Well our Constitution provides a well-regulated militia as the primary reason for owning a gun. And the Amendment was specifically for enabling the overthrow of a tyrannical government, as well as having the population armed in case of foreign invasion. Self defense is also an entirely valid purpose. So yes, killing people is absolutely defined as a legitimate reason to own guns, as it should be. Even for the guns that scare people even though they're responsible for only a tiny fraction of gun deaths (assault rifles), which are of the most importance for the reasons the 2nd Amendment exists.
Well well look who's here to yet again remind us how great FF 57 is. You got a script to help you do your job that flags keywords needing your response? Your affiliation is so blatantly obvious no amount of calling me a lunatic is going to help.
Libertarians are a large group, and like any group has its fringe nutters. Then there's a good contingent that are like me, social libertarians who have no objection to some safety nets. And as with the other parties, every specific part of the platform has some contingent that disagrees entirely. Virtually no one advocates for anarchy; the most popular position is limiting government to the roles specified in the constitution, something wildly unpopular with both major parties (if you're thinking Republicans want this, you're forgetting that the military is supposed to be for defense only, just for starters). Libertarians are mostly concerned with the state infringing on individual liberty where such liberty does not violate the non-aggression principle; if no one is harmed by an affirmative action against them (and yes, to many of us, that extends to the environment), then it should not be prohibited as a matter of law, even if others are offended. To both the major parties, of course, this is entirely unacceptable as both prefer government to control our private lives and consensual relationships, just in different ways. That's why I still consider myself a libertarian, even though I disagree with large swathes of their economics platform, including corporate regulation and taxation.
Yeah, you popping up here right away to comment is just yet another massive coincidence..
Let's review: This person, for a long time running, *only* posts in threads about Firefox 57. *Only* to argue against criticisms. The last time he posted was when I called him out, yet immediately after I do again, he just happens to be in yet another Firefox 57 thread. He doesn't dispute these facts, because he can't, comment history is public.
Is this just a fan thoroughly obsessed with 57 and only interested in posting about that? However ridiculous you think my claim is, that is more unlikely.
The problem is WebExtensions is less powerful, and being multi-process capable doesn't make up for that. If it was actually impossible to upgrade XUL (which I'm not convinced of), they should have replaced it with something that was more capable, giving users more control, not less.
Not only is it all about speed, there is a suspiciously large number of articles here talking about how great 57 is. Every little positive feature of 57 gets its own story posted. I question the motive behind this. A couple stories back, I outed a Mozilla undercover employee shilling for them in the comments, wouldn't be surprised if it went further-- something is being done to get a whole bunch of positive coverage here, when that certainly doesn't seem to be the general consensus among users.
And I absolutely agree with the 'who the hell cares about speed' comment. Who cares if it's a little faster, the difference is barely noticable... on 56 I've never encountered a website that took more than 5 seconds to load (besides when it's just lag), reducing that to 2-3 seconds isn't worth crippling the browser. They broke a whole bunch of addons, with a huge number that won't be replaced because it requires developing entire new functionality with Mozilla, and another huge set that *can't* be replaced because it's functionality that WebExtensions will never allow. Browsers long ago reached "fast enough" status, where speed ceased to be the most important factor. Firefox is also "stable enough" too. Nothing they've done compensates for breaking XUL and once again reducing user options in their neverending quest to be Chrome.
So I'll take the downloads as a "no, I can't actually provide evidence Damores studies are cherry picked and not representative". I miss the days where people didnt just downmod true things that upset them. Downmod this one too, gotta suppress facts that make you sad.
I love how when studies one side cite are cherry picked and non-representative, but the ones cited in response are definitely not also cherry-picked or non-representative, even though there's no explanation of why that's the case. The last time this subject came up, I asked for articles that provided scientific citations that refuted Damore's, and the results were pathetic. Every single study was unrelated to the actual point Damore made and instead addressed what he was accused of saying, or nitpicked on something so minor it didn't effect the conclusion, or was to back up a completely unrelated tangent of the authors. Bottom line is I haven't seen ANY studies that contradict Damore's, much less ones that aren't able to be described in the same way as his. You got better?
At least Vegas is still somewhat tolerable... Times Square was so devastated by Disneyfication people who live in NYC avoid it like the plague. As the dark corners disappear one by one, the internet will stop being like Vegas and become Times Square. The horror!
Is this one of these fake facts everybody is talking about? George Washington was a surveyor before volunteering to join the British colonial militia infantry (which is to say: Army.)
That's just like your opinion, man.
Alternative facts are just as true as real facts, and saying they're not means you're biased fake news. Sad!
Is the downmod because someone thinks lawmakers aren't constantly trying to pass clearly unconstitutional laws? Or that judges aren't always finding invisible exceptions for drugs/terrorism/$todaysbaddy? Or is it because the comment about the president made someone mad because they know it's almost certainly true?
I'm confused o_O
Uh oh, it looks like your accusations of me being delusional came from insecurity about your own delusions. Even though you were mean to me I'll try to help you... your comment history is there, everyone can see it, if you can't, first get some meds for your hallucinations then we can continue. Let me know when the hallucinations have stopped, then we can dive in to your central delusion, that anyone other than an employee would dedicate himself exclusively to defending a software feature against criticism, to the exclusion of all other conversation. You can get better!
Good news, I'm going to be ok. All of your dodging of the substance of my delusions has calmed me and reassured me that I'm right, so all is good in the world. Thank you for implicitly admitting that you can't refute my claim, therefore I'm right; it's quite liberating to confront ones delusion and find that it's actually true, and thus my mental health has never been better. You've helped a great deal, Mozilla staffer.
Ok, say I'm paranoid. Turns out that paranoid isn't a synonym for wrong. And everyone who fact checks my claim will see it's a sound conclusion based on the evidence. So I'm paranoid, and my paranoia led to investigating your post history, which revealed what you are.
That article is flawed in several ways. First of all, it's just re-hashing the idea that we should judge someone based on their skin color as compensation to them for historical wrongs. The article is explicit in its call to use skin color as a remedy. Second, it erroneously concludes that colorblindness favors white people, when in many important areas, that is simply false. At elite universities and graduate programs, as well as major tech companies, a color blind policy would hurt white people and substanially benefit Asian people, who on average out-score white applicants on SAT scores, GPAs, MCAT scores, etc. Do you think I'm a white Asian supremacist, or that maybe I'm putting forth a principle because it's right even if it might not benefit me? That error alone renders every point in the article without merit, as it's based on a faulty premise.
Let's look at some specifics:
Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.
Denies their negative racial experiences: Why should these give rise to preferential treatment?
Rejects their cultural heritage: Everybody has their own culture. The cultural heritage of a minority is no more or less valuable than the cultural heritage of anyone else.
Invalidates their unique perspective: Lots of people have a unique perspective. Intellectual diversity is indeed important, but can be achieved without using skin color as a proxy.
The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences.
This again repeats the motif that only the cultures of racial minorities have value. There's hundreds of unique cultures all over the world where the members are white; the article (and presumably you) deem these to not matter, because they're not held by someone with a certain skin color.
Finally, the article presupposes that colorblindness inherently leads to a lack of diversity, when that simply isn't true. It's again part of only the diversity of skin color mattering, and all other forms being unimportant. You can also increase diversity of all kinds by methods that don't involve saying "because your skin is x color, you don't have to meet the same standards of person with skin color y."
It saddens me that people like you are so thoroughly against the concept of equality that you believe anyone who doesn't favor judging someone based on their skin color is a racist. Maybe one day you'll realize how counterproductive that is.
And what have I even said regarding sexual assault? Nothing. That's not what we've been talking about. I said if two people are drunk, they're equally responsible for an encounter. And that affirmative consent isn't needed, because women, like men, can say no. You really think 100% of women disagree with those? Contrary to what your progressive brainwashing tells you, that's not even close to accurate. Now a lot more women favor destroying due process so that we have guilt upon accusation in Title IX kangaroo courts, but there's a clear motive for why, and you're one google search away from finding that there's certainly no shortage of women opposed to such an unfair system as well.
So once again, thanks for illustrating the logical failures that underpin progressive alienation of their allies because you think people that want equal treatment are the same as people who want to discriminate, because "good" discrimination is the only acceptable viewpoint.
Yup, keep name calling to distract people from realizing my description of your comment history is factually accurate, and the excuses for why anyone besides an employee would have such a history are far fetched.
Strange, in the earlier paragraph you said that being aware of racial differences isn't racist, and now you're calling someone sexist for being aware of sexual differences.
Are you suggesting that women are more psychologically weak-willed than men? And therefore should not have the same responsibility for their actions? I was saying that racial differences shouldn't matter because we're all equal; IQ should be the same because blacks are not biologically inferior, and the decisions should be color blind because you shouldn't judge based on differences. Are you saying that the differences between men and women mean that women shouldn't be treated as equals? (You are, but I don't think you think you are)
The average man can beat the crap out of the average women. Men on the average are considerably larger and have considerably more upper body strength. I don't know how much of this is cultural, but boys tend to get considerably more preparation for fighting than girls do. We have separate athletic competitions for men and women, just to allow female athletes to compete.
Just out of curiosity, in a situation where the woman was vastly superior in strength and fighting ability to the man she was going to sleep with (say, Ronda Rousey with a skinny little nerd scared to even talk to women), would you be arguing that that man would be justified in feeling so threatened in the absence of any actual threat, the he no longer was responsible for saying no to an unwanted advance? Doubtful.
This isn't about situations where a man is doing something to be appearing to be using force or other power. The average woman can't hold her own in a physical fight, but that's not what we're talking about. The average women *can* hold her own with a man in terms of psychological strength. The average woman is *not* so dominated by fear that she's incapable of expressing her wishes in the mere presence of a man, lacking any indication of a threat. The average woman is *not* so fragile that she shouldn't be given equal responsibility. You're suggesting otherwise... how little respect you must have for women.
Yeah, because non-employees would totally use their account to only comment in articles about FF, only to talk about how good WebExtensions are, going back 2 full pages in your history. You're not a shill, you're just obsessed with the greatness of WebExtensions, how could I have possibly concluded otherwise! It's so great lots of people make it the only thing they post about for months and months and months, without any ulterior motive at all!
While with the left, you don't have to associate with the asshats who called you a racist, any more than a conservative ever has to have his reputation tained by association with Republicans. Shit, I bet most conservatives happen to vote for Democrats (though usually holding their nose) over half the time anyway.
When it comes to voting I do have to associate with the left, because while I obviously disagree with the radical progressives, I agree with 90% of the Democrat's platform, and absolutely hate 95% of the Republican's platform. Outside of voting I mainly associate with libertarians, although I'm more of a social libertarian, favoring social safety nets, regulation to limit corporate abuse, and universal health care; not to mention disagreeing with their absurd notion that civil lawsuits are enough to protect the environment... so don't completely fit in there either.
Liberals don't think you're a bad person (racist) for being against affirmative action. (Ok, some on the fringe do, but most don't.) Conservatives don't think you're a druggie for not wanting to take tax money away from the public to spend on locking up marijuana users, and don't think you're a bad person for opposing new laws to prevent gays from marring each other. (Ok, some on the fringe do, but most don't.)
It's a lot more than a fringe that thinks you're racist for opposing AA. With gay marriage, it's a lot more than a fringe element that thinks opposing it makes someone a bad person, and I agree: Let's take the best possible reason for opposing it, that they think it's damaging to society because it weakens the family, and set aside whether the bible is or is not a good thing to base your morals on. Opposing gay marriage would be not a moral issue, but sadomoralism- denying equal protection to someone under the law because of private actions that directly impact no one else. And forget drug issues, both parties are appallingly horrible.
These are Democrat and Republican positions much moreso than they are liberal and conservative positions, and even in the parties, there is immense division.
Indeed, and that's where the trouble is coming from. While the right seems to tolerate minor differences on a few issues, the progressives on the left have exactly zero tolerance for anyone that's not 100% on board with their nonsense. Take that one professor at Evergreen State... the extreme progressives declared that for one day, all white people should stay off the campus. The professor, who was very liberal and supported all of the progressive identity politics before that, thought this wasn't right. The students went apeshit on him, calling him every evil name in the book, demanding he be fired, disrupting his classes, literally screaming at the president because the prof wasn't fired... all simply because he didn't think minority students should ban white people from campus for a day. And that's par for the course; attempt any rationality or dissent, and you're treated no better than David Duke.
The bigger problem is that that group has essentially captured the Democratic Party.
You think people who argue that affirmative action, diversity quotas, and progressive stacking are wrong because they judge on the basis of skin color, thus violating equality, don't get called Nazis and assorted other terms for it?
You're trying to use "historical context" to say that because some people were judged by the color of their skin to their detriment, they should now be judged by the color of their skin to their benefit, and vice versa, to compensate for the past. Once again, two wrongs do not make a right, and people should never be judged by the color of their skin in a world where we're all equal. Even if you disagree, its absurd to suggest this is a racist attitude.
There's just no way of getting around the fact you have to study the achievement gap to correct it, and the extreme hostility towards that and inability to do it without being labeled racist is exactly the problem.
Men are expected to be able to say no if they don't want something, and arguing women are so scared of men, in situations where there is no objective threat, that they have to continually be questioned because they lack the ability to say no, is highly insulting, or at least should be if you're not saying they're weaker willed or not equally responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
Well our Constitution provides a well-regulated militia as the primary reason for owning a gun. And the Amendment was specifically for enabling the overthrow of a tyrannical government, as well as having the population armed in case of foreign invasion. Self defense is also an entirely valid purpose. So yes, killing people is absolutely defined as a legitimate reason to own guns, as it should be. Even for the guns that scare people even though they're responsible for only a tiny fraction of gun deaths (assault rifles), which are of the most importance for the reasons the 2nd Amendment exists.
Well well look who's here to yet again remind us how great FF 57 is. You got a script to help you do your job that flags keywords needing your response? Your affiliation is so blatantly obvious no amount of calling me a lunatic is going to help.
Libertarians are a large group, and like any group has its fringe nutters. Then there's a good contingent that are like me, social libertarians who have no objection to some safety nets. And as with the other parties, every specific part of the platform has some contingent that disagrees entirely. Virtually no one advocates for anarchy; the most popular position is limiting government to the roles specified in the constitution, something wildly unpopular with both major parties (if you're thinking Republicans want this, you're forgetting that the military is supposed to be for defense only, just for starters). Libertarians are mostly concerned with the state infringing on individual liberty where such liberty does not violate the non-aggression principle; if no one is harmed by an affirmative action against them (and yes, to many of us, that extends to the environment), then it should not be prohibited as a matter of law, even if others are offended. To both the major parties, of course, this is entirely unacceptable as both prefer government to control our private lives and consensual relationships, just in different ways. That's why I still consider myself a libertarian, even though I disagree with large swathes of their economics platform, including corporate regulation and taxation.
Yeah, you popping up here right away to comment is just yet another massive coincidence..
Let's review: This person, for a long time running, *only* posts in threads about Firefox 57. *Only* to argue against criticisms. The last time he posted was when I called him out, yet immediately after I do again, he just happens to be in yet another Firefox 57 thread. He doesn't dispute these facts, because he can't, comment history is public.
Is this just a fan thoroughly obsessed with 57 and only interested in posting about that? However ridiculous you think my claim is, that is more unlikely.
The problem is WebExtensions is less powerful, and being multi-process capable doesn't make up for that. If it was actually impossible to upgrade XUL (which I'm not convinced of), they should have replaced it with something that was more capable, giving users more control, not less.
Not only is it all about speed, there is a suspiciously large number of articles here talking about how great 57 is. Every little positive feature of 57 gets its own story posted. I question the motive behind this. A couple stories back, I outed a Mozilla undercover employee shilling for them in the comments, wouldn't be surprised if it went further-- something is being done to get a whole bunch of positive coverage here, when that certainly doesn't seem to be the general consensus among users.
And I absolutely agree with the 'who the hell cares about speed' comment. Who cares if it's a little faster, the difference is barely noticable... on 56 I've never encountered a website that took more than 5 seconds to load (besides when it's just lag), reducing that to 2-3 seconds isn't worth crippling the browser. They broke a whole bunch of addons, with a huge number that won't be replaced because it requires developing entire new functionality with Mozilla, and another huge set that *can't* be replaced because it's functionality that WebExtensions will never allow. Browsers long ago reached "fast enough" status, where speed ceased to be the most important factor. Firefox is also "stable enough" too. Nothing they've done compensates for breaking XUL and once again reducing user options in their neverending quest to be Chrome.
So I'll take the downloads as a "no, I can't actually provide evidence Damores studies are cherry picked and not representative". I miss the days where people didnt just downmod true things that upset them. Downmod this one too, gotta suppress facts that make you sad.
I love how when studies one side cite are cherry picked and non-representative, but the ones cited in response are definitely not also cherry-picked or non-representative, even though there's no explanation of why that's the case. The last time this subject came up, I asked for articles that provided scientific citations that refuted Damore's, and the results were pathetic. Every single study was unrelated to the actual point Damore made and instead addressed what he was accused of saying, or nitpicked on something so minor it didn't effect the conclusion, or was to back up a completely unrelated tangent of the authors. Bottom line is I haven't seen ANY studies that contradict Damore's, much less ones that aren't able to be described in the same way as his. You got better?
If only I had the sophistication of argument to just cry "delusional" over hard facts I can't refute.
At least Vegas is still somewhat tolerable... Times Square was so devastated by Disneyfication people who live in NYC avoid it like the plague. As the dark corners disappear one by one, the internet will stop being like Vegas and become Times Square. The horror!
Is this one of these fake facts everybody is talking about? George Washington was a surveyor before volunteering to join the British colonial militia infantry (which is to say: Army.)
That's just like your opinion, man.
Alternative facts are just as true as real facts, and saying they're not means you're biased fake news. Sad!
Gee look at that, acknowledging you can't be cured, and still having empathy for me having to deal with you. Class act.
Is the downmod because someone thinks lawmakers aren't constantly trying to pass clearly unconstitutional laws? Or that judges aren't always finding invisible exceptions for drugs/terrorism/$todaysbaddy? Or is it because the comment about the president made someone mad because they know it's almost certainly true?
I'm confused o_O
Uh oh, it looks like your accusations of me being delusional came from insecurity about your own delusions. Even though you were mean to me I'll try to help you... your comment history is there, everyone can see it, if you can't, first get some meds for your hallucinations then we can continue. Let me know when the hallucinations have stopped, then we can dive in to your central delusion, that anyone other than an employee would dedicate himself exclusively to defending a software feature against criticism, to the exclusion of all other conversation. You can get better!
Good news, I'm going to be ok. All of your dodging of the substance of my delusions has calmed me and reassured me that I'm right, so all is good in the world. Thank you for implicitly admitting that you can't refute my claim, therefore I'm right; it's quite liberating to confront ones delusion and find that it's actually true, and thus my mental health has never been better. You've helped a great deal, Mozilla staffer.
As a choice between letting a criminal go free in the name of "accuracy" or jailing an innocent, we need to jail the innocent.
If the crime in question has to do with sex, then yes a lot of people seem to think that. Can't have reasonable doubt getting in the way and all.
The Constitution is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.
At least that's what our lawmakers and judges think. And our president almost certainly hasn't read it.
Ok, say I'm paranoid. Turns out that paranoid isn't a synonym for wrong. And everyone who fact checks my claim will see it's a sound conclusion based on the evidence. So I'm paranoid, and my paranoia led to investigating your post history, which revealed what you are.
Let's look at some specifics:
Colorblindness creates a society that denies their negative racial experiences, rejects their cultural heritage, and invalidates their unique perspectives.
Denies their negative racial experiences: Why should these give rise to preferential treatment?
Rejects their cultural heritage: Everybody has their own culture. The cultural heritage of a minority is no more or less valuable than the cultural heritage of anyone else.
Invalidates their unique perspective: Lots of people have a unique perspective. Intellectual diversity is indeed important, but can be achieved without using skin color as a proxy.
The alternative to colorblindness is multiculturalism, an ideology that acknowledges, highlights, and celebrates ethnoracial differences.
This again repeats the motif that only the cultures of racial minorities have value. There's hundreds of unique cultures all over the world where the members are white; the article (and presumably you) deem these to not matter, because they're not held by someone with a certain skin color.
Finally, the article presupposes that colorblindness inherently leads to a lack of diversity, when that simply isn't true. It's again part of only the diversity of skin color mattering, and all other forms being unimportant. You can also increase diversity of all kinds by methods that don't involve saying "because your skin is x color, you don't have to meet the same standards of person with skin color y."
It saddens me that people like you are so thoroughly against the concept of equality that you believe anyone who doesn't favor judging someone based on their skin color is a racist. Maybe one day you'll realize how counterproductive that is.
And what have I even said regarding sexual assault? Nothing. That's not what we've been talking about. I said if two people are drunk, they're equally responsible for an encounter. And that affirmative consent isn't needed, because women, like men, can say no. You really think 100% of women disagree with those? Contrary to what your progressive brainwashing tells you, that's not even close to accurate. Now a lot more women favor destroying due process so that we have guilt upon accusation in Title IX kangaroo courts, but there's a clear motive for why, and you're one google search away from finding that there's certainly no shortage of women opposed to such an unfair system as well.
So once again, thanks for illustrating the logical failures that underpin progressive alienation of their allies because you think people that want equal treatment are the same as people who want to discriminate, because "good" discrimination is the only acceptable viewpoint.
Yup, keep name calling to distract people from realizing my description of your comment history is factually accurate, and the excuses for why anyone besides an employee would have such a history are far fetched.
Strange, in the earlier paragraph you said that being aware of racial differences isn't racist, and now you're calling someone sexist for being aware of sexual differences.
Are you suggesting that women are more psychologically weak-willed than men? And therefore should not have the same responsibility for their actions? I was saying that racial differences shouldn't matter because we're all equal; IQ should be the same because blacks are not biologically inferior, and the decisions should be color blind because you shouldn't judge based on differences. Are you saying that the differences between men and women mean that women shouldn't be treated as equals? (You are, but I don't think you think you are)
The average man can beat the crap out of the average women. Men on the average are considerably larger and have considerably more upper body strength. I don't know how much of this is cultural, but boys tend to get considerably more preparation for fighting than girls do. We have separate athletic competitions for men and women, just to allow female athletes to compete.
Just out of curiosity, in a situation where the woman was vastly superior in strength and fighting ability to the man she was going to sleep with (say, Ronda Rousey with a skinny little nerd scared to even talk to women), would you be arguing that that man would be justified in feeling so threatened in the absence of any actual threat, the he no longer was responsible for saying no to an unwanted advance? Doubtful.
This isn't about situations where a man is doing something to be appearing to be using force or other power. The average woman can't hold her own in a physical fight, but that's not what we're talking about. The average women *can* hold her own with a man in terms of psychological strength. The average woman is *not* so dominated by fear that she's incapable of expressing her wishes in the mere presence of a man, lacking any indication of a threat. The average woman is *not* so fragile that she shouldn't be given equal responsibility. You're suggesting otherwise... how little respect you must have for women.
Yeah, because non-employees would totally use their account to only comment in articles about FF, only to talk about how good WebExtensions are, going back 2 full pages in your history. You're not a shill, you're just obsessed with the greatness of WebExtensions, how could I have possibly concluded otherwise! It's so great lots of people make it the only thing they post about for months and months and months, without any ulterior motive at all!
While with the left, you don't have to associate with the asshats who called you a racist, any more than a conservative ever has to have his reputation tained by association with Republicans. Shit, I bet most conservatives happen to vote for Democrats (though usually holding their nose) over half the time anyway.
When it comes to voting I do have to associate with the left, because while I obviously disagree with the radical progressives, I agree with 90% of the Democrat's platform, and absolutely hate 95% of the Republican's platform. Outside of voting I mainly associate with libertarians, although I'm more of a social libertarian, favoring social safety nets, regulation to limit corporate abuse, and universal health care; not to mention disagreeing with their absurd notion that civil lawsuits are enough to protect the environment... so don't completely fit in there either.
Liberals don't think you're a bad person (racist) for being against affirmative action. (Ok, some on the fringe do, but most don't.) Conservatives don't think you're a druggie for not wanting to take tax money away from the public to spend on locking up marijuana users, and don't think you're a bad person for opposing new laws to prevent gays from marring each other. (Ok, some on the fringe do, but most don't.)
It's a lot more than a fringe that thinks you're racist for opposing AA. With gay marriage, it's a lot more than a fringe element that thinks opposing it makes someone a bad person, and I agree: Let's take the best possible reason for opposing it, that they think it's damaging to society because it weakens the family, and set aside whether the bible is or is not a good thing to base your morals on. Opposing gay marriage would be not a moral issue, but sadomoralism- denying equal protection to someone under the law because of private actions that directly impact no one else. And forget drug issues, both parties are appallingly horrible.
These are Democrat and Republican positions much moreso than they are liberal and conservative positions, and even in the parties, there is immense division.
Indeed, and that's where the trouble is coming from. While the right seems to tolerate minor differences on a few issues, the progressives on the left have exactly zero tolerance for anyone that's not 100% on board with their nonsense. Take that one professor at Evergreen State... the extreme progressives declared that for one day, all white people should stay off the campus. The professor, who was very liberal and supported all of the progressive identity politics before that, thought this wasn't right. The students went apeshit on him, calling him every evil name in the book, demanding he be fired, disrupting his classes, literally screaming at the president because the prof wasn't fired... all simply because he didn't think minority students should ban white people from campus for a day. And that's par for the course; attempt any rationality or dissent, and you're treated no better than David Duke.
The bigger problem is that that group has essentially captured the Democratic Party.
You think people who argue that affirmative action, diversity quotas, and progressive stacking are wrong because they judge on the basis of skin color, thus violating equality, don't get called Nazis and assorted other terms for it?
You're trying to use "historical context" to say that because some people were judged by the color of their skin to their detriment, they should now be judged by the color of their skin to their benefit, and vice versa, to compensate for the past. Once again, two wrongs do not make a right, and people should never be judged by the color of their skin in a world where we're all equal. Even if you disagree, its absurd to suggest this is a racist attitude.
There's just no way of getting around the fact you have to study the achievement gap to correct it, and the extreme hostility towards that and inability to do it without being labeled racist is exactly the problem.
Men are expected to be able to say no if they don't want something, and arguing women are so scared of men, in situations where there is no objective threat, that they have to continually be questioned because they lack the ability to say no, is highly insulting, or at least should be if you're not saying they're weaker willed or not equally responsible.