He said on the campaign trail he'd pull out of the Paris climate deal if he were elected. So, saying "I'd sign it if it were passed" would be breaking a campaign promise, for no political gain. He'd have pissed off his supporters with the song and dance, and it's not like his detractors would give him any credit for it (and they'd be right...if it were in fact just a stunt knowing it would never pass he shouldn't get any credit).
So basically you're suggesting he flip the bird to his base with no pay off. That doesn't make sense.
Yes, like when the POTUS wins the election because of influence from a foreign nation.
But despite all that Saudi money, Hillary lost?
Or when the POTUS profits financially from money spent by foreign nations in his properties.
How do you profit on something you've donated entirely to the US Treasury?
Or when the POTUS fires the FBI chief who was tasked with investigating what he did that is widely believed to be in violation of the constitution.
FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president, so I don't see how that's a constitutional crisis...
Or when the POTUS gives away secret information to a foreign power.
The president can declassify whatever information he wants. Telling a foreign nation we'd like better relations with "hey, terrorists are trying to blow up your passenger aircraft with laptop bombs" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Also, remember Russia warned us about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston bombing...if only Obama had listened. Still, seems nice to return the favor and keep those lines of communication open, doesn't it?
Those are all constitutional crises, and given his track record we'll see another one by the end of next week at the very latest.
These are only constitutional crises in your mind, driven by delusion and (heavily, heavily) motivated reasoning. Trump will not be impeached as he's committed no high crime or misdemeanors, and will not resign, and you will continue your descent into madness.
I would start out by assuming that each so-called 'race' has the same ability to succeed and thrive in a variety of environments and conditions.
Why would you assume that? Wouldn't evolutionary biology tell us that the 50,000 years of different selection pressures in different environments would produce different sorts of people with different abilities? I don't think Creationism is real, and man is not a magical animal immune to environmental selection.
Then I would examine the genetic variation in humans and look at test results related to genetics. I'd best my last dollar that what you would find is that either there is ~0 variance between different populations, or that different populations favor slight variations in approaches to problem solving.
Except people have done the experiments, over and over again, going out of their way to make tests as unbiased as possible. African tests for Africans designed by Africans given to Africans who have never seen a non-African. They get the same results as the "biased" western tests.
Different groups of people are different. There are reasons for these things. For instance, in much colder climates evolution selects against high time preference because if you eat your seed corn during the harsh winter you die. This tends to get rid of the people who can't plan ahead and develop abstract representations of the future. The ability to conceptualize the future, imagine different options and pick ones with good results over bad results is a pretty good definition of "intelligence." Certainly correlated with.
This is reality and we have to deal with it. You can do it while still maintaining leftist policies (Charles Murray's answer to human biodiversity is Universal Basic Income). What you cannot do is look at the differences in outcomes and blame the lower outcome for one group of genetically different people on evil oppression on the part of the more successful group without evidence of actual evil. Especially in America. If over-representation of an ethnic group in high income/prestige places in society is prima facie evidence of evil, then I'd expect you to join with the anti-Semites screaming at all the Jews who make up 43% of the top 1% of the wealthy in society while only being 2% of the population. I don't think this is true, that Jews are particularly more or less evil than any other group of people. It's more likely that peculiar breeding habits made Ashkenazi Jews super smart. For awhile anyway.
Take your pick. Either everyone is the same as one group doing better than another means they're evil and oppressed them and the Nazis are right and the Jews are screwing everyone, or different groups of people are more capable than others because evolutionary biology and genetics are real things and we have to deal with reality as it stands and not resort to blaming the successful for the woes of the unsuccessful. But you can't have it both ways.
Do you honestly think no one has ever bothered to create culturally unbiased IQ tests? Do you think the researchers who study the biological nature of intelligence are evil racist sexists out to disparage blacks and women? Do you also think climate researchers are part of an evil conspiracy to fake global warming?
Why? Why are the genetics researchers all evil racists? Why don't the good genetics and intelligence researchers make better tests that prove how evil and racist the bad ones are? Why don't they do that, if it's the truth?
You, sir, are a fucking idiot, and you need to educate yourself on genetics, unbiased IQ tests, and get some counseling.
Except all of that has been studied and addressed. The overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence points to genetic differences between human haplogroups. You deny this for political reasons, not for scientific reasons.
You can have left-wing answers to human biodiversity. Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve and he's getting assaulted by leftists on campuses. His answer to biological differences in humans is Universal Basic Income. This is hardly right-wing extremism.
Understand, I do not want there to be genetic differences in intelligence between races. It would be wonderful if there were not, and differences in outcome were in fact because of primarily societal factors. That would make the problems easily solvable. Instead they're very, very hard problems because we have populations that are separated by 50,000 years of disparate biological evolutionary selection pressures. But the left sells us racial resentment and hatred with the easy solution of "give us political power to redistribute wealth" so they and their friends can scrape off the top while never solving the problem because they're not even addressing the cause of the problem: that bitch Mother Nature.
It's easy to find people who resent other races and will find excuses to think them inferior. For that reason, people who try to excuse US racial relations with appeals to science and genetics are suspicious, as most of them have had evil motives.
But it's also very easy to find people who resent other races and will find excuses to think them equivalent and interchangeable. For that reason, people who try to criticize US racial relations while ignoring or denying science and genetics are suspicious, as most of them have had evil motivations.
I don't think he ever claimed anyone wasn't human. If we're specifically talking about the transgender bathroom issue, he did not claim the man in a dress was not human. Just sufficiently over-penised to be allowed in the girls' locker room. Look at the clip, look at what Milo said and how he said it, and the audience's reaction. Do you honestly think anyone there was motivated to do violence against that individual or others?
We have two conflicting interests: 1) a person with a penis who wants to go into the girls' locker room and 2) women who don't want penises in their locker room. This seems like the sort of issue one could discuss rationally and as far as I can tell, Milo is. But you're looking at Milo's speech (or perhaps rather not looking at it? Did you watch the video clip?) and saying that it's so far beyond the pale of rational discourse that he's attempting to turn humans into non-humans to the point that they're under serious threat of death, and therefore a rational and justified response to Milo is violence against people who want to hear him. Not buying it. Is it possible you just want to do violence against your political opponents, and are therefore seeking ways to justify it?
So I read the essay you linked. Again it seems like motivated reasoning. "Violence/denial of speech against 'the intolerant' is not just a necessary evil but a necessary good, I want to hurt/shut up my political opponents, therefore let me engage in motivated reasoning to declare them intolerant."
It seems pretty selective when the left is so tolerant of Islam. Islam is the most intolerant ideology, I'd argue in the history of the planet. I mean, I think Literally Hitler was more tolerant than Islam is (and Hitler was even tolerant of Islam...he rather liked it actually for the whole 'warrior spirit' and Jew-hating parts). In terms of suppression of dissent, different faiths, oppression of and violence against women and homosexuals, you're going to get way, way, way more of that from Islam than from Trumpism/Miloism. Yet I don't see the left organizing demonstrations against Imams spreading Islam. Instead I see the left bending over backwards to apologize for Muslims when they blow up little girls at a pop concert.
It sounds to me more like you can just tolerate anything except the outgroup, and the outgroup is conservatives/Republicans. Read that essay and let me know what you think of the author's ideas.
That's entirely my point. See what I quoted and was responding to:
but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned
I didn't say the right doesn't generalize. I was responding to someone who said the "moderate left" thinks generalizing is wrong, when that's complete bullshit. As you said, people overgeneralize.
Can you link me to the essay? I searched and can find lots of people talking about the essay, but not the essay itself. I think it's still under copyright.
As for Milo, my objection to what you said was that he was "just protested." When no, he wasn't "just protested" at Berkley. People were physically attacked, given concussions, pepper sprayed, windows were smashed, fires were set, the area was made so unsafe the speech had to be canceled.
Are you saying that's okay? Is it just okay because it's a mob that's doing it instead of the government? The government was involved...the police did nothing to stop the violence. This still seems like a tyranny to me. Just have the government selectively enforce for the laws. Mobs of which the government approves are free to reign terror, but mobs of which the government disapproves are dispersed.
And I don't think "but it's the underprivileged against the privileged" works either, because even when the protestors/rioters are not paid directly (and some are), the people organizing the protests/riots are. When Trump's Chicago rally was shut down by rioters, that riot was organized partly by Moveon.org, which is funded by billionaire George Soros, who also gave lots of money to Hillary's campaign and the Democratic party. So basically we have the wealthy funding politicians to control the government while also funding non-governmental organizations to direct violence against political opponents. The mob is just a tool of the elite to use against the middle and working classes. When you're getting beaten over the head with a flagpole for going to hear a speech, I don't see why it matters whether the person beating you is wearing the badge, or just ignored by the person wearing the badge. You're still getting beaten over the head.
Dehumanising people KILLS them.
How did Milo dehumanize anyone? Again, it feels like we're just arguing over definitions. "If I can accuse you of dehumanizing, then I can use violence against you." It seems to me that the leftist labeling of Milo fans or Trump supporters as racists, sexists, transphobic homophobic whateverphobic is dehumanizing, in order to justify violence against them. They're "irredeemably deplorable" and all that. If somebody's irredeemable, what else is there to do besides beat or kill them? They're irredeemable after all.
So, are we justified in using violence against someone who dehumanizes a large group of people as "irredeemably deplorable?"
But if you look at the study, the p-values for individual SNPs range from 5*10^-4 to 9*10^-14.
Sure, absolutely, do further research. But to start accusing them of p-hacking when in fact their p-values are absolutely fantastic (ten to the minus fourteen?!) is incredibly unfair on your part. Maybe some motivated reasoning on your part here?
Yes, it must be racism because blacks from european cultures and later immigrants from african countries do much better than descendents of blacks descended from slaves and blacks in southern states.
Think there might be some self-selection going on there? That is, only the wealthier, and therefore likely more intelligent blacks from Africa and Europe are able to immigrate to the US these days?
Your entire post just reeks of racism and begs exactly the point I was making above. Racists (as you appear to be) argue for changes RIGHT NOW cutting benefits for minorities based on an insufficient and biased set of data and on culturally biased and primitive "intelligence" tests.
Except the data is not insufficient, and the tests are not biased. You are not the first person to suggest this, so researchers have gone to great lengths to make and administer unbiased tests.
Science is a real thing. Genetics are real things. Evolutionary biology is a real thing.
Intelligence correlates with income. In the US, blacks have the lowest average IQ and median income, then hispanics, then whites, then asians, then Jews. If whites are practicing evil white supremacy, they're fucking awful it, because they forgot to oppress the asians and the Jews. Either that, or are the Jews oppressing everyone, but in unequal ways? Really, how do you explain how the Jews and asians are doing better than the whites?
What race pimps (as you appear to be) do is foment racial hatred for your own political power.
I'm pretty sure when the modern left is talking about the evils of white people, they're talking about current white people, not white people who've been dead for 100 years. If not, man, can they shut up about it already?
Meanwhile, Trump did make the general statement about women about how as a celebrity he can grab their pussy--a very demeaning act--, which also doesn't make any sense.
No, it makes perfect sense. If you're rich and famous, women will want to have sex with you. They're often called "groupies." They'll let you do anything! Grab 'em by the pussy! This is crude, but entirely true, and you've heard it from every rock star and every rapper and every movie star. The difference in whether or not it's horribly unconscionably offensive or not is entirely dependent on whether or not you like said celebrity. If it's your favorite rock star, then of course he's just telling it like it is when he says bitches want to get all up on his junk, what're you naive?
Once again, selective outrage. What determines whether or not someone is insultable is whether or not they're part of your political tribe. What determines whether what someone says is offensive or not depends on whether or not they're part of your political tribe.
In a previous speech he outed a Trans girl - leading to such severe abuse, harassment and threats she was forced to drop out of college- the fucker destroyed her future.
This did not happen. The person was already graduated. And the purpose of showing the photo was not to harass. The individual had made use of Title IX to gain access to the women's locker room, while looking entirely like a man in a dress. Here's the video of the speech already cued up to the portion in question.
This is the problem. You don't actually know what you're talking about, so you're fine with not just inciting, but committing violence when you don't even understand the facts of the case.
Look at that video. Do you think that speech justifies a beating, fire, vandalism, chemical spray?
If so, then this is very, very bad, and yes, is exactly how freedom dies. "If I can label you as a neo-nazi I can use violence against you." Kind of gives someone an incentive to label people you don't like as neo-nazis, doesn't it? Two can play at this game. "If I can label you a marxist then I can throw you out of a helicopter." Doesn't sound so great, does it?
Maybe we should just swear off violence instead, and listen to what people have to say and then argue with them?
Yeah I don't think anyone on the left would extend that kind of charity to anyone on the right. If Sean Hannity had said Obama was "sucking Castro's dick" during his Cuba visit, merely to imply that Obama was submissive to Castro and Cuban communist ideology and not at all homosexual, I'm pretty sure no thoughtful leftists on/. would be apologizing for Hannity.
Slashdot Mirror
Sports in general has gotten too political. The entire point of watching sports is to escape all the shitty stuff in real life.
So, all leftists screaming bloody murder about Trump are faking it? I am fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
say he'll sign it if it gets passed.
He said on the campaign trail he'd pull out of the Paris climate deal if he were elected. So, saying "I'd sign it if it were passed" would be breaking a campaign promise, for no political gain. He'd have pissed off his supporters with the song and dance, and it's not like his detractors would give him any credit for it (and they'd be right...if it were in fact just a stunt knowing it would never pass he shouldn't get any credit).
So basically you're suggesting he flip the bird to his base with no pay off. That doesn't make sense.
Fine, hate on Trump all you want, but you're marginalizing the mentally ill with your political rhetoric.
Never happened.
Also, would have been pretty amazing if the US Army had come to comprehend and weaponize germ theory decades before it was developed and accepted.
Yes, like when the POTUS wins the election because of influence from a foreign nation.
But despite all that Saudi money, Hillary lost?
Or when the POTUS profits financially from money spent by foreign nations in his properties.
How do you profit on something you've donated entirely to the US Treasury?
Or when the POTUS fires the FBI chief who was tasked with investigating what he did that is widely believed to be in violation of the constitution.
FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the president, so I don't see how that's a constitutional crisis...
Or when the POTUS gives away secret information to a foreign power.
The president can declassify whatever information he wants. Telling a foreign nation we'd like better relations with "hey, terrorists are trying to blow up your passenger aircraft with laptop bombs" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Also, remember Russia warned us about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston bombing...if only Obama had listened. Still, seems nice to return the favor and keep those lines of communication open, doesn't it?
Those are all constitutional crises, and given his track record we'll see another one by the end of next week at the very latest.
These are only constitutional crises in your mind, driven by delusion and (heavily, heavily) motivated reasoning. Trump will not be impeached as he's committed no high crime or misdemeanors, and will not resign, and you will continue your descent into madness.
Like Morlocks and Eloi...
I would start out by assuming that each so-called 'race' has the same ability to succeed and thrive in a variety of environments and conditions.
Why would you assume that? Wouldn't evolutionary biology tell us that the 50,000 years of different selection pressures in different environments would produce different sorts of people with different abilities? I don't think Creationism is real, and man is not a magical animal immune to environmental selection.
Then I would examine the genetic variation in humans and look at test results related to genetics. I'd best my last dollar that what you would find is that either there is ~0 variance between different populations, or that different populations favor slight variations in approaches to problem solving.
Except people have done the experiments, over and over again, going out of their way to make tests as unbiased as possible. African tests for Africans designed by Africans given to Africans who have never seen a non-African. They get the same results as the "biased" western tests.
Different groups of people are different. There are reasons for these things. For instance, in much colder climates evolution selects against high time preference because if you eat your seed corn during the harsh winter you die. This tends to get rid of the people who can't plan ahead and develop abstract representations of the future. The ability to conceptualize the future, imagine different options and pick ones with good results over bad results is a pretty good definition of "intelligence." Certainly correlated with.
This is reality and we have to deal with it. You can do it while still maintaining leftist policies (Charles Murray's answer to human biodiversity is Universal Basic Income). What you cannot do is look at the differences in outcomes and blame the lower outcome for one group of genetically different people on evil oppression on the part of the more successful group without evidence of actual evil. Especially in America. If over-representation of an ethnic group in high income/prestige places in society is prima facie evidence of evil, then I'd expect you to join with the anti-Semites screaming at all the Jews who make up 43% of the top 1% of the wealthy in society while only being 2% of the population. I don't think this is true, that Jews are particularly more or less evil than any other group of people. It's more likely that peculiar breeding habits made Ashkenazi Jews super smart. For awhile anyway.
Take your pick. Either everyone is the same as one group doing better than another means they're evil and oppressed them and the Nazis are right and the Jews are screwing everyone, or different groups of people are more capable than others because evolutionary biology and genetics are real things and we have to deal with reality as it stands and not resort to blaming the successful for the woes of the unsuccessful. But you can't have it both ways.
Do you honestly think no one has ever bothered to create culturally unbiased IQ tests? Do you think the researchers who study the biological nature of intelligence are evil racist sexists out to disparage blacks and women? Do you also think climate researchers are part of an evil conspiracy to fake global warming?
Why? Why are the genetics researchers all evil racists? Why don't the good genetics and intelligence researchers make better tests that prove how evil and racist the bad ones are? Why don't they do that, if it's the truth?
You, sir, are a fucking idiot, and you need to educate yourself on genetics, unbiased IQ tests, and get some counseling.
Except all of that has been studied and addressed. The overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence points to genetic differences between human haplogroups. You deny this for political reasons, not for scientific reasons.
You can have left-wing answers to human biodiversity. Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve and he's getting assaulted by leftists on campuses. His answer to biological differences in humans is Universal Basic Income. This is hardly right-wing extremism.
Understand, I do not want there to be genetic differences in intelligence between races. It would be wonderful if there were not, and differences in outcome were in fact because of primarily societal factors. That would make the problems easily solvable. Instead they're very, very hard problems because we have populations that are separated by 50,000 years of disparate biological evolutionary selection pressures. But the left sells us racial resentment and hatred with the easy solution of "give us political power to redistribute wealth" so they and their friends can scrape off the top while never solving the problem because they're not even addressing the cause of the problem: that bitch Mother Nature.
It's easy to find people who resent other races and will find excuses to think them inferior. For that reason, people who try to excuse US racial relations with appeals to science and genetics are suspicious, as most of them have had evil motives.
But it's also very easy to find people who resent other races and will find excuses to think them equivalent and interchangeable. For that reason, people who try to criticize US racial relations while ignoring or denying science and genetics are suspicious, as most of them have had evil motivations.
"More tolerant than Islam" is damning with faint praise.
No, God's favor correlates with income. See how that works?
No, because God hates asians.
Seriously ? You can't see it ? How did he NOT ?
I don't think he ever claimed anyone wasn't human. If we're specifically talking about the transgender bathroom issue, he did not claim the man in a dress was not human. Just sufficiently over-penised to be allowed in the girls' locker room. Look at the clip, look at what Milo said and how he said it, and the audience's reaction. Do you honestly think anyone there was motivated to do violence against that individual or others?
We have two conflicting interests: 1) a person with a penis who wants to go into the girls' locker room and 2) women who don't want penises in their locker room. This seems like the sort of issue one could discuss rationally and as far as I can tell, Milo is. But you're looking at Milo's speech (or perhaps rather not looking at it? Did you watch the video clip?) and saying that it's so far beyond the pale of rational discourse that he's attempting to turn humans into non-humans to the point that they're under serious threat of death, and therefore a rational and justified response to Milo is violence against people who want to hear him. Not buying it. Is it possible you just want to do violence against your political opponents, and are therefore seeking ways to justify it?
So I read the essay you linked. Again it seems like motivated reasoning. "Violence/denial of speech against 'the intolerant' is not just a necessary evil but a necessary good, I want to hurt/shut up my political opponents, therefore let me engage in motivated reasoning to declare them intolerant."
It seems pretty selective when the left is so tolerant of Islam. Islam is the most intolerant ideology, I'd argue in the history of the planet. I mean, I think Literally Hitler was more tolerant than Islam is (and Hitler was even tolerant of Islam...he rather liked it actually for the whole 'warrior spirit' and Jew-hating parts). In terms of suppression of dissent, different faiths, oppression of and violence against women and homosexuals, you're going to get way, way, way more of that from Islam than from Trumpism/Miloism. Yet I don't see the left organizing demonstrations against Imams spreading Islam. Instead I see the left bending over backwards to apologize for Muslims when they blow up little girls at a pop concert.
It sounds to me more like you can just tolerate anything except the outgroup, and the outgroup is conservatives/Republicans. Read that essay and let me know what you think of the author's ideas.
Some people overgeneralize.
That's entirely my point. See what I quoted and was responding to:
but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned
I didn't say the right doesn't generalize. I was responding to someone who said the "moderate left" thinks generalizing is wrong, when that's complete bullshit. As you said, people overgeneralize.
But I mean it's not homophobic? So if Trump calls someone a fag, he's homophobic, but if you call Trump a fag, you're not homophobic but he is?
Can you link me to the essay? I searched and can find lots of people talking about the essay, but not the essay itself. I think it's still under copyright.
As for Milo, my objection to what you said was that he was "just protested." When no, he wasn't "just protested" at Berkley. People were physically attacked, given concussions, pepper sprayed, windows were smashed, fires were set, the area was made so unsafe the speech had to be canceled.
Are you saying that's okay? Is it just okay because it's a mob that's doing it instead of the government? The government was involved...the police did nothing to stop the violence. This still seems like a tyranny to me. Just have the government selectively enforce for the laws. Mobs of which the government approves are free to reign terror, but mobs of which the government disapproves are dispersed.
And I don't think "but it's the underprivileged against the privileged" works either, because even when the protestors/rioters are not paid directly (and some are), the people organizing the protests/riots are. When Trump's Chicago rally was shut down by rioters, that riot was organized partly by Moveon.org, which is funded by billionaire George Soros, who also gave lots of money to Hillary's campaign and the Democratic party. So basically we have the wealthy funding politicians to control the government while also funding non-governmental organizations to direct violence against political opponents. The mob is just a tool of the elite to use against the middle and working classes. When you're getting beaten over the head with a flagpole for going to hear a speech, I don't see why it matters whether the person beating you is wearing the badge, or just ignored by the person wearing the badge. You're still getting beaten over the head.
Dehumanising people KILLS them.
How did Milo dehumanize anyone? Again, it feels like we're just arguing over definitions. "If I can accuse you of dehumanizing, then I can use violence against you." It seems to me that the leftist labeling of Milo fans or Trump supporters as racists, sexists, transphobic homophobic whateverphobic is dehumanizing, in order to justify violence against them. They're "irredeemably deplorable" and all that. If somebody's irredeemable, what else is there to do besides beat or kill them? They're irredeemable after all.
So, are we justified in using violence against someone who dehumanizes a large group of people as "irredeemably deplorable?"
One that shows you don't know what the fuck a nation is? A nation is its people, not its government.
So in order to like America, you must like the US government? Do you like the US government?
What exactly do you think those papers mean? What do you think p-hacking is?
Is a nation its government?
But if you look at the study, the p-values for individual SNPs range from 5*10^-4 to 9*10^-14.
Sure, absolutely, do further research. But to start accusing them of p-hacking when in fact their p-values are absolutely fantastic (ten to the minus fourteen?!) is incredibly unfair on your part. Maybe some motivated reasoning on your part here?
Yes, it must be racism because blacks from european cultures and later immigrants from african countries do much better than descendents of blacks descended from slaves and blacks in southern states.
Think there might be some self-selection going on there? That is, only the wealthier, and therefore likely more intelligent blacks from Africa and Europe are able to immigrate to the US these days?
Your entire post just reeks of racism and begs exactly the point I was making above. Racists (as you appear to be) argue for changes RIGHT NOW cutting benefits for minorities based on an insufficient and biased set of data and on culturally biased and primitive "intelligence" tests.
Except the data is not insufficient, and the tests are not biased. You are not the first person to suggest this, so researchers have gone to great lengths to make and administer unbiased tests.
Science is a real thing. Genetics are real things. Evolutionary biology is a real thing.
Intelligence correlates with income. In the US, blacks have the lowest average IQ and median income, then hispanics, then whites, then asians, then Jews. If whites are practicing evil white supremacy, they're fucking awful it, because they forgot to oppress the asians and the Jews. Either that, or are the Jews oppressing everyone, but in unequal ways? Really, how do you explain how the Jews and asians are doing better than the whites?
What race pimps (as you appear to be) do is foment racial hatred for your own political power.
I'm pretty sure when the modern left is talking about the evils of white people, they're talking about current white people, not white people who've been dead for 100 years. If not, man, can they shut up about it already?
Meanwhile, Trump did make the general statement about women about how as a celebrity he can grab their pussy--a very demeaning act--, which also doesn't make any sense.
No, it makes perfect sense. If you're rich and famous, women will want to have sex with you. They're often called "groupies." They'll let you do anything! Grab 'em by the pussy! This is crude, but entirely true, and you've heard it from every rock star and every rapper and every movie star. The difference in whether or not it's horribly unconscionably offensive or not is entirely dependent on whether or not you like said celebrity. If it's your favorite rock star, then of course he's just telling it like it is when he says bitches want to get all up on his junk, what're you naive?
Once again, selective outrage. What determines whether or not someone is insultable is whether or not they're part of your political tribe. What determines whether what someone says is offensive or not depends on whether or not they're part of your political tribe.
In a previous speech he outed a Trans girl - leading to such severe abuse, harassment and threats she was forced to drop out of college- the fucker destroyed her future.
This did not happen. The person was already graduated. And the purpose of showing the photo was not to harass. The individual had made use of Title IX to gain access to the women's locker room, while looking entirely like a man in a dress. Here's the video of the speech already cued up to the portion in question.
This is the problem. You don't actually know what you're talking about, so you're fine with not just inciting, but committing violence when you don't even understand the facts of the case.
Look at that video. Do you think that speech justifies a beating, fire, vandalism, chemical spray?
If so, then this is very, very bad, and yes, is exactly how freedom dies. "If I can label you as a neo-nazi I can use violence against you." Kind of gives someone an incentive to label people you don't like as neo-nazis, doesn't it? Two can play at this game. "If I can label you a marxist then I can throw you out of a helicopter." Doesn't sound so great, does it?
Maybe we should just swear off violence instead, and listen to what people have to say and then argue with them?
Yeah I don't think anyone on the left would extend that kind of charity to anyone on the right. If Sean Hannity had said Obama was "sucking Castro's dick" during his Cuba visit, merely to imply that Obama was submissive to Castro and Cuban communist ideology and not at all homosexual, I'm pretty sure no thoughtful leftists on /. would be apologizing for Hannity.