Posts made by YoungGun

DUH!

You even said that feminism is about (special) rights for women, nothing to do with gender equality.

Quote please.

You clearly aren't as clued up as you claim to be.

Except I never claimed to be so nope!  Nice try!  I actually stated that obvious truth that we're not all experts at everything and all of us have blindspots and aren't educated on every single issue in the world.

If you were, you'd know about the issues and incidents I've mentioned.  In the 3rd picture, is Chanty Binx.  The quote is from another event, but the picture is from after they pulled the fire alarm to prevent the men's health talk. YouTube has videos of both incidents I talked about.

If you were paying attention to anything I said, you'd know that my position is that I'm not arguing in favor of the perverted or extremist versions of certain movements (whether that be a political party or in this case a social group issue).  So giving me examples of bad feminism doesn't really negate the academic feminist argument or female issues.  Again, your political villainizing tactics are what's being criticized, so continuing to play that same card only serves to highlight your faults.

LOL, you are such a feminist that you can't even say my position in an honest way.   I believe that EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY, hence why I'm an egalitarian and not a feminist.

Feminism is pretty much for egalitarianism.  Feminism is in many ways a subset of egalitarianism deconstructing female issues specifically.  However, if you were genuinely for egalitarianism, you wouldn't be mischaracterizing feminism in only its most extreme negative version which is the dishonest or uneducated part of the way you're presenting it.

If, as you keep claiming, that feminism is about gender equality, though you seem to change that a it suits you, then why are women only ever concerned about the good jobs, while ignoring the crap jobs?  Many feminists have advocated for quotas for good jobs, but they are totally silent when it comes to quotas for the bad jobs.

How have I changed that?  Can you elaborate?  Do you have evidentiary support to back up your claims?

Feminists are silent on the UK's Bench Book and how if tell judges that they MUST be extremely lenient on women in all areas of court proceedings, especially in sentencing.    Feminists are always silent about issues that men are treated unfairly compared to women.

Common men got the vote in exchange for the draft, thank Emmeline Pankhurst for that, amongst other anti-male things like the White Feather.   Women got the vote and 100 years later they still don't have the draft.   Where are feminists on this issue?   According to feminist lies, they'd be out fighting to be part of the draft as well.

I'm not British, so I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with what you're talking about.  Regardless, it goes back to execution of a movement =/= the ideals of a movement and/or bad representations of feminism =/= good representations of feminism.

If you stopped all your self hatred cuckery, you would see that women aren't the victims you constantly claim they are.

You saying that makes me think you completely don't understand my position.

I never claimed that ALL women are victims.  Feminism, racism, etc. in their truest academic forms (although we can agree that the execution of these principles can be done poorly) is about fighting inequality.  It's about dismantling the systems that prevent individual merit from thriving and which reward/hurt social groups based on superficial differences and prejudices based on laziness in drawing clear distinctions essentially.

They don't care about gender representation in the scummy jobs.  They just want it for all the good jobs.

I am glad that you admit that feminism isn't about gender equality, but female special rights.

That's not what I said.  That's how you're interpreting both me and feminism, and it's exactly why I say I don't think you understand the academic argument for feminism.  You're falling into the trap of anti-feminist narratives perverting/misrepresenting/misunderstanding the actual original ideology behind the movement which has always been first and foremost about correcting inequality.

If you consider fighting inequality and balancing our unearned privilege to be a "female special right"…well, that's why bigoted people are called "privileged" and "entitled".  It means you don't genuinely understand, acknowledge, or appreciate the special rights and advantages afforded to those based on superficial social differences.  The point isn't to say that all white/straight/etc. people are ALWAYS better off than their other counterparts.

The point isn't to say that they don't work hard, deserve things, etc.  But the point is to be real and admit that in certain ways, certain social groups have advantages that others don't.  Just like how groups like females and minorities have their own set of advantages.  But let's keep it real and be honest about all of them.  Denying them only pisses off those groups.  If you think you can deny somebody else's experiences and they're just going to buy into lies that oppression, disadvantages, etc. don't actually exist even though they do...well good luck with that approach.

Truths can't be buried forever with lies, delusion, etc.  You may not be willing to acknowledge life's realities, but other people will fight to death over them.  We're better off having empathy, acknowledging the various ways ALL social groups suffer and face injustices, and work together to fight this problems together.  Pitting groups against one another, playing the blame game, etc. neither solves problems and only serves to divide us and create new ones.

I'm an Egalitarian.  Then again, feminists and their cucks hate non feminists.

Denying feminism exists means you're not egalitarian.  It's fine to be passionate about male rights and issues, because they do exist.  But they exist alongside feminist issues too.  Both males and females face their share of inequalities.  Their interests aren't diametrically opposed like you keep seeming to position them.  They're in many ways aligned.  Similar to how Democrats and Republicans SHOULD be working together in theory, but totally aren't due to politics, selfish personal gain, and stupidity.

Maybe you should research wikipedia and feminists editing.

Even if that was feminist editing, the just proves my point.  The definitions used by feminism are a lot different from the definitions used by their haters trying to distort their actual message.

Feminists need to invent things that oppress women so they stay relevant.

You're not a female.  You've never experienced what a female has so how would you know?  I'm not a female, but I've demonstrated the ability to acknowledge the issues that face others.  I have yet to see you fight passionately about the issues that affect social groups other than the ones you have affiliation to.  It shows a lack of objectivity, an inability to empathize with others, and your high degree of egocentricity.

They don't fight for things outside of the west.   NO, instead they fight to maintain their privilege over men in the west.

Isn't that the self-centered Protectionist, privilege-hoarding approach you support given the people you support?    Not that you've shown a propensity for hypocrisy or anything!  ;D

Feminists need to pull fire alarms to prevent talks about men specific health issues.  They need to protest and riot to prevent a talk about male specific suicide.

Source?

Who's the victim here?   That's right, as a feminist cuck, you will say the women are the victims.

Like I said before…it can be both.  It's not 1 or the other.  It's not us vs. them.  That's why I accused you of a certain degree of immaturity and simplemindedness.  You think of complex life issues in such black-and-white ways, that it's makes you delusional

You ignore or dismiss cases where men are clearly at a disadvantage to women, because you feel that women need more special rights and privileges over men, in the guise of gender equality.

I actually haven't.  You've had every opportunity to post links to the issues you rant about.  But this topic came about because you were dismissing feminism.  Bringing in male issues is an entirely different topic.  You thought bringing up male issues was a way to combat feminism, and my point is that's a stupid approach, because the 2 issues aren't against one another.  It just shows the tribal way in which you think

The "patriarchy" is feminist bullshit, at best.  It's used to man bash at every turn.

It's not bullshit.  100% male Presidents.  Approx. 50% gender divide.  Male bashing doesn't eliminate or justify injustices to females.  Your inability to sympathize with the plight of others only leads to contributing to a world where nobody is going to care about issues affecting you.  You want the world to care about your problems, but you dismiss the problems of others and actively contribute to the world's.

You'll dislike me for saying this (no doubt dismissing any personal responsibility as you've done this entire time), but basically I can now say you definitely have an entitled, self-centered, victim-oriented, scarcity-based mindset.  You lack basic emotional intelligence and empathetic skills, and the reason why you probably are being "bashed at every turn" probably has nothing to do with being male and everything to do with you being selfish and caustic and everybody is just giving you the same treatment back.

Instead of trying to rise to the best version of yourself and make the world a better place, you prefer to sink to the lowest level justifying all kinds of bad behavior by looking at and mirroring all the worst parts of humanity and then positioning yourself as the ultimate wronged victim who now has a license to contribute to the world's wrongs, because you think pointing out somebody worse somehow eliminates your own social responsibilities.

You're basically a leech on society, you create problems rather than solve them, you're highly negative and bitter, and basically I bet you kind of hate yourself on some level as there's clearly a lot of projection going on.  I hope life turns around for you, and you become a better version of yourself, because right now you're doing neither yourself or society any favors.  I do believe you've struggled in life and you're angry and frustrated for a reason, but I think your values/intent are completely misguided and your belief/interpretations/perspective completely deluded

The fact that you ran to Wikipedia to find out the definition of patriarchy show you don't know anything about feminism or you are part of their lie.

That was just to reference a well-known popular source of information (in other words–not some extremist fringe feminist source) for YOUR edification--not mine.

More proof that feminism is nothing but man hating is the lie that it's about GENDER EQUALITY.  Anyone who spent an hour researching feminism would have to be a total idiot if they still believed that lie.   There has never been a feminist campaign that benefited men only to make us equal to women.

Well even though it's about gender equality, it's specifically more about correcting and rebalancing power, because females are in the subordinate position generally speaking.  Unfortunately, to rebalance power, that IS an attack of male privilege/power, which clearly you view as an attack or a weakening of your own power.  But since you didn't EARN certain gendered privileges, and since presumably a decent human being would want to promote a society of relative justice versus a more dog eat dog world (in which you'd get trampled on even more if you think the issues you've been bitching about are bad), that's just a part of shared sacrifice.  Male entitlement is precisely a mechanism and symptom of patriarchy that keeps women down.

That doesn't make me a man hater, because I'm willing to give up power I didn't earn for others.  In my mind, it's in our self-interest to genuinely pursue a society that truly embodies values such as justice, merit, consistency, etc.  When we don't uphold those values, we simply open the door and justify all the wrongs that come our way as well.  But in any case, I understand what kind of person you are now, so these conversations are going nowhere

AGAIN, women are the biggest voting block in every western country, meaning that anything they decide to do en mass will be done.   Hillary could have been elected by women and there is nothing men could do about it.   Add all the cuck votes in and it's the biggest landslide the world has ever seen.

It's extremely telling how you, like all the other "normal" feminists dismiss facts because they don't gel with their religion.

No the funny thing is I agree with you on that particular fact.  The one doing the "dismissing" is you.  Did you even UNDERSTAND what I was saying?  The fact that women could POTENTIALLY be the biggest voting block, and STILL we haven't had 1 female President just goes to show how entrenched patriarchy is.  When women are so completely divided and mentally subordinated where they don't WANT to run for President, they don't WANT to elect a female to be President, etc. that tells you that they have been disenfranchised by culture itself

True feminism doesn't argue that males keep females down (which is what I think you think they believe).  True feminism believes social structures keep females down.  And those social structures include other females keeping females down.  So your points only serve to complete validate my argument not detract them

The "patriarchy" is the feminist version of the boogey man.

Women are the biggest voting block and they could do anything they wanted if they voted en mass.   Blame women for not voting for Hillary's vagina.

You apparently don't understand what "patriarchy" is or how it works.  Straight from Wikipedia:

"Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property…Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal"

Patriarchy isn't about blaming men.  It's simply identifying which gender has more power, status, and/or privilege.  And men have more.  You can justify it all you want.  You can blame whoever you want.  But it's not Boogeyman, when we've had 45/45 Presidents be male and yet females make up about 50% of the population

And yes, females keep females down, and that is mostly due to a patriarchal cultural system that programs and influences values in favor of men.  It's clearly not due to nature, so that means it's due to nurture.  That means it's due to US--SOCIETY.

Justin Trudeau talked about how hard it is to get women to run for politics and he's n uber feminist cuck.

And why do you think that is?  Given how females used to often rule tribes before the rise of the more militaristic patriarchal tribes that started taking over the world, it's obviously not due to nature.  That means it's product of cultural systems which then go on to raise and indoctrinate future generations (males and females) with certain values, ideals, beliefs, opportunities, etc.

Society treats men like shit at every turn, but it's "patriarchy".

A society that treats men like shit (it hasn't treated me like shit at all, so I think "at every turn" is an overstatement) still doesn't negate the existence of patriarchy.

Just because you are a self hating feminist, doesn't mean that  feminists tell the truth.   With all the laws in just the US alone about equal pay, feminists should have plenty of exact proof that they can point to rather than vagueries and stats that run counter to official US government departments.

Did you mean self-hating male? lol.  I love being male, and I would never want to be female precisely because I know females have it worse.  If you had the choice, I doubt you'd choose being female over male–let's be real.

Laws are critical for more equality, but they hardly guarantee equal treatment.  Are you really that naive?  There's the enforcement of laws, there's the entire culture of a nation, there's value systems and beliefs where people literally can't see or understand problems and deny their existence (like sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.), etc.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you probably only know about gender issues as spoon fed to you by feminists.

Actually I studied masculinity too.  I did take a class on feminism and that helped wake me up.  But being gay obviously got me thinking about the subtle ways culture, values, beliefs, etc. create systems of privilege and power and how subtle and invisible they often are to people who don't think critically about cause and effect on a wider level.

What are your personal qualifications of knowing about gender issues?  What makes you an expert and so quick to deny what feminists say?

You probably don't know about gender biased issues outside of the bullshit your friend and other feminists have told you about.

We can always point to how males and/or females are treated badly with specific cases.  The existence of Patriarchy or sexism against female doesn't negate the existence of sexism against males.  You seem to think that any injustice done to Republicans/men/white people/etc. automatically negates injustices done to other groups and vice versa.  It doesn't.  Fighting injustice against minorities, females, immigrants, etc. shouldn't be considered an attack Republicans/men/whites/etc!  We're all supposed to be in this TOGETHER.

The only way that it possibly is a bad thing to remove these injustices is if you're viewing this with a scarcity mindset as a zero-sum game where anything good happening to others means it's hurting you.  More equality only hurts you, if you had no intention of wanting an equal, fair, or merit-based world in the first place.  If you are all for selfishness, entitlement, privilege, and power–then yes, I guess you could say helping others, fighting injustice, etc. hurts you.  Is that the case?  Is that how you think?

I bet that you didn't know that in India, the law says that women can not commit domestic violence and any sort of sex crime.   Back in 2012/13 when they tried to change this, feminists lost their fucking minds and put a stop to it.

No I don't know, and I think that's a tangent that's not particularly relevant to the issue of patriarchy.  But I'll certainly look at it if you give me a link to that topic

There are countless issues in the UK that are totally pro-women and feminists fight to maintain those special rights, while fighting to make things worse for men.

How so?

Despite all the laws about gender equality in the UK, the official judges' rulebook, aka Bench Book, states in both the equalities and sentencing section that women must be treated extremely leniently in all areas of court proceedings, especially in sentencing.

That may very well be true, but that certainly doesn't negate the existence of patriarchy.  Again, this world is filled with multiple injustices.  There are many things that are against BOTH females and males.  It's not 1 or the other.  Females or people outside of your specific social groups are NOT your enemies.  Injustice is your enemy.  To the extent you want to further perpetuate it is the more injustice, hate, division, and extreme counter-measures tend to occur.

The US feminist campaign RAPE IS RAPE, fought to expand the definition of rape.  They also fought to include male rape victims in FBI crime stats, but they lost their shit when the FBI wanted to include ALL male rape victims.  In the end, the FBI (under Obama the cuck), it was agreed that women can't victimize men.

Again, it doesn't negate the existence of patriarchy.  But feel free to provide proof for this

Anyone who claims "patriarchy" can fuck off.

Why do you think that examples of injustice to men somehow negates the existence of injustice to females.  I mean it seems to be your main argument for everything against social groups you identify with is that somebody from another social group is doing your social group wrong.  So that means they are EVIL BAD PEOPLE TRYING TO KEEP YOU DOWN but your group is full of sweet innocent angels that can do no wrong!  It's so black and white–this or that.  Have you not realized that humanity is full of flaws and injustice is everywhere?!?  That bad things can happen to multiple groups all at the same time and that all people have good/bad sides to them and manage to fuck each other over both intentionally and unintentionally?  That's why we need more people to take accountability and pursue higher values than revenge, tribal-like thinking, etc.

It's not just about kumbaya to feel good.  It's in our self-interest to uphold a moral social contract.  When we don't do that and pursue unapologetic selfishness, that just erodes the foundation of social cooperation and creates more division and internal war.  That is in none of our self-interest, and then we ALL get less and less of what we want.

I guess you either believe the gender wage gap exists, or you haven't paid attention to what the (now former) President says.    He's also spewed many other feminist lies like the college rape lies.

Let's not forget how Obama race baited black deaths when if fact they were "clean kills" like Michael Brown in Ferguson.

It seems even "conservatives" are far left leaning now-a-days.

Even if that were all true, which I think is a complete delusional perception on your part, that still doesn't eliminate feminist issues.  Again, you attacking somebody on the left doesn't make problems or issues null and void.

So who are the "good feminists" who marched on Washington?  Was it the celebs with their bullshit rants or the crowd who cheered for them?

My friends for one.  Also, why are celeb rants bullshit?  But again it's okay for you to stereotype and villainize entire groups in your mind.

Fucking hell.   We have an internet shrink and "patriarchy" screamer.  Says it all.

In the entire existence of this country we haven't had 1 female President (and I'm not talking about Hillary not winning this particular election; I'm talking about not 1 single female being President of 45 opportunities despite making up about 50% of the population).  That stat alone (let alone all the other ones) shows the existence of patriarchy.  You can make up as many excuses and justifications as you want, but the proof is in the pudding.

Unless you want to argue that females are innately less able to become President, that means the issue is social (nurture instead of nature).  And if that is the case, that means patriarchy exists.

So you tell me…why has a female never become President out of 45 opportunities?  Why that insane disparity between the fact that they are NOT minorities and yet lack so much power?  Is it nature or nurture?

Sorry, but it's the left's fault on how they are viewed.

Actually it's yours.  Everybody has their choice on how much they want to prejudge, generalize, assume, etc. entire groups based on individual and collective experiences.  Villainizing everybody else around you doesn't give you carte blanche for your (or your side's) faults.

I noticed that you have been silent in the threads when we've discussed topics like these.

If you're talking to me, it's because bad things happen every day, and I'd rather try to either understand a different point of view, understand where people are coming from, and/or comment on some obvious flaws and problems that they are themselves creating that they may not be aware of.

Like I say about feminists;  if the majority of feminists are "good" feminists, then "good feminists" must mean sitting on their lazy asses and doing nothing.   The same with the left.

Good feminists protested peacefully in Washington, work to educate the populace on feminist issues, act as living examples of the world they want to create, etc.  Your inability to even "see," care, understand them, or acknowledge all the hard work they put in (which is resisted by a patriarchal system, the woefully ignorant, and the selfishly entitled) is actually the issue.  But nothing is your fault of course.  Everything bad happens due to the left!1!!1!

In another current thread in this section, I'm being called a racist because I don't view everything as anti-black racism.   The left can't have a rational discussion.

Says the guy who can't stop himself from constantly generalizing and villainizing the entire left CONSTANTLY.

My disgust for the left is based solely on the actions of the left.   It's as if you want me to believe that if I wasn't "emotional" then I would love the left.

I can't control your unfounded assumptions.  But i suppose that too is the left's fault. 

No matter which country it is, the left panders to feeling over truth.

Discrimination is not just a feeling.  It's a truth that impacts people like gays, and it's bizarre that you hate the political party that is doing much more to help prevent anti-gay policy and sentiment.  Feel free to provide facts that this is not actually the case.

The left, you included, want to limit free speech to exclude speech you don't like, but you don't want "wrong thinkers" to do the same to your speech.

Well I'm specifically against hate speech like the type of shit Hitler pulled, but other than that, I'm still for free speech.  Can you justify why we should enable and allow non-productive hate speech to flourish?

Indeed is disturbing and disgusting, but it also shows how the Left failed to provide for American Society as a whole.

No disagreement there.  In fairness, I don't know if anybody is going to ever be able to provide for "American Society as a whole".  It's such a diverse body where we all have different goals, self-interests, values, etc.  Somebody is always going to feel marginalized and pissed off.  After 8 years of a Democratic president, the right and those wanting change at any cost wanted its turn no matter what and no matter how awful their Republican option was.  We're ALL to blame for this mess (Left, Right, and those of us who are more neutral).  It's the Kool-Aid drinkers that scare me though

The Left caters to certain minority groups, leaving others out.

Again, somebody is always going to get left out.  The right leaves out almost like all the minority groups, which to me is even worse.

It is funny how, after Trump won, the memes and mockery from the so called liberals towards those they deem as 'white trash' peaked.  My favorites are those who compare a 'liberal', all purdy and educated, and a 'conservative', basically a naked and starving hillbilly.

lol wat.  I totally believe that even though I haven't seen any of those myself.  Let's not get on our high horses.  There's plenty of memes and mockery from both sides.

Youtube Video

This only shows how entitled the Left is.

Both sides are entitled in their own way.  Can we all be honest about that?

I see the 'privileged' mocking the 'unprivileged' to whom they haven't even tried to help.

The privileged right mocks the unprivileged left too, so again it goes both ways.  Both sides should stop with the villainizing and exercise more compassion and understanding.  Not just for the sake of morality, but because practically speaking, this does not help our country.

The rich Left only 'cares' about issues that make them look good, but they are as corrupt as Conservatives.

Some do it to look good, but the broadness of your statement is too cynical and inaccurate of a statement for me.  There are a lot of big hearted educated rich Left individuals who really want to make this world a better place and genuinely care about the issues.  Can they help everybody at once?  No.  I don't think they should be criticized, stereotyped, or resented for that.

And that is when demagogues kick in, when a side of the population feels so neglected, they will turn around 180º and vote for those who promise them anything better.

Yeah that's the part that is embarrassing and disturbing to me.  We all saw how that worked out for Nazi Germany.  But yeah, all of us dropped the ball by allowing Trump to even get close to the presidency.

It's just sad that out of ALL the people in the US, this was what we got!  Really?  Out of all the Republican and Democratic politicians (and even non-politicians)…the Trump supporters thought the demagogue throwing large segments of the American populace under the bus was the best bet for ALL Americans (or even for just themselves)?

I'll just say my view of the Presidency and the qualifications necessary for it have taken a MASSIVE hit this year lol.  I mean we've had terrible Presidents in the past, so I guess I should've known better.

I'm actually less annoyed at Trump himself though and more disappointed in his enablers.  Cutting the nose to spite the face just isn't the rational answer.

I agree with the limits the Supreme Court put on Free Speech.   This includes allowing homophobes to spew their crap as long as it's within the legal limits.

As do I.  However, allowing hate speech to flourish creates an environment of oppression which is the ENTIRE POINT of allowing free speech.

So on that level, I'm for free speech except when it comes to hate speech.  Hate speech can be just as dangerous, repressive, and harmful as censorship…if not worse.  When the line between free speech and hate speech is blurry, then I think we should err on the side of free speech, but definitely keep a watchful eye on the hate speech and certainly shouldn't be so inviting of it.  I agree with you mostly except on that last part.  I feel you are allowing too much enabling of hateful propaganda which is the same kind of complacency that created the atmosphere that allowed anti-semitism to flourish in Nazi Germany.  I'm all for your vigilance for free speech, but I would prefer you showed that same level of protective instinct for already marginalized and vulnerable individuals like us gays.

In the current climate, we can't have an open and honest discussion.

So you've given up?

"Nobody intelligent" describes the left since they have been using that argument for a very long time.   We were told to vote for Obama because he's black.   We were told to vote for Hillary's vagina.  We were supposed to ignore anything bad about them and just focus on their physical qualifier.

It's fascinating how preoccupied you are by the opinions of a narrow type of Democrat and completely reactionary and emotional when that was what you just claimed the left was.  But anyways, I dunno why you'd even care since…you're from the UK.  You're acting like you had a vote in this whole thing.  

You aren't convincing me to your side by claiming that I'm being "emotional" when it comes to the way I view the left.

I'm not here to convince you.  You've already made up your mind and you stated very clearly that you've basically given up on any kind of dialogue.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to see if I was missing something in terms of your point of view.  But apparently you are a member of the perverted right.

You've demonstrated an inability to make rational points on actual policies and the majority of your points have to do with reacting to the arguments, actions, "orders", etc. from the perverted left which just shows that the ultimate driving force behind your political bias is mostly due to emotion.  No amount of logic will ever get through to such an individual, so yes now I know where you stand.

I was bringing it up to your attention just in case you're the type of person who can take critical feedback constructively.  But I'd imagine you're the type of person to get defensive, double down on your current position, and then find more fault with others.  It is what it is.

I mean, it clearly can't have anything to do with the way the left has acted for the last 15 or so years, can it.

Actually, I think that's mostly what's driving your decision making.  It has everything to do with this deep-seated emotional grudge against the perverted or extreme political left as opposed to the more moderate, balanced, and logical aspects of politics.   So we actually don't disagree on that part.  I personally don't think you should be basing the welfare of a country (and in many ways the world) on your personal grudge and hatred for some annoying people on 1 side of the political spectrum, but like….if you want to cut off the nose to spite the face...I can't really reason with that kind of self-sabotaging mentality.

My comment isn't specific to the UK.  It's specific to feminism and SJWs in general.   They are liars and hypocrites.  They don't care about things that favor them, they only care about things that they deem "good" for them.

We're all liars and hypocrites technically.  But I do think there are levels of lying and hypocrisy.  Don't we want a world where people at least try to be less hypocritical?  Just because somebody can't be 100% consistently good doesn't mean they're on the same level as somebody who doesn't even TRY to be virtuous.  At the end of the day, the original purpose of feminism and SJWs is more equality of opportunity and justice, so why would you be against that?

Yahoo and HuffPost purged male employees in the guise of gender equality.   As a black friend pointed out, they still (when both bragged about their deeds) don't care about racial equality since between the 2 there was only 1 hispanic woman and the rest were all white women.

If that's true, then shouldn't you be mad at Yahoo and HuffPost rather than ALL feminists and SJWs?  Isn't the logical thing to hold individuals accountable not ENTIRE groups?!  2 wrongs don't make a right and it creates way more problems in the world that then have to be cleaned up

The thing I noticed is that A LOT of lefties claim to not know about most things I have said about the left, despite the evidence being readily available on the internet.

Well in fairness, we're all ignorant in certain subjects.  We can't know every thing happening everywhere all the time.  Naturally, those on the left will be more ignorant about issues they care less about (Conservative/right-wing stuff), and vice versa.  It's pretty clear from the way you talk you really don't know or care about the kind of racism, sexism, etc. that occurs on a day to day basis in the US and the world.  Do you know about white flight?  Do you know about how the police were used as puppets by US intelligence agencies back in the day to massacre members of the Black Panther party?  Do you care that the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction and got the US in a bullshit war with Iraq, and that the mainstream media (which if you listen to perverted right propaganda is supposedly a part of the "left") completely went along with that false narrative?  We all have blind spots dude.  That's why we need dialogue and balance.  Also, even when info is on the internet, we all need to be vetting the info, because false and biased news is everywhere.  At the end of the day, both sides are guilty of confirmation bias, so don't delude yourself that the right isn't just as guilty or more of the same things you're bitching about the left.  I used to be Republican, but I actually found the right to be way more insane and crazy that I've moved much more to the left over time.

It shows the problem with lefties, in that they live in an echo chamber or are willfully blind to the bad things their side is doing.

Which is why I want EVERYBODY to be more open and grounded and less reactive and emotional like it's been.

As an example, there are plenty of videos of BLM protests where they chant about killing cops on YouTube but lefties won't watch them because it's YouTube.   The problem is, the mass media won't cover it because it shows them in a bad light.

I don't like it either.  To me that's a complete over-reaction and counter-prejudice to a legitimate problem.  But the problems on the left still don't justify the problems on the right.  I feel we should be solving ALL the problems, and it's hard to be confront them all when everybody is being annoying biased propagandist shitbags lol.

Criticizing feminism means I get called a woman hater.    No one cares that I'm an egalitarian who supports true equality for all.

Technically, "true" feminism is about true equality for all and being egalitarian.  So maybe that's why when you criticize it, people assume you're a woman hater.  A lot of people who don't really know what feminism is think it's about female power or something more extreme than what it actually is.  In fairness, I understand why that happens as extreme members of any movement tend to distort the image or brand of that movement to outsiders.  But yeah, it just seems like everybody is reacting extremely to the most extreme parts of various groups and movements and it's just leading to more division and civil warfare which helps none of us.

Using FBI crime stats to debunk feminist lies means I'm a rapist and rape supporter, amongst countless other nasty names.

Again, I wouldn't claim those are "feminist" lies.  I'd blame the specific individuals lying–not an ENTIRE group of people (who are definitely NOT ALL the same)!  

On another site, the topic of bestiality came up and because I was against it, I got labeled a child molester.  I wasn't labeled a child molester because of anything I did or said, but because they wanted to shut me up.  This was from a bunch of liberals who said I should be accepting of other people's views and sexual preferences.   Many of these assholes were gay.

Have you never been disliked before or dealt with assholes?  It sucks to deal with jerks but dude…we all deal with that (especially on the internet).  Just ignore the bad apples and don't let it fill you up with hate and lead you down a negative path.

Over several threads I have listed a large number of reasons why I am sick of the left, but clearly I'm only being emotional.  ::)

I didn't say you were wrong (I actually believe that you have been abused by perverted Left jerks).  But you should be able to admit…you're disgust for your left abusers has made you pretty emotional.  

@JakeHarm:

It's sad what America has become, not allowing people who think differently than you to practice free speech. Resulting to violence because of your school inviting someone to speak is despicable. This happened, what, three weeks ago? I'm still angered by it.

So are you just as critical about Trump and how him and his allies silenced protestors, has threatened various people who disagree with him, etc.?  Of are you being hypocritical and selective with how you practice that particular logic?

@SemenDemon:

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.

What scares a lot of us is there's no doubt Trump and his white supremacist allies are definitely flirting with the line of hate speech.  Is it free speech or is it hate speech?  I agree that sometimes the claim of "hate speech" can be abused, and there's a level of vagueness that needs to be addressed (with any definition of anything actually).  But it's scary that it's even come up as a serious issue.  A President and his administration shouldn't be anywhere CLOSE to being responsible for ANYTHING resembling hate speech these days.  The fact that he led a campaign as a demagogue and won is disturbing and disgusting.

Free speech includes hate speech or it's not free speech.

Don't you think there are levels of free speech?  If hate speech is included in "free speech," then would that mean you would've been for Hitler's anti-semitic propaganda back in Nazi Germany?  Is there ever a time "free speech" can be bad, or is it always a good thing because it's "free"?

Free speech does not include violence, rioting and looting.

Agreed.

Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that goes for all of reality.  But that's why we need to have open dialogue and conversations so that the American people can try to get on the same page about what we agree and disagree with.  Right now, many of us can't even agree on what is "real".  Our perceptions on the same things are so often that each side believes the other is completely delusional.  We can continue going down the track of hyper-partisanship, tribal identity politics, and complete division–or we can at least take steps to try understanding one another better, compromising, negotiating, relating, etc.  It's when we villainize one another as the enemy that leads to this political climate rather than seeing each other as our American brother and sisters.

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.

Again…can we stay away from identity politics for once and talk about the actual issues?  You have a deep seated emotional grudge against the "left".  We get it

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.

Nobody intelligent is going to make such hypocritical claims.  You should have more self-esteem and emotional maturity to re-arrange your entire politics in an extreme direction based on the judgments of some morons hating on you with stupid arguments.  Now if you're misunderstanding what people are saying and reducing their complex arguments on racism and feminism to that kind of easily debated logic, then that's a different issue.  But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were attacked by members of the perverted Left and now you've swung in the opposite direction and become a member of the perverted or extreme Right in reaction.  I'm hoping you find more balance and see that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

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.

I can't speak about UK issues, and I don't think it's a good idea that you project the situation of 1 nation onto ours.  Milo is from the UK too…Are you Milo?  :blink:

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.

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 Right

If 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:

Youtube 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?

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?

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 Britain

Basically, 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. 

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.

@koliko6:

@YoungGun:

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.

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.

2. "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.

3. " 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.