. LGBT/African Americans have all been discriminated against for centuries. They had laws against them. Name one law against a white person that also doesn't apply to a black person.
Are there any laws against a black person that doesn't also apply to a white person?
Just that historical injustice has been recognised in modern laws by demanding that everybody gets equal treatment.
I find those modern laws very easy to follow. I think they're great. For that reason I think people that attack others based on the race or political views should be prevented and prosecuted.
we wish to make it great by making sure everyone is on equal footing
Then why are you defending the suggestion that some animals are treated as being more equal than others?
Sounds like illegal discrimination to me, and fuck all to do with actual equality.
Erm. He was referring to the people decrying the white supremacists as coming out of the woodwork. I'm sure Trump will be delighted to hear you include him in that group.
I can't mod you because I'm replying to you instead.
Terrorists shot people in Paris. They then shot people again in Paris. They shot people in Holland when I was living in Germany They shot people in Northern Ireland.
According to you, that makes anybody that shoots someone a terrorist.
The incident in Charlottesville does not look like a pre-planned and intentional attempt to kill multiple people with a large vehicle. Shitty choice of vehicle, no follow-up, very different behaviour from the driver to the other incidents you've quoted.
It's possible for people to commit crimes without it being terrorism. The police certainly think so, they've charged him with murder and not terror related charges - and that's the police that fucking chose not to prevent illegal demonstrators turning up with weapons and assaulting a legal demonstration.
If they don't think it's terrorism then this is not pretty obviously terrorism. Call it what it is: Suspected murder or manslaughter. Those are serious crimes and will be prosecuted using actual laws with very severe punishments. Why the fuck isn't that good enough for you?
On the Reddit website there's a discussion forum titled StormfrontorSJW in which I believe people post comments such as the one to which you replied, and invite people to guess whether it was written by a neo-nazi or someone that could be described as a social justice warrior.
I don't frequent it, but the times on which I've seen it referenced it does turn out to be bloody scarily impossible to tell.
Which is one reason it's interesting to see so many technology companies shutting down only one side of the extremist dialogue.
Hmm. I'm not using right wing fucking anything, or doing any doctoring of videos. I'm asking you a straightforward question, which I noticed you still didn't answer.
My point is that you're equating speech with violent action, then refusing to tell us whether examples of speech qualify under your rules or not. Forgive me for being entirely fucking confused by you and your stance.
I hate to point at the available evidence, but whether he wanted to or not, he and his regime sure as fuck put a lot of effort into it.
the Balfour Declaration which was a pact between Zionists and Great Brittan to establish Israel by using the war machine on Palestine. Which was one of the many reasons WWII was instigated.
You have any evidence on this? Just that it sounds like complete and total bullshit to me. I think you're regurgitating a conspiracy theory.
It had nothing to do with genocide of Jews, but the average person has only believed propaganda
I don't think I know anybody - including the entire Jewish community of Manchester - that thinks that the start of World War II was anything to do with the genocide of Jews.
Clearly you must have seen some propaganda that hasn't been shared in the UK. The story - as written by the victors here - is that the German National Socialists had supporters in the UK and the war began when the Germans ignored British and French warnings not to invade Poland, triggering treaty obligations that were well known at the time.
However, fuck you and your imgur link. Maybe it'll work on future generations but my grandfather liberated Bergen Belsen, don't fucking try and swing that holocaust denial shit past me. I trust his first-hand account significantly more than your bollocks.
Yeah, the BBC article on GoDaddy's actions said (before it was updated to include the news from Google) that it wasn't going to repeat the heinous slurs.
So I decided not to let the media tell me what's acceptable and what's not, and went hunting.
This vicious disparagement may well have upset the woman's family but I just looked at it and thought, "How fucking childish?!"
Sharing their words will cause ridicule and a loss of support. Hiding their words grants them victimhood.
No. Japan was being imperialistic, Italy was seeking to expand its African empire and Germany were being aggressive cunts - Poland was hardly guilty of global conquest.
If it was a counter-conquest war though, you could argue that Japan and Germany won. The British and French empires didn't survive the war and its immediate aftermath, and Germany and Japan are now industrial powerhouses with massive economic influence on the global stage.
It's not a zero sum game though. People may help fund the defense of someone they fear will be otherwise ill treated by justice even though they'd refuse outright to support the political causes he espouses.
These charts improve on the left/right divide by adding an additional axis. But a chart really can't summarize more than two orthogonal aspects of a political position
This though is my problem with them. Use of these charts may be valid and helpful at a population but too many idiots use those population characteristics to assign identities to individuals, then act on those identities.
As an example, "Punch a nazi" became farcical the moment it became a meme because everybody's now a nazi. Display a single trait associated with particular defunct German political movement and you're labelled with everything that's bad about them and treated accordingly.
That's ludicrous, and these charts don't really help.
What you've said is that if a more qualified woman or black person applies for the job, an employer is in no way obligated to accept a while, male candidate.
No, that's not what I said. Oh, and here's a reference for hiring women purely on the grounds of their gender: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Here's one where the BBC are defending and claiming legality for offering paid work to people that must be non-white: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...
OTOH, there is no law stating a less qualified candidate who is not white or male must be accepted. You're pretty much trying to do what Damore did in his memo, insinuate a conclusion and lie by omission.
No, I'm just better informed than you and able to back up my statements with references. You merely throw around insults.
White males are not discriminated against in any way
Except the ways I mentioned in my original post, none of which you've been able to disprove.
Not even the Guardian tries to say that white men are evil, that shit is entirely the DM's area.
No one is attacking you for being white or male
Well, since you mentioned the Guardian, even they acknowledge that "In America, as in Europe, older, white men are the only group that liberals can abuse and exclude with impunity." https://www.theguardian.com/co...
you're being attacked because you spout a lot of bullshit and the rest of us are sick of it
When even the fucking Guardian acknowledges the issue I think it shows that you're either ignorant, in denial or maliciously trying to prevent conversation.
So call bollocks on whatever the fuck you like, but do try and provide some fucking evidence next time.
But both net you an accusation of racism. Don't tell me it's a false equivalency, tell the people liberally throwing around labels and trying to shut down conversations.
Slashdot Mirror
. LGBT/African Americans have all been discriminated against for centuries. They had laws against them. Name one law against a white person that also doesn't apply to a black person.
Are there any laws against a black person that doesn't also apply to a white person?
Just that historical injustice has been recognised in modern laws by demanding that everybody gets equal treatment.
I find those modern laws very easy to follow. I think they're great. For that reason I think people that attack others based on the race or political views should be prevented and prosecuted.
we wish to make it great by making sure everyone is on equal footing
Then why are you defending the suggestion that some animals are treated as being more equal than others?
Sounds like illegal discrimination to me, and fuck all to do with actual equality.
Erm. He was referring to the people decrying the white supremacists as coming out of the woodwork. I'm sure Trump will be delighted to hear you include him in that group.
I can't mod you because I'm replying to you instead.
Terrorists shot people in Paris.
They then shot people again in Paris.
They shot people in Holland when I was living in Germany
They shot people in Northern Ireland.
According to you, that makes anybody that shoots someone a terrorist.
The incident in Charlottesville does not look like a pre-planned and intentional attempt to kill multiple people with a large vehicle. Shitty choice of vehicle, no follow-up, very different behaviour from the driver to the other incidents you've quoted.
It's possible for people to commit crimes without it being terrorism. The police certainly think so, they've charged him with murder and not terror related charges - and that's the police that fucking chose not to prevent illegal demonstrators turning up with weapons and assaulting a legal demonstration.
If they don't think it's terrorism then this is not pretty obviously terrorism. Call it what it is: Suspected murder or manslaughter. Those are serious crimes and will be prosecuted using actual laws with very severe punishments. Why the fuck isn't that good enough for you?
On the Reddit website there's a discussion forum titled StormfrontorSJW in which I believe people post comments such as the one to which you replied, and invite people to guess whether it was written by a neo-nazi or someone that could be described as a social justice warrior.
I don't frequent it, but the times on which I've seen it referenced it does turn out to be bloody scarily impossible to tell.
Which is one reason it's interesting to see so many technology companies shutting down only one side of the extremist dialogue.
Ouch. That's just batty. Although heated electronically adjustable mirrors do have a few different bits to them.
Wait, a camera+monitor is under $100 and that's not more expensive than a mirror?
What the fuck are your car mirrors made out of? Solid diamond?
Hmm. I'm not using right wing fucking anything, or doing any doctoring of videos. I'm asking you a straightforward question, which I noticed you still didn't answer.
My point is that you're equating speech with violent action, then refusing to tell us whether examples of speech qualify under your rules or not. Forgive me for being entirely fucking confused by you and your stance.
Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews.
I hate to point at the available evidence, but whether he wanted to or not, he and his regime sure as fuck put a lot of effort into it.
the Balfour Declaration which was a pact between Zionists and Great Brittan to establish Israel by using the war machine on Palestine. Which was one of the many reasons WWII was instigated.
You have any evidence on this? Just that it sounds like complete and total bullshit to me. I think you're regurgitating a conspiracy theory.
It had nothing to do with genocide of Jews, but the average person has only believed propaganda
I don't think I know anybody - including the entire Jewish community of Manchester - that thinks that the start of World War II was anything to do with the genocide of Jews.
Clearly you must have seen some propaganda that hasn't been shared in the UK. The story - as written by the victors here - is that the German National Socialists had supporters in the UK and the war began when the Germans ignored British and French warnings not to invade Poland, triggering treaty obligations that were well known at the time.
However, fuck you and your imgur link. Maybe it'll work on future generations but my grandfather liberated Bergen Belsen, don't fucking try and swing that holocaust denial shit past me. I trust his first-hand account significantly more than your bollocks.
the actual stated views of idiots
Yeah, the BBC article on GoDaddy's actions said (before it was updated to include the news from Google) that it wasn't going to repeat the heinous slurs.
So I decided not to let the media tell me what's acceptable and what's not, and went hunting.
This vicious disparagement may well have upset the woman's family but I just looked at it and thought, "How fucking childish?!"
Sharing their words will cause ridicule and a loss of support. Hiding their words grants them victimhood.
Maybe you've missed the news over the past week. The first two have already happened.
You have evidence that the neo-nazis or white supremacists planned or instigated riots or violent demonstrations?
Strange that they had the ACLU supporting them if that was the plan.
Are you saying that the video is fake?
Just that, you're ducking the question on whether this meets your definition of hate speech or not.
Lets make it easy for you. Skip the video, skip Youtube entirely. A simple question: Is advocating for the death of police officers hate speech?
Hmm. Your first statement in italics could, if taken seriously, be defamation. That's not protected.
In the UK (different speech laws) it's definitely not protected.
It was a counter-conquest war
No. Japan was being imperialistic, Italy was seeking to expand its African empire and Germany were being aggressive cunts - Poland was hardly guilty of global conquest.
If it was a counter-conquest war though, you could argue that Japan and Germany won. The British and French empires didn't survive the war and its immediate aftermath, and Germany and Japan are now industrial powerhouses with massive economic influence on the global stage.
Trump's racism
that orange turd
What about your own racism, TrumpJuggler.
It's not a zero sum game though. People may help fund the defense of someone they fear will be otherwise ill treated by justice even though they'd refuse outright to support the political causes he espouses.
maimed innocent people
Who was maimed that wasn't attending an illegal demonstration and/or wielding a weapon with intent to attack peaceful legal demonstrators?
Which video? I haven't seen one showing the activity you've described.
Calydor, since you ask.
Michiganbob: "Since when has crowdfunding been a requirement ..." ..."
Calydor: "Ever since
when he decided to murder people
I see. You've already determined guilt without allowing a defense and are using that decision to argue against allowing a defense.
Not sure where you live, but the right to be a murderer is not established in American law.
No, but the right to a fair trial is.
If everything were equal, we'd expect 12.5% of police shootings to be blacks.
Thing is, things are not equal. So no, we wouldn't expect 12.5% of police shoots to be of people that are black.
http://www.latimes.com/science...
We'd also expect, everything being equal, 12.5% of people shooting the police to be black. It's 39.7%:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2014...
But hey, everything isn't equal. Look deeper and stop relying on base statistics.
That kind of discrepancy defies all reason
No. Exploring it may beyond your limited intelligence but please, do
let a little math stand in the way of preserving your bias
Maybe a little more than you're capable of, but at least fucking read the work being done by others.
These charts improve on the left/right divide by adding an additional axis. But a chart really can't summarize more than two orthogonal aspects of a political position
This though is my problem with them. Use of these charts may be valid and helpful at a population but too many idiots use those population characteristics to assign identities to individuals, then act on those identities.
As an example, "Punch a nazi" became farcical the moment it became a meme because everybody's now a nazi. Display a single trait associated with particular defunct German political movement and you're labelled with everything that's bad about them and treated accordingly.
That's ludicrous, and these charts don't really help.
What you've said is that if a more qualified woman or black person applies for the job, an employer is in no way obligated to accept a while, male candidate.
No, that's not what I said. Oh, and here's a reference for hiring women purely on the grounds of their gender:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Here's one where the BBC are defending and claiming legality for offering paid work to people that must be non-white:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...
OTOH, there is no law stating a less qualified candidate who is not white or male must be accepted. You're pretty much trying to do what Damore did in his memo, insinuate a conclusion and lie by omission.
No, I'm just better informed than you and able to back up my statements with references. You merely throw around insults.
White males are not discriminated against in any way
Except the ways I mentioned in my original post, none of which you've been able to disprove.
Not even the Guardian tries to say that white men are evil, that shit is entirely the DM's area.
No one is attacking you for being white or male
Well, since you mentioned the Guardian, even they acknowledge that "In America, as in Europe, older, white men are the only group that liberals can abuse and exclude with impunity."
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
you're being attacked because you spout a lot of bullshit and the rest of us are sick of it
When even the fucking Guardian acknowledges the issue I think it shows that you're either ignorant, in denial or maliciously trying to prevent conversation.
So call bollocks on whatever the fuck you like, but do try and provide some fucking evidence next time.
See response to mjwx below.
But both net you an accusation of racism. Don't tell me it's a false equivalency, tell the people liberally throwing around labels and trying to shut down conversations.
Strange, you seem to think I'm defending someone. I'm not. I'm pointing out how irrational, illogical, illegal and immoral your stance is.