371–380 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're treating this as if blacks and whites are somehow symmetrical in the context of American society. No serious social scientist would treat the two expressed views as equivalent.
But if they are not equivalent, it logically follows that equality is not the goal, is that what you intended to say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was conservatives who made a big deal over bathrooms by passing laws.
Try to step out of your own perspective and look at it from the other side. I'm not asking you to agree with the other side, just to give it a fair shake before putting it down. Consider the viewpoint of a parent of a young (10-year-old) child. That parent sends their 10-year-old daughter into the women's restroom. If that restroom can be legally entered by any person who is willing to say out loud "I feel like I am…
That's a conservative talking point, not the reality of the situation. In reality, a trans person will have to go far beyond just feeling like a woman to get away with entering a women's room; they will also have to take substantial steps towards looking like a woman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All these bathroom laws do is make life harder for members of what is already a very marginalized group. I've had discussions with psychologists and trans people. This illustrates the disconnect we're seeing between the left and the public. Trans people are a vanishingly small proportion of the population, compared to the people who have lost jobs when their manufacturing jobs moved overseas. Worrying about their d…
I don't know who you have been confirming your biases with, but you have arrived at a position in contradiction of fact. To the degree to which gender is not a social construct, it does not seem to be perfectly aligned with sex. I don't really have the stomach to dissect your Napoleon analogy, but instead I will simply note that you have made a false equivalence and suggest that laughing at or trivializing peoples' m…
You are missing the main thrust of my argument.
Transgender issues are such a vanishingly small portion of the population of course people who speak about the economy will get more traction. And people who fixate on transgender issues will rightfully be seen as fringe elements who are completely out of touch with most of the country.
Complaining about not being able to use the bathroom you want to use instead of worrying about towns and communities getting hollowed out because of manufacturing jobs leaving and never coming back does not get you votes and does not portray your side of the argument in a flattering light.
It'd be like complaining about grizzly bear attacks while getting drunk and driving home. One is a much more pressing concern.
> There are a number of issues where conservatives have taken a stance against empirical reality (with its well-known liberal bias).
Which are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tired old argument, so let me just quote Daniel Victor: Those in the Black Lives Matter movement say black people are in immediate danger and need immediate attention, like the broken bone or house on fire. Saying “All Lives Matter” in response would suggest to them that all people are in equal danger, invalidating the specific concerns of black people. “You’re watering the house that’s not burning, but you…
The thing is the statistics show the blacks should address themselvs cause the biggest contributor to black deaths are other blacks. But as with everything evil whitey is at fault
Also watch "The 13th" if you haven't.
I'm not a fan of the "alt-right" or a lot of its subculture. I also don't find it particularly "alt", as much as it is "far" right. It is a lot of the ideas that powered the NSDAP enveloped in the language of the Internet and memes, with the targets broadened from Jewry to non-whites in general. However, I'm also not a fan of suspending these accounts for controversial views if they are not harassing people on the Tw…
I guess this comment is what people said "normalizing hate speech" is all about. The "alt" right isn't a subculture sharing unpopular information against the status quo, this is a group of people spreading hate speech against other, vulnerable groups.
Personally, I'm okay with kicking Nazis to the curb. Their ideas are regressive, harmful, and absolutely counterproductive to the future of the nation. And to those crying out "oh but civic discourse, let's build bridges"...have you ever talked to these people? They aren't trying to talk, they are trying to put a boot in your face if you're not white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try to step out of your own perspective and look at it from the other side. I'm not asking you to agree with the other side, just to give it a fair shake before putting it down. Consider the viewpoint of a parent of a young (10-year-old) child. That parent sends their 10-year-old daughter into the women's restroom. If that restroom can be legally entered by any person who is willing to say out loud "I feel like I am…
> that restroom can be legally entered by any person who is willing to say out loud "I feel like I am a woman" That's a conservative talking point, not the reality of the situation. In reality, a trans person will have to go far beyond just feeling like a woman to get away with entering a women's room; they will also have to take substantial steps towards looking like a woman.
You don't even have to feel like a woman to enter a woman's room, you just have to say you identify as a woman.
"Substantial steps towards looking like a woman." What does a woman look like? A woman looks like whatever she chooses to look like. Actually, she sort of looks like me after Taco Tuesdays where I have to use the restroom really badly and all the stalls in the men's bathroom are full.
If you are demanding that a "real woman" make herself subservient to what society thinks a real woman should look like, or maybe even get a note from a doctor diagnosing gender dysmorphia, I would advise you to check your cis privilege. /s
So freedom of speech is now only for religious extremists like ISIS, Al-Nusra etc. whos supporters are free to express themselves on twitter. The more the establishement tries to fight the alt-right, the more free (and valid?) publicity it recieves. I didn't really believe in the so called "anti-white" agenda, but the more I see these guys getting censored for simply expressing their (somewhat legitimate) concerns an…
People have enough of anti-white propaganda and leeching of them while at the same time spitting in their face.
Which countries treat their minorities better than white ones? Which countries push the most for equality of gays, women, etc.? Which countries spearheaded abolishing slavery? Most of the leftist should go on a tour to Arab, Asian or Black countries and see how they treat the white minority, they're in for a shock (but probably will try to explain everything by something that happened 300-500 years ago)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I replied to your linked comment, you're conflating the arguments. If you believe that marriage should be allowed if and only if a couple bears/adopts a child, then make parenthood a prerequsite for marriage, there's no point in instituting complex heuristics to try to guess whether a couple wants kids or not beforehand.
If that were the argument I was making, you'd have a point. But it's not, although I can see how it would be misgathered as such. The essential difference I see isn't one of individual probability of parenthood, but of aggregate. Not all heterosexual couples rear children, true. But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Tha…
so, according to that principle you declared, the state clearly shouldn't support marriage (no new marriage licenses and no tax benefits to the childless couples with already existing licenses. Shouldn't the state just automatically annul the existing licenses of such couples?) after the age of 50 or 55 - i.e when that likelihood fells below whatever threshold you consider "worthwhile".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter doesn't have to be a neo-Nazi propaganda platform if it deems that unacceptable. They should (and do) have the freedom and liberty to choose who uses their service.
> neo-Nazi propaganda Can you give me a definition of this that can be consistently applied to all tweets? The issue is that you can say something is "neo-Nazi propaganda" and it will shut down the discussion and publicly shame the person because the phrase is so powerful.
Less day by day, thanks to the liberals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize that white Americans were not the only folks to own slaves or oppress a people, right? Ask yourself this, would the results be different if I tweeted that from the Barbary coast were roles were largely reversed? How about from a SLAVic nation?
And? This isn't a discussion on the slave trade. I was pointing out that the origin of the comment was by a biased source, which changes the context of the text to thinly veiled racism. And by biased source, I mean a racist idiot promoting his shitty ideas.