UC Berkeley at it again
-
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.
-
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.
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The legal definition of "Hate Speech" is extremely clearly defined. It's not really up for debate, but some people believe whatever they want. In reality, if there's any real question as to whether it's hate speech or not, more than likely it is. I think you are confusing the issue by factoring in the "degree of offense" and in reality that isn't relevant when determining whether something is, or isn't, considered hate speech.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/
If you want to participate in hate speech in an open assembly, I would highly recommend having a lawyer review the content first as you are right about that, there is a grey area regarding when hate speech becomes a hate crime. There are many statements that are protected under the first amendment, the issues arises when the material crosses an interpreted boundary of specificity. So, if one is directing hate speech at an individual, this could be considered a hate crime. Certainly instructing a party to commit murder of a specific person, on the basis of race, would be a hate crime.
-
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.
-
I think it's actually very encouraging to see those students standing up for what they believe in and refusing to let hate speech be propagated on their campus. This isn't a question of free speech, no one is preventing the guy from speaking his mind, just not anywhere he wants to.
-
I think it's actually very encouraging to see those students standing up for what they believe in and refusing to let hate speech be propagated on their campus. This isn't a question of free speech, no one is preventing the guy from speaking his mind, just not anywhere he wants to.
So you support violence as "free speech".
Would you agree with violence as free speech if it was used by those opposed to your views? I bet not.
Do I get to kill feminists who claim that gender neutral sex crime laws are woman hating? If not, why not since you support violence as free speech.
-
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:
-
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.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login