Just search for 'SJWs owned' or 'Leftists owned' and you'll find hundreds of examples of videos of numerous Left wing idiots who can't even explain their position.
Yeah, owning SJWs is fun. Just as much fun as owning alt-right nazis on *their* stupid positions. Stop acting like either side has a monopoly on unfounded positions and civil rights abuses. Authoritarian left, authortarian right, left shits on due process, right shits on 4th amendment, left shits on free speech, right shits on free press, both sides unite to pass FOSTA and shit on internet speech.
Both you and your arch-nemesis the 'radical left' have a lot more in common then you'll ever admit and the few sane people left in this world are sick of both of you wiping your ass with the constitution whenever it advances your own interests or hurts the other team.
So, none of the states where these problems are reported? Got it. I'm in NJ, the liberal northeast, and even for me to get an ID, it's 90 minutes of walking/PATH to get there round trip, at a cost of $5.50 (add $3.20 for the bus if I don't want to walk 2 miles), and they're only open limited weekday hours. Not all people can take off work for minimum half a day to go do that; what if I had a kid to pick up and no one else to do it? It's a multi hour wait. Then the ID itself is $26, so now I'm out $31.50.
You seriously going to tell me with a straight face none of this has a disparate impact on poor, predominantly black voters? That none of that is any problem? Get real.
If the left loves the multiple voting so much, something involving huge numbers of conspirators, why isn't there a a shred of proof ?
Maybe if Republicans weren't doing things like placing all the ID places in wealthier areas, poorly reachable by public transport from less wealthy areas, open only during weekday business hours, requiring a not-trivial-to-the-poor fee, disallowing comparble non-state IDs less likely to be possessed by whites, their voter ID whinging wouldn't get shot down as transparently racist.
If you're willing to reform those problems across the country, *then* we can talk about voter ID. Also the right has yet to present any evidence of large scale illegal alien voter fraud.
Visual Basic.NET was a giant step backwards from VB6 in both power and ease of use for the kind of apps VB6 was designed to make, which is why despite really showings its age, it *still* hasn't dropped out of the top 20 on the TIOBE Index 20 years after the last update. I've tried to switch, but the roadblocks they've put up to dropping down to lower level things are just too infuriating, while at the same time simple GUI and the simplest things are much more complicated with zero added benefit. The only upside is your apps natively look 'modern' without having to fuss with the manifests, WinAPI calls, and shell interfaces it takes to make VB6 apps visually indistinguishable from any other modern app (especially at different DPIs). Though again, actually using those things is far easier in 6.
If Microsoft had made a true successor, instead of entirely different product similar in name only, taking the path they did with updates they gave VBA, we would still have a tool that was equally useful to newbies and pros.
It's much more freedom to simply never have to worry about fussing with setting things to be available offline track by track or for some time period. I mostly listen to music on the subway, which means alternating signal/no signal every minute. MP3s are small, and SD cards large. You're seriously going to compare the 'freedom' you have with your streaming to a one-time copy-all to SD card then having permanent offline copies of everything with no further action? Even if you don't lose signal like me, that's still better.
Well that's generally good, but we're talking about Disney, a company who bribed Congress into passing term extensions that abuse the idea of copyright. Despite having pilfered a large part of the content that the company is built on from the public domain, they lobbied for massive term extensions in a time where the cost of distribution was plummeting and the speed and reach exploding, all in order to assure nothing of theirs ever fell into the public domain. Yet you dare to call downloading something you can't even obtain legally greed? Get over yourself.
If there was ever a company not deserving of having its copyrights respected, Disney is it.
Oh well if the US population thinks that... can't go wrong a an argumentum ad populum with such a wise group.
Couldn't possibly be they only think that because we basically only have a right-of-center and extreme-right party.
If you read the article you'd see Verizon supported this. So calm down, Ajit Pai and the FCC are still wholly owned subsidiaries of big telecom, it's just this time his owner supported a good policy.
A lot of sites, we really should be able to preserve our identities, at least internally so there is actual repercussion on what we say and do. There are other sites where anonymity is key. Because you get to say whatever you feel like without a personal repercussion.
I don't know how anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading about the history of government retaliation against whistleblowers and civil rights leaders, or corporations against whistleblowers, could make such a batshit insane statement. Anonymous speech is critical to advancing freedom and exposing crimes by the powerful, and this outweighs the downsides by so much it's shocking that anyone could be so naive about what the actual consequences would be. Just as critical is the ability to have the message seen by many, making limiting anonymity to presumably obscure non-mainstream sites just as bad.
I think our current system is reasonably close to good; where the effort required to avoid being identified by warrant/subpoena deters it from being a common practice, but is still available when its important.
For a personal anecdote, there's some worry about law enforcement retaliating against witnesses to police abuse, since they (the local ones) have a well documented history of doing precisely that. Should I have had to put myself and family at risk of that when I captured a video of a serious rights violation by an officer? (obviously this account is not truly anonymous so I won't be more specific other than to say it was a clear use of force violation). Or should it have not been released? Relegated to an obscure platform where no one would see it?
I don't know why you're having so much trouble with comparisons, but that case isn't saying that Apple has a monopoly on The iOS App Store, it's saying Apple is abusing its monopoly position of app stores for iOS. iOS App Store has market dominance against competitors like Cydia, to the extent it's basically a monopoly. If Cydia had substantial market share, as did other 3rd party app stores, then Apple would no longer have a monopoly despite still being the only one to make the official iOS App Store. Do you really not understand the distinction between a product and type of product?
That's like saying Ford has a monopoly because they have a monopoly on the Ford Explorer. US antitrust law doesn't define a monopoly as being the only one to make your exact name branded product. It's about control of a specific product or business *type*. If iOS and MacOS had near complete market dominance, you know like Windows used to, that's a monopoly. Specifically, it's about whether consumers have an alternative, not to the specific brand name, but to the product type.
That's a very low cap for that speed. It's great you can live with that, but for a lot of people a 7GB per day cap is entirely useless, because if all they were doing was light usage they wouldn't pay for 200Mbps to begin with. You get that speed because you want to do things like multiple HD streams, cloud backups, Steam downloads, etc. Heck I'm just one person on 50Mbps, and 7GB a day is about my *floor*, coming out averaging 510GB/month for the past 2 years.
It's not "race baiting", it's a direct comparison. Back in the 60s, white people were offended by the mere presence of black people in the bathroom, so they were banned. Fast forward to today, you're saying the because the mere presence of transwomen in the ladies room offends you, it's ok to ban them. Your only criteria for this seems to be that you don't mind people with different skin color in there, but you are bothered by people whose genitals might not match their appearance. We decided that white people's right to not be bothered was superseded by black peoples basic civil rights. Why is anti-trans peoples discomfort any different?
That is a legitimate, serious question, for which you have zero answers that aren't overt bigotry, so you cry bait.
The second part, serviscope linked you to a picture of a transman (a biological women who has transitioned to a man). Were you thinking trans people consisted only of men becoming women? It's almost just as common for women to become men.
Now unlike transwomen, transmen are typically fully passable-- they look like any other man. You couldn't tell unless you examined their genitals. If you force these people to use the ladies room because they have a vagina, how could you possibly keep out the normal men from whom they cannot be distinguished? IDs can be changed; but even if they couldn't, you think they should be harassed for their ID every time they use the bathroom? Any normal man could just say he's trans. That's even easier than the ridiculous notion that men will crossdress just to act like perverts. So what's your solution? Take your bigotry even further, and force transmen (again, biological females with vaginas (if preop)) into the mens room? That's even clearer sex discrimination.
That's another entirely legitimate, serious issue for which you have no logical response, so you cried bait at serviscope, and are now pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. Too bad they didn't teach you to just not be a bigot instead of just don't be bigoted against a person for their race.
You keep crying bait every time you're backed into a corner and refuse to answer. If you did care about what's in someone's head, there's some neuroscience research on trans people that shows you're wrong. Then you say you care about men in the women's room, fully ignoring the issue of transmen, which makes it easier, not harder, for normal men to be in there. That's not bait, its a fact of the matter, you cant just ignore that case and not sound like a ridiculous bigot.
will have to crack down harder and harder upon freedom and liberty to stop people from circumventing those bans. Eventually you'll have to literally be locked down and monitored 24/7.
You're talking as if that's not their goal. It is. Of both sides, they've just split up which side cracks down on what in the continuing march towards around the clock monitoring and control; heck a few of the biggest ones like the War on Drugs and Sex Trafficking Hysteria are even bipartisan.
Up until last year, there was a flagship class phone with a removable battery (+SD card and headphone jack); the LG V20. I'm still using one; it's great, and no thicker than some phones without a removable battery (and only 1/10th of a mm thicker than an iPhone 8+). Unfortunately it didn't sell well, and LG inexplicably seems to think that means 'people don't want a removable battery', so it's gone from the V30. It's really a trend; when something doesn't sell companies take it to mean there's no demand for this or that great feature, when that really has little to do with it. Then some other phone that removed that feature sells well, and the fate is sealed, even though the removal of the feature wasn't why it sold. Oh well, at least there's still Android flagships with headphone jacks. For now.
Given that the top two 'Editors Picks' on the front page of bbc.com are the mansplaining and 'Heathcliff is toxic' articles, I'd say it's a valid criticism. If their mission is to have more women's stories, that's great, there's plenty of women doing amazing things in this world they can report on. Instead they post nonsense like mansplaining and why a great romance in literature is toxic.
So because YOU don't care about skin color, that can't be used to discriminate, but because YOU personally do care about what's inside someones underwear, that can? Don't forget, black people hadn't done anything wrong to be excluded from the bathroom either, it was their mere presence that *a lot* of white people found unacceptable. So why does what personally bothers you control others, but what bothers someone else is recognized as the bigotry that it is?
Also, answer the other guys question. Transmen are generally indistinguishable from cismen, do you want big burly people with beards in the ladies room? How do you keep out normal men in that situation? Genital inspections at every bathroom door perhaps?
And since I acknowledge biology-based preferences, oppose affirmative action, believe in not judging people by skin color, don't believe in stripping due process from men, and countless other SJW bullshit, I can assure you they find me absolutely intolerable.
And another false equivalency, two actually, thanks. First, users upvoting and downvoting content is an entirely different issue than the host hiding or removing content based on viewpoint. Second, suggesting that inaccurate posts should not be upmodded is not the same as saying they should be downmodded. The comment was fine at 0; -1 should be reserved for spam and trolls.
You tried to come up with a way to insult me for pointing out your stupid comment, then fell flat on your face again with an even more ridiculously false comparison.
Did the IT director ever put in a request for additional personnel, funding, or authorizations to address their poor security? No, it's on him. Yes, it's on who denied it (ultimately, if it was passed up the chain) or didn't respond. Or if it was granted and not acted on, back to the IT director. Last option, the IT director was underqualified and couldn't have been expected to know they didn't have proper security, then it's on the person responsible for staffing that position.
Determining who had what responsibility is the whole point of investigations. Most of the time it winds up being crystal clear.
Who the hell modded this insightful? I'm against their thought policing but to think those two issues are even remotely related shows a profound misunderstanding of what net neutrality is and why it should be enforced. You're talking about website TOS versus near-monopoly wireline service to access websites. Conflating these is moronic.
The right has an awfully selective memory of what liberals were saying during the Obama years. First few years of his presidency, in direct contradiction of campaign promises, not only did he not end federal raids of state-legal medical marijuana operations, under him the DOJ conducted even more of them than under Bush. Liberals were *furious* about this betrayal, and heaped on the criticism. There was plenty of liberal criticism of his drone strike programs. His failure to close Guantanamo. His failures to end Iraq/Afghanistan in a timely manner. We definitely weren't happy with him when he took the awful domestic warrantless surveillance programs of the Bush era and expanded them, even before Snowden blew the lid off, which resulted in even more liberal criticism of him and his natsec policies. He was notorious for cracking down on whistleblowers, and liberals were none too happy about it, nor about him targeting reporters phones and e-mails to go about his crackdown. The list goes on.
This ridiculous claim people on the right are making that liberals never criticised Obama's problems, much less told others it was racist and anti-American to criticize (except where complaints were legitimately based on race, which happened quite often) is yet another intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign from the right designed to delegitimize all the praise and fondness for those days he now receives, a direct response to how awful things are under Trump, in addition to delegitimizing complaints about Trump, by falsely painting a picture of hypocrisy.
When you have to engage in this kind of dishonesty to defend your position (or worse, you've bought into the campaign and actually thought it was honest), maybe reconsider if your position is the right place to be.
Are you confusing your right to think that with the right you have to discriminate based on it? You've got the former, but not the latter. I'm absolutely no friend to SJWs and identity politics, but even if I did assume as you did (I dont, based on established neurological differences), I wouldn't think to dictate my view onto others. I don't think you can discriminate against trans-folks any more than you can against racial minorities. If they 'bother' other people in the bathroom with their presence, well their right to be in there supersedes your discomfort of having them there, just like when we established our discomfort with having black people use our bathrooms couldn't justify a 'coloreds' bathroom.
Slashdot Mirror
Just search for 'SJWs owned' or 'Leftists owned' and you'll find hundreds of examples of videos of numerous Left wing idiots who can't even explain their position.
Yeah, owning SJWs is fun. Just as much fun as owning alt-right nazis on *their* stupid positions. Stop acting like either side has a monopoly on unfounded positions and civil rights abuses. Authoritarian left, authortarian right, left shits on due process, right shits on 4th amendment, left shits on free speech, right shits on free press, both sides unite to pass FOSTA and shit on internet speech.
Both you and your arch-nemesis the 'radical left' have a lot more in common then you'll ever admit and the few sane people left in this world are sick of both of you wiping your ass with the constitution whenever it advances your own interests or hurts the other team.
So, none of the states where these problems are reported? Got it. I'm in NJ, the liberal northeast, and even for me to get an ID, it's 90 minutes of walking/PATH to get there round trip, at a cost of $5.50 (add $3.20 for the bus if I don't want to walk 2 miles), and they're only open limited weekday hours. Not all people can take off work for minimum half a day to go do that; what if I had a kid to pick up and no one else to do it? It's a multi hour wait. Then the ID itself is $26, so now I'm out $31.50.
You seriously going to tell me with a straight face none of this has a disparate impact on poor, predominantly black voters? That none of that is any problem? Get real.
If the left loves the multiple voting so much, something involving huge numbers of conspirators, why isn't there a a shred of proof ?
Maybe if Republicans weren't doing things like placing all the ID places in wealthier areas, poorly reachable by public transport from less wealthy areas, open only during weekday business hours, requiring a not-trivial-to-the-poor fee, disallowing comparble non-state IDs less likely to be possessed by whites, their voter ID whinging wouldn't get shot down as transparently racist.
If you're willing to reform those problems across the country, *then* we can talk about voter ID. Also the right has yet to present any evidence of large scale illegal alien voter fraud.
Visual Basic .NET was a giant step backwards from VB6 in both power and ease of use for the kind of apps VB6 was designed to make, which is why despite really showings its age, it *still* hasn't dropped out of the top 20 on the TIOBE Index 20 years after the last update. I've tried to switch, but the roadblocks they've put up to dropping down to lower level things are just too infuriating, while at the same time simple GUI and the simplest things are much more complicated with zero added benefit. The only upside is your apps natively look 'modern' without having to fuss with the manifests, WinAPI calls, and shell interfaces it takes to make VB6 apps visually indistinguishable from any other modern app (especially at different DPIs). Though again, actually using those things is far easier in 6.
If Microsoft had made a true successor, instead of entirely different product similar in name only, taking the path they did with updates they gave VBA, we would still have a tool that was equally useful to newbies and pros.
It's much more freedom to simply never have to worry about fussing with setting things to be available offline track by track or for some time period. I mostly listen to music on the subway, which means alternating signal/no signal every minute. MP3s are small, and SD cards large. You're seriously going to compare the 'freedom' you have with your streaming to a one-time copy-all to SD card then having permanent offline copies of everything with no further action? Even if you don't lose signal like me, that's still better.
Well that's generally good, but we're talking about Disney, a company who bribed Congress into passing term extensions that abuse the idea of copyright. Despite having pilfered a large part of the content that the company is built on from the public domain, they lobbied for massive term extensions in a time where the cost of distribution was plummeting and the speed and reach exploding, all in order to assure nothing of theirs ever fell into the public domain. Yet you dare to call downloading something you can't even obtain legally greed? Get over yourself.
If there was ever a company not deserving of having its copyrights respected, Disney is it.
Oh well if the US population thinks that... can't go wrong a an argumentum ad populum with such a wise group.
Couldn't possibly be they only think that because we basically only have a right-of-center and extreme-right party.
If you read the article you'd see Verizon supported this. So calm down, Ajit Pai and the FCC are still wholly owned subsidiaries of big telecom, it's just this time his owner supported a good policy.
If I were presented with such a robot, it would be switched off sooner and probably smashed for being so annoying.
That's just the opposite emotional reaction, anger and sadism, and is way more destructive to our society than empathy.
Contradicts? It's a well known fact that people are assholes, so fuck them, but a cute little animal or robot? Awww now who could hurt such a thing.
A lot of sites, we really should be able to preserve our identities, at least internally so there is actual repercussion on what we say and do. There are other sites where anonymity is key. Because you get to say whatever you feel like without a personal repercussion.
I don't know how anyone who has spent 5 minutes reading about the history of government retaliation against whistleblowers and civil rights leaders, or corporations against whistleblowers, could make such a batshit insane statement. Anonymous speech is critical to advancing freedom and exposing crimes by the powerful, and this outweighs the downsides by so much it's shocking that anyone could be so naive about what the actual consequences would be. Just as critical is the ability to have the message seen by many, making limiting anonymity to presumably obscure non-mainstream sites just as bad.
I think our current system is reasonably close to good; where the effort required to avoid being identified by warrant/subpoena deters it from being a common practice, but is still available when its important.
For a personal anecdote, there's some worry about law enforcement retaliating against witnesses to police abuse, since they (the local ones) have a well documented history of doing precisely that. Should I have had to put myself and family at risk of that when I captured a video of a serious rights violation by an officer? (obviously this account is not truly anonymous so I won't be more specific other than to say it was a clear use of force violation). Or should it have not been released? Relegated to an obscure platform where no one would see it?
I don't know why you're having so much trouble with comparisons, but that case isn't saying that Apple has a monopoly on The iOS App Store, it's saying Apple is abusing its monopoly position of app stores for iOS. iOS App Store has market dominance against competitors like Cydia, to the extent it's basically a monopoly. If Cydia had substantial market share, as did other 3rd party app stores, then Apple would no longer have a monopoly despite still being the only one to make the official iOS App Store. Do you really not understand the distinction between a product and type of product?
That's like saying Ford has a monopoly because they have a monopoly on the Ford Explorer. US antitrust law doesn't define a monopoly as being the only one to make your exact name branded product. It's about control of a specific product or business *type*. If iOS and MacOS had near complete market dominance, you know like Windows used to, that's a monopoly. Specifically, it's about whether consumers have an alternative, not to the specific brand name, but to the product type.
That's a very low cap for that speed. It's great you can live with that, but for a lot of people a 7GB per day cap is entirely useless, because if all they were doing was light usage they wouldn't pay for 200Mbps to begin with. You get that speed because you want to do things like multiple HD streams, cloud backups, Steam downloads, etc. Heck I'm just one person on 50Mbps, and 7GB a day is about my *floor*, coming out averaging 510GB/month for the past 2 years.
It's not "race baiting", it's a direct comparison. Back in the 60s, white people were offended by the mere presence of black people in the bathroom, so they were banned. Fast forward to today, you're saying the because the mere presence of transwomen in the ladies room offends you, it's ok to ban them. Your only criteria for this seems to be that you don't mind people with different skin color in there, but you are bothered by people whose genitals might not match their appearance. We decided that white people's right to not be bothered was superseded by black peoples basic civil rights. Why is anti-trans peoples discomfort any different?
That is a legitimate, serious question, for which you have zero answers that aren't overt bigotry, so you cry bait.
The second part, serviscope linked you to a picture of a transman (a biological women who has transitioned to a man). Were you thinking trans people consisted only of men becoming women? It's almost just as common for women to become men.
Now unlike transwomen, transmen are typically fully passable-- they look like any other man. You couldn't tell unless you examined their genitals. If you force these people to use the ladies room because they have a vagina, how could you possibly keep out the normal men from whom they cannot be distinguished? IDs can be changed; but even if they couldn't, you think they should be harassed for their ID every time they use the bathroom? Any normal man could just say he's trans. That's even easier than the ridiculous notion that men will crossdress just to act like perverts. So what's your solution? Take your bigotry even further, and force transmen (again, biological females with vaginas (if preop)) into the mens room? That's even clearer sex discrimination.
That's another entirely legitimate, serious issue for which you have no logical response, so you cried bait at serviscope, and are now pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. Too bad they didn't teach you to just not be a bigot instead of just don't be bigoted against a person for their race.
You keep crying bait every time you're backed into a corner and refuse to answer. If you did care about what's in someone's head, there's some neuroscience research on trans people that shows you're wrong. Then you say you care about men in the women's room, fully ignoring the issue of transmen, which makes it easier, not harder, for normal men to be in there. That's not bait, its a fact of the matter, you cant just ignore that case and not sound like a ridiculous bigot.
will have to crack down harder and harder upon freedom and liberty to stop people from circumventing those bans. Eventually you'll have to literally be locked down and monitored 24/7.
You're talking as if that's not their goal. It is. Of both sides, they've just split up which side cracks down on what in the continuing march towards around the clock monitoring and control; heck a few of the biggest ones like the War on Drugs and Sex Trafficking Hysteria are even bipartisan.
Up until last year, there was a flagship class phone with a removable battery (+SD card and headphone jack); the LG V20. I'm still using one; it's great, and no thicker than some phones without a removable battery (and only 1/10th of a mm thicker than an iPhone 8+). Unfortunately it didn't sell well, and LG inexplicably seems to think that means 'people don't want a removable battery', so it's gone from the V30. It's really a trend; when something doesn't sell companies take it to mean there's no demand for this or that great feature, when that really has little to do with it. Then some other phone that removed that feature sells well, and the fate is sealed, even though the removal of the feature wasn't why it sold. Oh well, at least there's still Android flagships with headphone jacks. For now.
Given that the top two 'Editors Picks' on the front page of bbc.com are the mansplaining and 'Heathcliff is toxic' articles, I'd say it's a valid criticism. If their mission is to have more women's stories, that's great, there's plenty of women doing amazing things in this world they can report on. Instead they post nonsense like mansplaining and why a great romance in literature is toxic.
So because YOU don't care about skin color, that can't be used to discriminate, but because YOU personally do care about what's inside someones underwear, that can? Don't forget, black people hadn't done anything wrong to be excluded from the bathroom either, it was their mere presence that *a lot* of white people found unacceptable. So why does what personally bothers you control others, but what bothers someone else is recognized as the bigotry that it is?
Also, answer the other guys question. Transmen are generally indistinguishable from cismen, do you want big burly people with beards in the ladies room? How do you keep out normal men in that situation? Genital inspections at every bathroom door perhaps?
And since I acknowledge biology-based preferences, oppose affirmative action, believe in not judging people by skin color, don't believe in stripping due process from men, and countless other SJW bullshit, I can assure you they find me absolutely intolerable.
And another false equivalency, two actually, thanks. First, users upvoting and downvoting content is an entirely different issue than the host hiding or removing content based on viewpoint. Second, suggesting that inaccurate posts should not be upmodded is not the same as saying they should be downmodded. The comment was fine at 0; -1 should be reserved for spam and trolls.
You tried to come up with a way to insult me for pointing out your stupid comment, then fell flat on your face again with an even more ridiculously false comparison.
Did the IT director ever put in a request for additional personnel, funding, or authorizations to address their poor security? No, it's on him. Yes, it's on who denied it (ultimately, if it was passed up the chain) or didn't respond. Or if it was granted and not acted on, back to the IT director. Last option, the IT director was underqualified and couldn't have been expected to know they didn't have proper security, then it's on the person responsible for staffing that position.
Determining who had what responsibility is the whole point of investigations. Most of the time it winds up being crystal clear.
Who the hell modded this insightful? I'm against their thought policing but to think those two issues are even remotely related shows a profound misunderstanding of what net neutrality is and why it should be enforced. You're talking about website TOS versus near-monopoly wireline service to access websites. Conflating these is moronic.
The right has an awfully selective memory of what liberals were saying during the Obama years. First few years of his presidency, in direct contradiction of campaign promises, not only did he not end federal raids of state-legal medical marijuana operations, under him the DOJ conducted even more of them than under Bush. Liberals were *furious* about this betrayal, and heaped on the criticism. There was plenty of liberal criticism of his drone strike programs. His failure to close Guantanamo. His failures to end Iraq/Afghanistan in a timely manner. We definitely weren't happy with him when he took the awful domestic warrantless surveillance programs of the Bush era and expanded them, even before Snowden blew the lid off, which resulted in even more liberal criticism of him and his natsec policies. He was notorious for cracking down on whistleblowers, and liberals were none too happy about it, nor about him targeting reporters phones and e-mails to go about his crackdown. The list goes on.
This ridiculous claim people on the right are making that liberals never criticised Obama's problems, much less told others it was racist and anti-American to criticize (except where complaints were legitimately based on race, which happened quite often) is yet another intellectually dishonest propaganda campaign from the right designed to delegitimize all the praise and fondness for those days he now receives, a direct response to how awful things are under Trump, in addition to delegitimizing complaints about Trump, by falsely painting a picture of hypocrisy.
When you have to engage in this kind of dishonesty to defend your position (or worse, you've bought into the campaign and actually thought it was honest), maybe reconsider if your position is the right place to be.
Are you confusing your right to think that with the right you have to discriminate based on it? You've got the former, but not the latter. I'm absolutely no friend to SJWs and identity politics, but even if I did assume as you did (I dont, based on established neurological differences), I wouldn't think to dictate my view onto others. I don't think you can discriminate against trans-folks any more than you can against racial minorities. If they 'bother' other people in the bathroom with their presence, well their right to be in there supersedes your discomfort of having them there, just like when we established our discomfort with having black people use our bathrooms couldn't justify a 'coloreds' bathroom.