What about the parallels between Hitler and ANY GIVEN LEADER? Have you ever once tried that on for size?
But anyway the criteria you're looking at is sensationalized falsehood. "Blacks are lazy, mexicans are criminals" is minority bashing. Nothing like that has been said. You need to re-calibrate your common sense and stop being so desperate to read between the lines. Public speech is easily taken at face value because it has to be understood by everyone. There aren't any dogwhistles thrown in there, generally speaking.
Blame the system for nihilism. If you have to choose between no hope and slim hope of course you choose slim hope. It's not that people are crazy. There really is no hope for change on the sore issues inspired by some one like Hillary. Of course Trump won't likely bring much, it seems the upset he brought presents some opportunity for others to change things.
Stop being so fucking stupid. Who the president is doesn't matter. Identifying people by who they vote for is not valid.
So remember the next time you feel that the world is out to get you and that the media hides the "obvious conclusions", that it is all in your head. Your own feelings of persecution have coloured your view of the world.
I take this as a sign that you are frustrated by your general lack of success in persuading people who are suspicious about "social justice". This is one example, and you assert that it should be taken as a sign above all others and that I should change my mind based on this one, assuming that the justification for this sexist article is true.
Obviously I am not basing my suspicion on just one example or other. "Affirmative action" is nearly ubiquitous. Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid only sabotages your cause.
Anyway the given reason is not plausible. It implies that the question was only brought up as an excuse to ask women something. If we want this question answered because it is important, then we should focus on having it answered and not performing some gender equality stunt.
I'm afraid you have no point and little awareness of the broader picture.
The fact that they ask only women implies there is some reason to do that, Yet we are left to guess at what that reason is. The most obvious is that women have a better opinion. How is that supportable? Why would they?
This is the kind of thing people get slapped in the face with every day but never draw any conclusions from because the obvious conclusion is forbidden socially (forbidden by the media/education system (everyone sees it therefore it's morally correct and the truth)).
Obviously there is a unified agenda across all aspects of society to enforce the idea that women are equal to or better than men in all aspects of skill and knowledge and potential. The fact that this idea has to be enforced implies that it is not supported by truth. It implies the actual results of women professionals do not fit the narrative.
If not that, what else?
But for some people truth is what is commonplace. They assume everything around them has been vetted by nature or God or by better people. Just the fact that it exists to them is proof of its veracity. These people do not understand the world. They don't understand the invention of falsehood or its applications.
This is some pizzagate-style reasoning. Not even joking.
This is basically projecting two headlines that almost everyone has seen to form some picture that you're calling the truth
Who started saying Russia was responsible for the outcome of the election, the liberals or the Russians? The liberals of course. The Russians were just like "yeah, sure it could have been us...ahem, yes, indeed....but of course it was us! It was definitely us."
You people are really getting bad. You have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you despite their status in the system that you completely base your identity on. Not to mention the ongoing total and complete lack of critical thought, rationale, and evidence in your discourse.
The pizzagate people do believe it. They see bizarre discourse coming from a context totally alien to them and it triggers their curiosity and suspicion. Those feelings mix with stories (that by consensus are true) about pedophilia in politics and they believe they have "solid evidence" because they are at best half-educated (so is 98% of everyone).
Why is everyone so revved up to discredit people's intuition? Sure, they are mistaken in claiming they have proof, but intuition is the start of every discovery of truth.
This is all beside the real point. We have no idea about any aspect of the people who govern us. We do not have democracy and we know it. We want to do something about it but we have no idea where to start working.
Funny how the mainstream universally denounces any and all "commoners" who want to do something themselves about government reform. Not to mention how they treat any leader that would do something on the behalf of the common interest (Ron Paul or even Donald Trump are recent examples)
can you define these words in their context in our way of life or are they just things you like to say for some reason?
step back from that ledge, there is peace and understanding when you let go of your preconceptions. It's like you think if you stop stressing yourself to constantly repeat "your point of view" you will cease to exist. Trust me, if you spent more quiet time, nothing will change except your ability to understand more.
So because you have no ability to articulate your point of view you direct the people you are supposedly trying to engage in discourse with to some kind of program that persuaded you to your present view? We need to live the same experience as you do to know the truth? You are living the one true way? Where is the rationale? Where is the critical thought? Do you not see how it seems that you are just being brainwashed by this program? What else are we supposed to think when you have nothing to say and encourage people to engage in a program?
The only way to prove that you are not brainwashed and are worth listening to is to provide a grounded explanation. Assume people don't already agree with you and your ways. Describe the framework of you point of view.
I guess that's hard to do when you are totally and completely self ignorant.
those are not valid descriptions of a person. It's purely reductive. You get upset about something some one says that you don't agree with and instead of engaging in discourse to support your point of view you appeal to the mob to spread your anger. It's savagery. You ignore any potential for reconciliation. What exactly about this guy is so threatening to anything that has to do with you?
Can you even define what an anti-semite or bigot is and explain how and why that is relevant? You seem to be assuming that because some one has a contrary agenda they intend to bring genocide to everyone they disagree with. Maybe they aren't like you in that they can comprehend and work with opposing points of view.
stop being suckered into a simplistic state of mind
China is not on our political spectrum. It doesn't make sense to call it right wing. The few examples you point out are not a compelling link between the lifestyles of the right in the west and the chinese lifestyle.
Why should you be modded up for spewing rumors phrased in subjective terms? Why do I always see you modded up as far as possible for uninteresting comments? Why do I always see the same people modded up as far as possible for uninteresting comments? Moderation is broken and/or corrupt.
Do you have any sources for any of these things you claim or are we supposed to take this analysis of events no one here experienced as common knowledge? And "You have a president elect who directly coordinated actions with foreign state intelligence services to dig up dirt on his opponents". You need to provide some reference to that.
"oversimplistic reading" irony
Consider the possibility that you are going completely insane due to accepting rumor with an Official Stamp of Official Trueness as being more real than what your own eyes ears and brain tell you.
Where exactly are you getting this perception 1) of what the mainstream media is, and 2) that people are not paying attention to it anymore?
3) Why should 'the government' need to avoid using 'propaganda' when to begin with it has absolutely no consentual definition and therefore would be impossible to 'prove' as propaganda without a consensus in each case of its use (and the point of propaganda is that it is tailored to be undetectable to its targets). MOREOVER why should the government need to use propaganda at all when the 'privately owned' media machine is already the walls and ceiling of america's "safe space"? Are you assuming some separation of business and government, that is, you propose that corruption is not the default state of things and that the government is not corrupt?
4) You say we are "one thousand times more free" than China. Freedom is a linear scale that can be measured by any event that you cherry-pick? Don't you think it makes a bit more sense to have a clear idea of what human life consists of and compare each aspect of life to each country and then judge freedom?
Do you have any evidence or rationale?
Or are you just amalgamating a bunch of headlines that you read here into a totally uninformed rant?
You denounce sensationalization yet your post seems to be pure sensationalism with absolutely no substance. You seem to have watched way, way too much TV in your life and have developed an extremely warped view of what a persuasive argument should be composed of, and have been deprived of an example of what coherent thought is.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the parallels between Hitler and ANY GIVEN LEADER?
Have you ever once tried that on for size?
But anyway the criteria you're looking at is sensationalized falsehood. "Blacks are lazy, mexicans are criminals" is minority bashing. Nothing like that has been said. You need to re-calibrate your common sense and stop being so desperate to read between the lines. Public speech is easily taken at face value because it has to be understood by everyone. There aren't any dogwhistles thrown in there, generally speaking.
Blame the system for nihilism. If you have to choose between no hope and slim hope of course you choose slim hope. It's not that people are crazy. There really is no hope for change on the sore issues inspired by some one like Hillary. Of course Trump won't likely bring much, it seems the upset he brought presents some opportunity for others to change things.
Stop being so fucking stupid. Who the president is doesn't matter. Identifying people by who they vote for is not valid.
I take this as a sign that you are frustrated by your general lack of success in persuading people who are suspicious about "social justice".
This is one example, and you assert that it should be taken as a sign above all others and that I should change my mind based on this one, assuming that the justification for this sexist article is true.
Obviously I am not basing my suspicion on just one example or other. "Affirmative action" is nearly ubiquitous.
Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid only sabotages your cause.
Anyway the given reason is not plausible. It implies that the question was only brought up as an excuse to ask women something. If we want this question answered because it is important, then we should focus on having it answered and not performing some gender equality stunt.
I'm afraid you have no point and little awareness of the broader picture.
Then define qualification and prove that your truth is not propaganda also
The fact that they ask only women implies there is some reason to do that,
Yet we are left to guess at what that reason is.
The most obvious is that women have a better opinion.
How is that supportable? Why would they?
This is the kind of thing people get slapped in the face with every day but never draw any conclusions from because the obvious conclusion is forbidden socially (forbidden by the media/education system (everyone sees it therefore it's morally correct and the truth)).
Obviously there is a unified agenda across all aspects of society to enforce the idea that women are equal to or better than men in all aspects of skill and knowledge and potential. The fact that this idea has to be enforced implies that it is not supported by truth. It implies the actual results of women professionals do not fit the narrative.
If not that, what else?
But for some people truth is what is commonplace. They assume everything around them has been vetted by nature or God or by better people. Just the fact that it exists to them is proof of its veracity.
These people do not understand the world. They don't understand the invention of falsehood or its applications.
"That's just history"
Define history.
That's an interpretation of history.
Are you some kind of factilian? A librarian crossed with a reptile?
Here among the humans we tend to favor discourse supported with reasoning.
This is some pizzagate-style reasoning. Not even joking.
This is basically projecting two headlines that almost everyone has seen to form some picture that you're calling the truth
Who started saying Russia was responsible for the outcome of the election, the liberals or the Russians? The liberals of course. The Russians were just like "yeah, sure it could have been us...ahem, yes, indeed....but of course it was us! It was definitely us."
You people are really getting bad. You have no respect for anyone who disagrees with you despite their status in the system that you completely base your identity on. Not to mention the ongoing total and complete lack of critical thought, rationale, and evidence in your discourse.
This is just completely false.
The pizzagate people do believe it. They see bizarre discourse coming from a context totally alien to them and it triggers their curiosity and suspicion. Those feelings mix with stories (that by consensus are true) about pedophilia in politics and they believe they have "solid evidence" because they are at best half-educated (so is 98% of everyone).
Why is everyone so revved up to discredit people's intuition? Sure, they are mistaken in claiming they have proof, but intuition is the start of every discovery of truth.
This is all beside the real point.
We have no idea about any aspect of the people who govern us.
We do not have democracy and we know it.
We want to do something about it but we have no idea where to start working.
Funny how the mainstream universally denounces any and all "commoners" who want to do something themselves about government reform. Not to mention how they treat any leader that would do something on the behalf of the common interest (Ron Paul or even Donald Trump are recent examples)
racism
xenophobia
can you define these words in their context in our way of life or are they just things you like to say for some reason?
step back from that ledge, there is peace and understanding when you let go of your preconceptions. It's like you think if you stop stressing yourself to constantly repeat "your point of view" you will cease to exist. Trust me, if you spent more quiet time, nothing will change except your ability to understand more.
So because you have no ability to articulate your point of view you direct the people you are supposedly trying to engage in discourse with to some kind of program that persuaded you to your present view? We need to live the same experience as you do to know the truth? You are living the one true way?
Where is the rationale? Where is the critical thought?
Do you not see how it seems that you are just being brainwashed by this program? What else are we supposed to think when you have nothing to say and encourage people to engage in a program?
The only way to prove that you are not brainwashed and are worth listening to is to provide a grounded explanation. Assume people don't already agree with you and your ways. Describe the framework of you point of view.
I guess that's hard to do when you are totally and completely self ignorant.
anti-semitic
bigot
those are not valid descriptions of a person. It's purely reductive. You get upset about something some one says that you don't agree with and instead of engaging in discourse to support your point of view you appeal to the mob to spread your anger. It's savagery. You ignore any potential for reconciliation. What exactly about this guy is so threatening to anything that has to do with you?
Can you even define what an anti-semite or bigot is and explain how and why that is relevant?
You seem to be assuming that because some one has a contrary agenda they intend to bring genocide to everyone they disagree with. Maybe they aren't like you in that they can comprehend and work with opposing points of view.
stop being suckered into a simplistic state of mind
China is not on our political spectrum. It doesn't make sense to call it right wing. The few examples you point out are not a compelling link between the lifestyles of the right in the west and the chinese lifestyle.
Why should you be modded up for spewing rumors phrased in subjective terms? Why do I always see you modded up as far as possible for uninteresting comments? Why do I always see the same people modded up as far as possible for uninteresting comments? Moderation is broken and/or corrupt.
Holy shit could you put on a greater melodrama?
Do you have any sources for any of these things you claim or are we supposed to take this analysis of events no one here experienced as common knowledge?
And "You have a president elect who directly coordinated actions with foreign state intelligence services to dig up dirt on his opponents". You need to provide some reference to that.
"oversimplistic reading"
irony
Consider the possibility that you are going completely insane due to accepting rumor with an Official Stamp of Official Trueness as being more real than what your own eyes ears and brain tell you.
From Middle French démagogue, from Ancient Greek (dmaggós, “popular leader, mob leader”), from (dêmos, “people”) + (aggós, “guide”)
Okay, and what insight does this definition provide to the overall workings of politics or of life at all?
Where exactly are you getting this perception 1) of what the mainstream media is, and 2) that people are not paying attention to it anymore? 3) Why should 'the government' need to avoid using 'propaganda' when to begin with it has absolutely no consentual definition and therefore would be impossible to 'prove' as propaganda without a consensus in each case of its use (and the point of propaganda is that it is tailored to be undetectable to its targets). MOREOVER why should the government need to use propaganda at all when the 'privately owned' media machine is already the walls and ceiling of america's "safe space"? Are you assuming some separation of business and government, that is, you propose that corruption is not the default state of things and that the government is not corrupt? 4) You say we are "one thousand times more free" than China. Freedom is a linear scale that can be measured by any event that you cherry-pick? Don't you think it makes a bit more sense to have a clear idea of what human life consists of and compare each aspect of life to each country and then judge freedom? Do you have any evidence or rationale? Or are you just amalgamating a bunch of headlines that you read here into a totally uninformed rant? You denounce sensationalization yet your post seems to be pure sensationalism with absolutely no substance. You seem to have watched way, way too much TV in your life and have developed an extremely warped view of what a persuasive argument should be composed of, and have been deprived of an example of what coherent thought is.