231–240 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already illegal in 1/3 of the USA right? California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, and Washington already banned it.
No, they didn't ban “affrimative action”; they banned a very small subset of the mechanisms that have been used for affirmative action in certain contexts.
I grew up in Texas but worked in Silicon Valley for a few years. One of the toughest adjustments was going from a small conservative town to a major liberal populace. It was astonishing the number of people who got angry _at me_ for having a different opinion then they did. At one workplace I saw two coworkers get into a fist fight because the liberal was "offended" that the conservative differed on a viewpoint. Go t…
There is a reason why voting machines have curtains. If you resent people judging you for how you vote, just don't tell them.
Wow This slid off the front page fast. It went from #1 to #33 in the time it took me to brush my teeth while I get ready for work. You can tell an article hits home when people are flagging it to death to hide it.
Where "hits home" means "outrage-inducing" and "divisive". It's perfectly understandable to flag such things, in order to prevent the place from degenerating into a typical discussion board, where people are up each others' throats over trivia instead of trying to create something useful together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, wonder how many moderate liberals would beg to have him back as president now. Myself included.
r u kidding ? bush was largely more evil than trump. trump is just randomly going from one to another mostly unconsequential decision. bush went to war, purposefully let torture be instigated (while trump say ok for torture motsly to look tough) and promoted hugh oil conglomerates.. he's also the governor who order the most inmates to be sent to death row Learn to see the difference between talk and action.
If your politics, or the beliefs of those who share your politics, make your coworkers feel hurt, scared, and angry, then I see absolutely no reason to bring them to your workplace. It's basic human interaction 101. And sorry, but insisting that people grow a thicker skin won't work, because that's not how people operate. I discuss controversial topics in person with my close friends, and I don't feel any poorer for…
This is a two-way street. As a Christian, I get upset when I hear my employer promote Bhuddist values (inviting Bhuddist monks on-site to otherwise-nonreligious corporate events) while also parading their role in defeating legislation to protect religious clergy who hold traditionally-Christian beliefs from being sued over their beliefs. This communicates to me both "you're the enemy, and we are working hard to make…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I can't. And it really isn't up to my imagination either. If this 'rational' person has a 'rational' argument for wanting to ban Muslims or gays then let's hear it because I can't imagine it. Yes, you will get pushback on that.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. The ban didn't include Malaysia, Indonesia, or Algeria for instance and many other Muslim countries. There were 6 countries on the travel ban list. There are 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world.
That's a quote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know. It is kind of hard. I feel that if someone supports Trump, it is my moral obligation to change their mind. I wouldn't shame or degrade them, but I would argue my point fairly strongly.
I'd say that makes my case for me. Politics has a draw, a tribalistic compulsion that draws everyone in. That's why it shouldn't exist in the workplace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I can't. And it really isn't up to my imagination either. If this 'rational' person has a 'rational' argument for wanting to ban Muslims or gays then let's hear it because I can't imagine it. Yes, you will get pushback on that.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. The ban didn't include Malaysia, Indonesia, or Algeria for instance and many other Muslim countries. There were 6 countries on the travel ban list. There are 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it, you don't like these articles because you find the idea that govt. negligence can actually kill people who rely on the govt. offensive?
You're changing the subject. My original assertion was that there's nothing magic about taxes that makes them unusually civil, it's simply that austerity is not an issue in US politics because the government has never tried to balance its budget. I cited the UK as a counter example. You suggested I had never engaged with their arguments because I described them as based in hatred. I proved that my description of thes…
"I proved that my description of these opinions was entirely accurate. You can find endless articles like that in the left wing press, or banners at protests that say exactly the same thing. This resolved the point you raised." Sure you did.
You conclusively proved that the mere existence of these arguments is offensive to you because you seem to believe that a policy such as austerity (or "tax policy"), which directly cuts the benefits that portions of the population rely on to survive, apparently has no effects and is a mere mathematical debate.
You also consistently proved that you see yourself as eminently rational and arrogantly above engaging with the arguments which are made against your world view. Given this, I'd say that your statement "Whether these articles have merit or not is irrelevant to my original point." is incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" (which is the core conservative stance.)" Except that it isn't. People conflate all sorts of ideas about particular issues with the larger overarching political ideology. It's entirely possible to be conservative, be pro-gay marriage, pro abortion, pro legalization of marijuana, etc. There are some specific issues which the conservative ideology does fall squarely on, such as a resounding no to universal healthcare…
> the majority of political violence occurring in the US is being done in the name of liberal ideologies Gerrymandering, Voter suppression, bias against POC, denial of bodily autonomy for women, denial of basic rights to LGBTQ - all done in the name of conservative ideologies.
"Political violence" is violence perpetrated to reach political goals. For something to be political violence, it first must be violence, only then does the political angle even matter. I would also broadly separate "politicized violence" from "political violence". The first could be a war that is being discussed politically, the latter is physically assaulting someone because they hold a political view you disagree with.
Let's not play funny with words, it doesn't help the quality of the discussion. You're clearly not ignorant, so don't act that you are for the purpose of trolling. Not to mention, basically NONE of the things you brought up are part of the conservative ideology. You're focusing on "issues", which have nothing to do with ideologies. Ideologies are deeper, and determine individual's stances on issues. An individual can hold an ideology and have differing stances on an issue from other individuals with the same ideology.
Something helpful to consider might be that Republican != conservative and Democrat != liberal. While the terms are often conflated, it is wrong and done by pundits /specifically/ to confuse the conversation. Don't play into the same game.