The experts weigh in.

raphjd

Your own words in the various threads show what you are about.

I haven't called you trailer trash or the like because I don't know you.

jaroonn

You support books that discuss anal sex and other sexual stuff in elementary schools aka for 5-10yo kids.
You supported giving young school kids wooden penises in a recent thread.

No and no.

jaroonn

@raphjd I never called you "trailer trash." Never.

raphjd

This picture was taken in 2012, while Obama was President.

Your "true journalism" withheld the set of pictures, then published them in 2017 claiming they were taken while Trump was President.

They knowingly lied and people like you just believed it even after the truth came out.

raphjd

@jaroonn said in The experts weigh in.:

The level of discourse at your trailer park roundtables is truly inspiring. lol

This is aimed at those you disagree with.

raphjd

@jaroonn

Umm, are you saying you didn't support schools giving kids wooden penises along with that BLM and trans propaganda?

raphjd

@raphjd

Ok, you didn't like that specific thing.

MY BAD

That being said, you do like K-5 kids being provided with porn.

jaroonn

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

That being said, you do like K-5 kids being provided with porn.

Delusional. Using that same "logic", I could say that you support lynching. You are too much...you go overboard with your assumptions. It's exhausting and boring. I do only pop in here once in a while in the hope that there is some actual political discussion going on. Instead it's all MTG, Fox, Breitbart and the like. You seem to want to hate me and think I am the devil incarnate, and that's fine. But don't delude yourself by thinking you are in any way serious about discussing politics.

raphjd

@jaroonn

Your actions and stances are more than reason enough to hate you.

Unlike you, I am willing to condemn things I find bad/evil.

Lynching is evil.

You refuse to condemn putting porn in school libraries.

You refuse to condemn giving school kids wooden penises and gay porn.

jaroonn

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

You refuse to condemn putting porn in school libraries.
You refuse to condemn giving school kids wooden penises and gay porn.

What is wrong with you? You think I condone those things because I don't explicitly condemn them? I don't explicitly condemn genocide either; or wearing white after Labor Day. But I'd think that was obvious.

Your problem is you equate discussing gender and sexuality involves hardcore porn.

My actions?? You know about that, too?

And talk about pompous...wow. According to what you write anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot destined for eternal damnation.

I bit of self-awareness and reflection would serve you well.

raphjd

@jaroonn

I know your actions & statements here.

There's a massive difference between condemning things that we are not currently discussing vs things we are.

You refuse to condemn porn in schools, in every thread we discuss it.

Clearly, you can't understand what porn is, even when it's extremely graphic.

This is graphic porn;

raphjd

@jaroonn

I know you are dumb, so I'll let you in on the secret.

The black boxes in the picture edits, so it can be published in public.

jaroonn

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

I know you are dumb, so I'll let you in on the secret.
The black boxes in the picture edits, so it can be published in public.

I don't know what's dumber. Your thinking you need to explain to me the obvious or your gullibility at accepting "reported" items from blogs as fact. You are beyond repair.

blablarg18

@jaroonn Hey JB. All your "true journalism" is, report or reportedly. That's why they call it reporting.

NYT & Rachel Maddow even disavow their own emphatic, lengthy "reporting" of supposed facts as mere opinion that anyone should know is nuts - when confronted IN COURT with how wrong they are, on facts.

A Canadian TERF (or maybe QERF) blog can be wrong but deserves more confidence than them, or you.

Rapsey

Lol... I'm pretty new here and I thought maybe I can find someone on the "other side" who's willing to have serious conversations about the things we disagree on. But it seems that ship has sailed and sunk.

jaroonn

@Rapsey-0 The people we call "liberals" today simply write their own press releases. They select their words not based on what would be an accurate descriptor but based on how they want to be perceived. It's all about manipulating the population to go along with their agenda (i.e. propaganda). They're not even shy about it... Their "scholars" (read: ideologues) openly admit that such manipulation is not only excusable by the goodness of their goals, it's also incumbent on any "good person" to do this in order to help steer public opinion in the "right direction".

Just to name a few examples...

"Anti-racism" means racism (and anti-fascism means fascism).
"Gender-affirming care" means "mutilating and sterilizing vulnerable and confused people for profit".
"Welfare" means "we force you to hand over your money so we can redistribute it to those we deem more deserving", because who wouldn't want more welfare? (same goes for "social security")
"Diversity and inclusion" means "less white men and everyone must see things our way".
"Equity" means "discrimination based on immutable characteristics".
"Safe space" means "only those who agree with us are welcome".

Would you say that what you wrote above was written by someone who wants to have a serious discussion with someone from "the other side"? It's disingenuous and erroneous. Your "examples" are pure Murdochian, vilification designed to make progressives, who sincerely DO want to make the world a better and fairer place no matter what you might think, seem like evil manipulators who want to eliminate cis white men and mutilate children. Do you really believe that's true? If so, I can't imagine why no one takes you seriously.

Before you get up on your soap box, you might want to consider dusting it off.

raphjd

@jaroonn said in The experts weigh in.:

Just to name a few examples...
"Anti-racism" means racism (and anti-fascism means fascism).
"Gender-affirming care" means "mutilating and sterilizing vulnerable and confused people for profit".
"Welfare" means "we force you to hand over your money so we can redistribute it to those we deem more deserving", because who wouldn't want more welfare? (same goes for "social security")
"Diversity and inclusion" means "less white men and everyone must see things our way".
"Equity" means "discrimination based on immutable characteristics".
"Safe space" means "only those who agree with us are welcome".

You're obviously from 1 of the 3 countries where conservatives are called "liberals".

Every point you posted is 100% true.

We have posted examples of each one that proves us right. Of course, people like you never see that because your "true journalism" doesn't post about these things because it goes against the leftist narrative.

jaroonn

@raphjd said in The experts weigh in.:

Every point you posted is 100% true.

I really feel sorry for you that you would think that there is an entire political movement dedicated to doing any of that. How scary the world must seem to you. I can only say, one more time, you are wrong. Progressives are not evil people trying to destroy the white man's world. We only want a world that is empathetic and fair to everyone. I know neither of us are religious, but I can assure you that progressives want what the biblical Jesus wanted: peace, love and understanding.

I have no more to say on the subject because you are destined to think what you want.

raphjd

@jaroonn

Maybe you should stop burying your head in the sand of "true journalism" and find out what your side is actually saying and doing.

jaroonn

@raphjd Like I said. It's a very sad world you've constructed for yourself.