to have a conversation instead of this being 2 people talking AT each other…yes. Our country is incredibly partisan right now. It's fine if you want to use "bad" liberals to represent the label of liberal. But if you do that, then logically, we would have to do the same for conservatives. And clearly we have examples of bad liberals and bad conservatives. So if we want this to be an overly negative and completely unproductive conversation where we're both calling both parties garbage...then fine. We're all trash. All humans suck. Happy?
Now if you want to be play the all liberals are shit but conservatives are angels card...then yeah...good luck with that delusion. That kind of hypocritical and self-serving bias would just demonstrate that you're the type of person who takes absolutely no accountability for your own faults or weaknesses and those you identify with. You may very well be that kind of person, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So yeah, of the 3 choices, I'm going with the most positive and productive definition that focuses on the dictionary definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". Namely--the issues and the political platforms--not the flawed individuals who identify with those values.
"Bad people can't be liberals".
I didn't say that, but again…Do you think it useful for us to look at the worst examples from each party to understand a concept or discuss political, social, and economic issues? If I want to understand the intellectual arguments of each party, why would I focus on somebody who is practicing the ideals of the concept incorrectly or ineffectively?
You've complained about how liberals have accused the right of being racist and so on. So shouldn't you be agreeing with me that we shouldn't be focusing on the worst elements of each side? Or are you just in DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING mode?
Shouting "white people go around" and forcing them to walk through a creek to get to class is anti-white racist.
It is. I'll admit I didn't anything about it until you mentioned it here. Based on the few sources I looked up about it, I disagree with what the students did.
The fact that the police didn't break it up, shows institutional anti-white racism at both the city and university of Berkeley.
In this case, I'd agree. Although in fairness, I think you should be able to admit that there is much more anti-minority racism in the country based on your standards of racism. I think it'd be less disturbing if you showed the same level of outrage for anti-minority racism as you do for anti-white racism. Shouldn't you be against all types of racism, or does it only matter when it occurs to a group you identify with?
If the races were reversed, would you be so desperate to excuse it away? Of course not, you'd (and most everyone else) would be screaming RACISM.
Possibly. Racism is always bad, but I think a lot of people are more vigilant about anti-minority racism, because they have less power. If white racism takes over the country, there is no real checks and balances to stop it. Racism against whites as some kind of movement is never going to be a major problem, because whites as a whole aren't going to self-sabotage themselves. At least not to epidemic proportions like how minorities have been subjugated all throughout history. Neither is good, but racism with power is scarier than racism without it. Is that fair?
The "moderate left" has been using identity politics for political gain for ages.
Well we all have our own definitions, but for the purpose of this conversation, in my mind, moderates don't rely too heavily on "identity politics. For example:
"Moderates do not have a specific political doctrine. They may hold any of the positions of liberals and conservatives. Moderates are simply people who try to avoid radical extremes by choosing the middle road between the two ideologies."
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/liberals-moderates-conservatives-8e916eda84d21598
Maybe you're talking about the "average" Liberal? There's like levels of conservative/liberal. So for example (my completely made up labels):
"LIBERALS"
Perverted Left –- Left Extremist --- Invested Liberal --- Liberal --- Moderate Liberal"FENCE-SITTERS" = Total Moderates, Political Agnostics, Undecideds, Neutrals, Apathetic Middle, etc.
"CONSERVATIVES"
Moderate Conservative --- Conservative --- Invested Conservative --- Right Extremist --- Perverted RightIf somebody is using "identity politics" for "political gain" as you said, to me that means they're not "moderate". They're "invested". They're doing it for career, personal gain, for ego, etc. That's less credible to me. It doesn't mean they're wrong necessarily, but it does mean that they've got other motivations beyond truth or doing what's best for the country or whatever. So obviously, we take that into consideration.
BLM chanted about killing cops in several marches and the left was silent.
Both the left and right are complacent, silent, and enable things that they shouldn't. By their very nature, each side has their bias right? I'm against villainizing groups based on labels and prejudice so that includes disliking racism, unnecessary prejudice of all kinds (like against cops, minorities, majorities, etc.), etc. Quite frankly, I don't get why BOTH parties don't have their shit together on that. Isn't that something we ALL can agree on? To me that's so important and basic.
Transvestite Bruce Jenner is doing real harm to actual transsexuals, while being praised by the left.
You know Bruce Jenner is Republican right?
As for the DNC, just search DNC CHAIRMAN on YouTube.
I searched as you said and I watched this video:
I don't see what's bad about anything she said? She wasn't bashing white people like the video is titled. She's simply stating the obvious fact that people who haven't been in other people's shoes need to try to understand over viewpoints and stuff. Obviously in this case, she's talking about race. But it's not anti-white or anything. Obviously ethnic minorities don't know what it's like to EXPERIENCE being white and vice versa. If she's against anybody, it's against white racists…but not white people. She just wants more people educated on minority issues, so how is that bad?
-
Catholics are far more dangerous then Muslims,
Are you fucking insane or just monumentally stupid?
-
Bruce Jenner is a republican, but it's the liberals who made him a saint for being a transvestite as part of their identity politics.
400 years ago, excluding Northern Ireland, christians were the main problem. Now it's clearly muslims that are the problem.
-
Are you fucking insane or just monumentally stupid?
LOL … I knew you were a zombie worshiper. Zero awareness of reality and history. Please tell me about your distorted version of the world you learned from a 2000 year old comic book written by some guy.
Don't worry, even Donald Trump has mastered the art of manipulating the army of religious sheep.
"Muslim Ban", LMAO...
Glad to see ICE start rounding up the felons.
Bruce Jenner is a republican, but it's the liberals who made him a saint for being a transvestite as part of their identity politics.
400 years ago, excluding Northern Ireland, christians were the main problem. Now it's clearly muslims that are the problem.
Uh, the Liberals making Bruce Jenner a Saint? Think about that statement carefully. There was a point, not that long ago, that it was decided by certain Republican leaders to drop their anti LGBTQ stance around 2014 (I know you won't believe me so Google it.) Since then, they've 180ed on this to a certain extent. I really don't recall seeing much about Bruce since I don't read Tabloids, but I am aware Bruce was being covered, so I have no idea what you're getting at here.
Clearly the Muslims, let's just take complex issues and blame their religion… Clearly the west imposing their values and deconstructing middle east governments had nothing to do with any of it. Come on now. Trump knew was the problem was when he decided to run, I'm not sure if he still does as his dementia appears to have advanced significantly. The problem is the extremists, and I have absolutely no problem, not letting extremists in, and blowing them up with drones. If you're an American, you should be worried about the police. In America, many more people are killed by the police every year than any kind of terrorist. A big reason for this, is that America is flooded with meth and heroin, and I'm totally for Trump, rounding up the immigrant dealers, and throwing them out of the country. Or you know what? They likely contributed to the deaths of Americans, so just throw them in the ocean… Jesús Malverde wouldn't approve of them, so it's probably better that way.
-
It wasn't a right leaning magazine that made Bruce Jenner their Woman of the Year 2016.
Bruce has been the darling of the left media, while being nowhere when it comes to the right media. He was on Ellen, but not Tucker Carlson; for example.
-
The whole rise of Bruce Jenner was in response to the ridiculous "bathroom bills" coming from the right. The Daily Show did the best bit on this on why it is so ridiculous. They opened a food truck in NC and every male who walked up to the truck was refused service on the basis of them looking gay. These men were likely not gay. They were just random guys trying to buy lunch but it shows the absurdity of the thinking from the right.
This week they are all bent out of shape because private businesses have made business decisions to not carry Ivanka's products. This is exactly the sorrt of thing that Republicans preach. A private business should be allowed to sell whatever they want. I actually heard Judge Jeanine on her show say to someone on the street. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy these shoes?". Isn't the real question "why should retailers be forced to sell a product that they don't want to sell?"
Ivanka is free to sell her products directly. She can sell online. She can open her own stores. She can sell at other retailers. She can sell them on Ebay if she wants. That's the great thing about America. She has freedom…..and so do Nordstrom and TJX.
-
The whole rise of Bruce Jenner was in response to the ridiculous "bathroom bills" coming from the right. The Daily Show did the best bit on this on why it is so ridiculous. They opened a food truck in NC and every male who walked up to the truck was refused service on the basis of them looking gay. These men were likely not gay. They were just random guys trying to buy lunch but it shows the absurdity of the thinking from the right.
This week they are all bent out of shape because private businesses have made business decisions to not carry Ivanka's products. This is exactly the sorrt of thing that Republicans preach. A private business should be allowed to sell whatever they want. I actually heard Judge Jeanine on her show say to someone on the street. "Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy these shoes?". Isn't the real question "why should retailers be forced to sell a product that they don't want to sell?"
Ivanka is free to sell her products directly. She can sell online. She can open her own stores. She can sell at other retailers. She can sell them on Ebay if she wants. That's the great thing about America. She has freedom…..and so do Nordstrom and TJX.
LOL @ "She can sell them on Ebay…" Have you seen her designs? It's pretty obvious to me why they are dropping her line.
Ivanka Clothing Lines:
"I look like a Pillow Case"
"I look like a Couch"
"Ugly Patterns"
"Weird Shoes"
and my personal favorite
"Blah and Over Priced"Take look for yourself. http://ivankatrump.com/collection/
It wasn't a right leaning magazine that made Bruce Jenner their Woman of the Year 2016.
Bruce has been the darling of the left media, while being nowhere when it comes to the right media. He was on Ellen, but not Tucker Carlson; for example.
Vanity Fair is infotainment/a tabloid. I don't read that crap.
I've never watch an episode of Ellen, I do have actual responsibilities and don't have the time to sit around and waste my life away mentally masturbating to TV shows.
I check the news online daily (multiple sources) and Peter Theil definitely got more coverage than Bruce Jenner from my perspective, who I honestly only remember seeing once or twice, which I didn't read, because I read the headline and thought "Who Cares? This is noise."
-
Ivanka Clothing Lines:
"I look like a Pillow Case"lol. I do need some new pillow cases. Maybe I will check it out.
I saw on Facebook photos of her stuff at TJX stores marked down to $1 from $20-$40. I don't know if they were real or not but I imagine these stores just want to clear out the merchandise and get this political burden off their shoulders.
-
Just because you don't read/watch X Y and Z doesn't take away from my point, unless you are claiming the entire universe revolves around you.
Obama obviously thought Ellen was important enough to give her the Medal Of Freedom.
I don't watch Ellen either, but I'm not stupid enough to think that because I don't watch her, that she has no influence on millions of people.
As I've repeatedly said in various threads, if the left want to praise transsexuals for their courage, then they can choose from millions of real transsexuals, not a cheap ass cross-dresser.
-
Just because you don't read/watch X Y and Z doesn't take away from my point, unless you are claiming the entire universe revolves around you.
Obama obviously thought Ellen was important enough to give her the Medal Of Freedom.
I don't watch Ellen either, but I'm not stupid enough to think that because I don't watch her, that she has no influence on millions of people.
As I've repeatedly said in various threads, if the left want to praise transsexuals for their courage, then they can choose from millions of real transsexuals, not a cheap ass cross-dresser.
No, I just don't read tabloids. I just checked Google news and surely enough there are quite a few articles about Bruce Jenner, but much of it is crap like TMZ.
Oh my God! Did you know that supposedly she is going to have gender confirmation surgery? I just saw the headline and I still couldn't care less.
-
I think we've all gone off topic. I mean I don't mind tangents or anything, but again these conversation tend to become left vs. right, and I think the political conversations needs to cover other topics besides superficial differences like that.
To me, there are other issues about beliefs and values plaguing our country like:
1. The inability of everybody taking personal accountability for the state our country is in (like how did we end up with 2 unpopular choices for President; we can't just blame politicians; we must all look at ourselves and how we let that happen)
2. Our abilities to effectively manage social differences, conflict, discourse on complex on controversial topics, etc.
3. The role bias plays in beliefs, values, the perception of reality and truth, decision-making, etc.
4. The evaluation and vetting of accurate information, sources, etc.
5. Free speech vs. hate speech; how much freedom and security do we really want?
etc.And so on. There are plenty of places to bitch about left vs. right, but to me there are deeper issues underpinning these outer ideological conflicts.
-
Free speech includes hate speech or it's not free speech. Free speech does not include violence, rioting and looting.
Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. The left considers facts to be racist (hate speech) unless it suits their agenda. Anyone who disagrees with the left is a racist, rapist, child molester, woman hater, etc, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.
Voting for someone because he's white is racist, but voting for someone because he's black isn't. Voting for someone because they have a penis is sexist, but voting for someone because they have a vagina isn't.
Despite all the race baiting, the Obama administration proved that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" is a total lie. 100 FBI agents and nearly 20,000 pages showed that it was a complete lie.
UK judges are officially required to be extremely soft on women in all areas of court proceedings, but especially in sentencing. Feminists still claim that the legal system hates them.
Making sex crime laws gender neutral is sexist according to feminists.
The above is just a small sample of why Trump won.
-
Most of you have probably noticed how SJW's like to redefine words like "rape" and "racism". They've been trying to do this with "hate speech" as well. Until approximately 2-3 years ago, "hate speech" in the US was generally understood to be any speech that incites or encourages acts of violence. No, I don't mean the made-up SJW interpretation of the word (i.e., fucking everything is "violence". Even holding the door for someone is VIOLENCE!), but the real one. The one where people are physically assaulted, killed, have their personal property firebombed, etc. Discussion of proposed policy/personal views, however distasteful or blatantly racist is not traditionally considered hate speech, though.
It has to be conceded, though, that "hate speech" is a very vague, open-ended term that's rife for abuse. It really should be replaced with something more clear-cut. I am not okay with people willfully misinterpreting the meaning to silence anyone's freedom of speech. It's always been one of my most–perhaps only--strongly-held beliefs that people in the US have the right to express the most grotesque, offensive, disgusting ideas and personal convictions imaginable. The only time it breaks the law is when it goes from expressing beliefs to encouraging/inciting direct actions of violence or other egregious illegal activity such as rape.
