491–500 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you gay? Are you a woman? Are you Muslim?
White Christian (Mormon) straight male
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing, even with long-time friends, if I am trying to counter their hysteria (they're reading and sharing "fake news," too, and I just want to point out the inaccuracy of their statements or test them with logic, I'm called an "alt-right fascist." Honestly, the level of discourse in this country is an absolute joke. It doesn't matter what side you are on.
The fact that you are using the term "hysteria" tells me that you've been reading your own brand of fake news ("get it? They are hysterical, like women on their period! harharhar!"). Maybe if you are intellectually honest and discuss topics instead of talking points, you might get a different response. I've had some pleasant discussions with Trump supporters when we actually talked about real problems (not imagined t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like Brexit... a lot of people voted to send a message thinking that there was no possibility of an exit... and surprise... when you vote, shit happens! I feel a vague sympathy for those people. They honestly thought they were just sending a message thinking that as one person they didn't stand a hope of "changing the world." I don't think they ever thought that there would be enough "just one person" people to…
I feel a vague sympathy for those people. Feh. You always treat a gun like it's loaded. I see no reason to treat a ballot differently. The potential consequences are far more wide-reaching with the ballot.
So while I hear what you're saying, I feel that it fails to consider those that don't share your viewpoint.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are generalizing a number of points that he never spoke about though. I think those things about Islam are terrible, and would never defend it. Nor do I defend the stupidity that is christianity. But I also recognize people of the same religion have different levels of morality. Likewise I accept that women and men are different genetically, but that we should treat them equally. That said, I think silicon valley…
> You are generalizing a number of points that he never spoke about though. I absolutely generalized, and I hate doing it! My point is that the left is not immune to these types of critiques. To point to the other side of aisle as unscientific, uncaring, etc, coupled with the belief that your side is none of theses things is tribalism, and amount to nothing more than "Blue team good, red team bad!" or vice versa. Tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what if life isn't as black and white as you seem to believe it is?
What is not black an white about global warming or evolution? What is not black and white about abortion? What is not black and white about refugees fleeing war? What is not black and white about LGBT rights?
global warming: long-term economic interests should trump short-term economic interests.
evolution: science should trump faith.
abortion: pregnant women's rights should trump fetal rights.
refugees fleeing war: generosity/compassion should trump safety, jobs, and taxes.
LGBT rights: general human rights should trump straight cis-male rights.
What I hope you can see is that rather than statements of fact, these political topics are actually ethical questions: what _should_ we do? Any time we're prescribing a best course of action for individuals or groups, there will be differences of opinion. Certain facts related to the arguments may be incontrovertible (humans _are_ changing the climate, evolution _is_ supported by evidence), but that doesn't mean the _should_ part that comes after evidence is also a matter of fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing, even with long-time friends, if I am trying to counter their hysteria (they're reading and sharing "fake news," too, and I just want to point out the inaccuracy of their statements or test them with logic, I'm called an "alt-right fascist." Honestly, the level of discourse in this country is an absolute joke. It doesn't matter what side you are on.
What gets my goat is the kind of shouting down I get whenever I take any contrarian stance on non-GMO foods, or God forbid, vaccination. I know that vaccines are critical and that there is nothing wrong with them. But to not even admit the possibility that there might be a link between vaccines and some health problems is, to me, very anti-science. My understanding for science has always been to question all assumpti…
The mechanism are known, I've studied it in basic biology classes, and all doctors have studied it in detail - you can too.
The process by which our body deals with a vaccine is based on the same processes it uses to deal with any invader (and then building a repository of responses to handle such cases in future).
If you don't have the time to look into it yourself, you can consider what every other doctor and medical researcher in the world has studied and supported.
Otherwise this is a kind of unscientific "keeping an open mind" mantra. The point of an open mind is to not just be a weather vane With no fixed position.
It is to keep an open mind in order to study the facts and draw an inference based on it.
That's science. Keeping an open mind for the sake of an open mind is philosophy at best.
Furthermore, you can consider the fact that anti vaccers are not making the limited case you are. The response of people to anti vaccine, is not based on your claims of possible possibilities, but to anti vaccer claims and statements
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that violence isn't the answer. However, my main beef with Milo (and why I would support peaceful protesting about his talks) is his specific and public harassment of specific people. This is the main example https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/trans-student-harasse... . I'm personally very pro free speech(not just from a government censorship standpoint, but as a general principle) and therefore am fine w…
That used to be my main beef with Milo. Now that he's come out as effectively pro-NAMBLA, I'm seriously wondering how tasteless he's going to get before we stop giving him the attention he craves. (And, yes, I realize that his stance regarding pedophilia is most likely a consequence of his own childhood sexual abuse, but even that still doesn't excuse the shitty things he's advocating, or saying about specific people…
No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. I agree that Milo's tirade about the student was ill-advised, but it is not violence.
Also, I find it side-splittingly hilarious how people are going after his Rogan interview comments (calling him pro-NAMBLA is top-notch clickbait, where were you Monday morning when all these stories were going out?!), yet the same people didn't give a shit when Lena Dunham admitted to molesting her sister.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
censorship regarding what?
You can't say Merry Christmas. You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder. You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she". Do any of these in school, business, or government and you'll be punished.
"You can't say Merry Christmas."
First off... yes you can. However, Why would you assume a large group of people in a public setting outside of a Christian context would all want to be wished a Merry Christmas...seems unlikely to me.
"You can't say you understand homosexuality to be a disorder."
Again.. you can say that, However you would be factually incorrect. Mental disorders are "disorders" because of the negative impacts caused in the sufferer's life.. What has been shown to be the negative impacts of homosexuality?
"You can't call a man "he" if he identifies as a "she"."
You can call anyone anything you like... what you don't have control over is how they feel in reaction. Assuming you identify as a man.. how would you receive someone that always referred to you as a female, and I mean always not just as a one-off joke type thing. I'm going to take a guess that you would feel worse than "censored".