I didn't, you generalized my statements to all Democrats. All I said was that Democrats were the ones making certain arguments on the news. That can't possibly be all Democrats, even if every news outlet joined forces to interview each individual Democrat we still couldn't have gotten through them all.
In other words, thank you for providing an example.
I don't know how to respond to your first point, as I'm not entirely sure what it is. This is due to the ambiguous term "reactionary", which in this context usually refers to a class of attitudes on the far right. The left-wing instance of the class is termed "radical". So, I'm not sure what you mean by "reactionary extreme viewpoints". Rewritten as "extreme right-wing viewpoints" doesn't seem to fit the context of your approach, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
The 4th Reich (Ger. Republic) is already here. Gone, if you consider post-reunification Germany to be a successor state to the post WWII Republic(s). Germany doesn't, so I'll stick by their reckoning and say that the 4th Republic still stands.
Yes, but it becomes difficult when facing rhetoric that falsely generalizes your specific statements to entire groups, labels you as racist for any disagreement, or invents new contexts to justify calling you racist.
For example, any Republican that comes out and says, "Illegal immigration is bad, it hurts Americans and we need to do something about it", will be lambasted as anti-immigrant, with Democrats all over the news talking about how we're a nation of immigrants and that this is just another example of the GOP being racist and hating American values. As if the "illegal" was never specified. An apalling affront to reason and public discourse.
Or like when Trump said that inner cities were a disaster because Democrats had failed the black community, and the response was, "look, he's saying racist things about black people!" The statement was a direct criticism of elected Democrats and their policies, and how they failed to help inner cities if not actually harming them. Could not have been less racist.
I mostly agree, but I can't get a handle on the tone. If you mean we got blunt Trump, in part, as a reaction to the PC oversensitivity that makes it impossible to discuss thorny issues like illegal immigration, I agree.
You know, there are people out there that think a tropical paradise is a more desirable destination for a vacation than a dead city at the heart of a radioactive wasteland? It's a... contested issue in my household.
I'm not going to deny that the country has had an inconsistent and often unpleasant, unfair or outright cruel attitude towards homosexuality. Despite having had at least one 'openishly' gay President. In fact, attitudes seem to express historical cycles with eras of indifference and rejection coming and going. Over the last twenty years or so, we have been in a phase of outright acceptance across the political spectrum. But conservatives are slow to change (it's in the name), and not amenable to being pushed into it. They can also be incredibly warm, loving and accepting; you just have to engage with them in similar fashion.
To them, gay marriage is a shocking and massive change to an ancient and fundamental concept, redefining something central to their world-view. It takes time to adjust, and things like protesting businesses and calling them homophobes is entirely counterproductive. The actual homophobes are rare, and painting all conservatives with that brush instead of letting them adjust and come around prompts resistance and rejection. Protesting outside a fast food restaurant and shouting insults doesn't work. Talk with them, listen to their concerns and express yours. Break down the barrier of "the other" with friendly engagement. They will listen. Show them there's nothing to worry about, and they'll come around. Call them bigots, and they will dig in and plug their ears.
I remember when he said that 2nd Amendment supporters could stop her, not that they could use the 2nd to stop her. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies there is. Right up there with the AARP. I remember when he did not explicitly agree to accept the outcome, saying instead things like, "we'll see", and, "I'll keep you in suspense". That last one gave me a chuckle, because he was busting balls and I find that funny. I also remember how it was put in the context of the 2000 election, and that he wrapped an implicit statement of acceptance in a joke about how he'd immediately accept the results if he won. And yes, I do remember him saying the entire system, including elections, is rigged. I wouldn't go that far, but there is a valid argument to be made.
But in the end, none of it matters because he won handily and it was the other side that rejected the outcome and took to the streets for... Are the protests still going on? It's been over a week.
I think you hit on something important, but didn't realize it. Part of the problem is that many people standing up for gay rights (which I support) are assholes to conservatives. Not seen as assholes, act as assholes. As in pushy, rude, mean, dismissive, derisive, vicious, prejudiced, closed-minded jerks. Instead of trying to engage conservatives in conversation, build some mutual understanding and approach the issue with a positive and persuasive attitude, all too often they attack instead. They insult conservatives, dismiss their concerns as without bothering to listen to what they actually are and label any contrary position as hatred without realizing how hateful they themselves are being. They instigate and provoke, and when they succeed in angering conservatives they say, "See how hateful conservatives are?"
You say Dr. King was an asshole, but his message was one of love and inclusion. He resisted the status quo, but he did not attack. He knew people were uncomfortable with change, so he approached them in a calm but firm manner and persuaded a nation to change it's ways. That's not the way an asshole behaves.
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
It's even worse than that. The excuse isn't "this is how Trump would do it", it's "This is what we assume Trump would do, based on the scary straw-man we invented to represent him instead of listening."
After all, it is a major upgrade that likely requires replacing a lot of hardware, including the cabling. But it's Comcast, and they've never been accused of insufficient greed. Like when they tried to rip me off by "raising" a cap that didn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the knowledge. Would have thanked you for it sooner, but I'm behind in my correspondence.
You did a terrible job of it.
Hear hear!
If I had a harem, pants would be the furthest thing from my mind. Were I to design pants to be worn in a harem, they would be crotchless.
Anyhow, I'm well aware of what people are thinking when they say "Fourth Reich", but as it's silly and wrong, I like to point that out.
In other words, thank you for providing an example.
I don't know how to respond to your first point, as I'm not entirely sure what it is. This is due to the ambiguous term "reactionary", which in this context usually refers to a class of attitudes on the far right. The left-wing instance of the class is termed "radical". So, I'm not sure what you mean by "reactionary extreme viewpoints". Rewritten as "extreme right-wing viewpoints" doesn't seem to fit the context of your approach, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
The 4th Reich (Ger. Republic) is already here. Gone, if you consider post-reunification Germany to be a successor state to the post WWII Republic(s). Germany doesn't, so I'll stick by their reckoning and say that the 4th Republic still stands.
For example, any Republican that comes out and says, "Illegal immigration is bad, it hurts Americans and we need to do something about it", will be lambasted as anti-immigrant, with Democrats all over the news talking about how we're a nation of immigrants and that this is just another example of the GOP being racist and hating American values. As if the "illegal" was never specified. An apalling affront to reason and public discourse.
Or like when Trump said that inner cities were a disaster because Democrats had failed the black community, and the response was, "look, he's saying racist things about black people!" The statement was a direct criticism of elected Democrats and their policies, and how they failed to help inner cities if not actually harming them. Could not have been less racist.
I mostly agree, but I can't get a handle on the tone. If you mean we got blunt Trump, in part, as a reaction to the PC oversensitivity that makes it impossible to discuss thorny issues like illegal immigration, I agree.
You know, there are people out there that think a tropical paradise is a more desirable destination for a vacation than a dead city at the heart of a radioactive wasteland? It's a... contested issue in my household.
+1 million points for funny!
Visiting the Zone was my dream vacation. But if it's been cleared for development, what's the point...
pfSense with Snort will block access to CnC servers. Add in a DNS blackhole and you'll be in pretty good shape, for free.
Oh you jerk! Now I feel old! I grew up on Spaceballs. "Moichedizing, moichendizing! Where the real money from the movie is made!"
To them, gay marriage is a shocking and massive change to an ancient and fundamental concept, redefining something central to their world-view. It takes time to adjust, and things like protesting businesses and calling them homophobes is entirely counterproductive. The actual homophobes are rare, and painting all conservatives with that brush instead of letting them adjust and come around prompts resistance and rejection. Protesting outside a fast food restaurant and shouting insults doesn't work. Talk with them, listen to their concerns and express yours. Break down the barrier of "the other" with friendly engagement. They will listen. Show them there's nothing to worry about, and they'll come around. Call them bigots, and they will dig in and plug their ears.
Love works, anger does not.
But in the end, none of it matters because he won handily and it was the other side that rejected the outcome and took to the streets for... Are the protests still going on? It's been over a week.
Okay, fine, just because it is, shh!
You say Dr. King was an asshole, but his message was one of love and inclusion. He resisted the status quo, but he did not attack. He knew people were uncomfortable with change, so he approached them in a calm but firm manner and persuaded a nation to change it's ways. That's not the way an asshole behaves.
Besides, he and his supporters appear to be the targets of political violence, not the prevalent perpetrators.
Even if it was a joke, he is in violation.
It's even worse than that. The excuse isn't "this is how Trump would do it", it's "This is what we assume Trump would do, based on the scary straw-man we invented to represent him instead of listening."
Just semantics.
If Chinese parents didn't want their children working at Foxconn, they shouldn't have killed themselves before their employment contracts were up.
Well, if the 'Space Race' comparison holds, a non-weaponization treaty isn't far off. I hope.
After all, it is a major upgrade that likely requires replacing a lot of hardware, including the cabling. But it's Comcast, and they've never been accused of insufficient greed. Like when they tried to rip me off by "raising" a cap that didn't exist.