# SJWs, NPCs, Alt-Right, Nazis, Anti-SJWs, Woke, Far-Right, Far-Left, Left...



## Saiyan Lusitano (May 6, 2019)

Seems politics have made people really dense as they can't help but use a political side and one of the usual buzzwords to label someone. It's like folks can't come up with intelligent arguments anymore and then you either have people saying "I'm going to take down all those Alt-Right Nazis with my wokeness!!" or "NPC SJWs are ruining everything."

As a kid I'd thought we'd have hover cars and have that cool technological products from _Back to the Future_ now but nah, you have people calling others "Nazis" or "SJWs." Politics... Smh.

The whole Left vs Right is just a Monopoly game but supporters of both sides think their support makes a difference.

To make it clear, I tend to agree with what the "anti-SJWs" but not really always and there are some dicks who think they're more, uh, what's the word.. red pilled? Guess that works.


----------



## linuxares (May 6, 2019)

People need to label people, just move on with your life and stop caring.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 6, 2019)

For the most part I agree with @linuxares. Though I lean conservative/libertarian (Not Republican. Never registered Republican. Never will.), I'm not an ideologue such that I see myself on a 'team' and just reflexively oppose anything a left-leaning person says. I think about it first, give it a fair shake, and occasionally I agree. Not usually, but occasionally.

But some people aren't like this at all. Perhaps it hurts their heads to think, or they just know they belong on side or the other. I'll never be able to get along with that kind of mental/political rigidity, but it's a fact of human nature. Nothing new in our age.

Hop over to Wikipedia and read about the Nika Riots in 532AD, for example. BLUE!!!


----------



## H1B1Esquire (May 6, 2019)

I'm going to throw a few words and commas: social media, mob-mentality, low intelligence, attention-seeking, biased views, lack-of-critical-thinking.

That's pretty much what caused a lot of....this to happen. 

I'm pretty sure, if the world calculated all the time wasted on "internet shit" and put it toward dealing with actual problems, we'd have:

at a CPP/MSRP of $299.99 because the world would have run out of problems and instead of 1,000,000,006 "cooking" shows, there'd be:


I'd say we're 15 years off where we should be.


----------



## Superbronx (May 7, 2019)

If I were to be saddled with a political label, libertarian /conservative would be most appropriate. 
As for the muddled state our world finds itself in, I think one of the chief concerns is that most people do not care anymore. The average person is too concerned about the newest video game platform that's in development (ex., stadia) or the latest smartphone. But that's not the only thing distracting people. A, not so insignificant percentage of people are too focused and too concerned about providing for their families (an honorable concern) and keeping debts paid on time. They really have no time to extend themselves outside that focus. 
 To begin to change the chaos in our countries, people need to arm themselves with knowledge. The more we know about the inner workings of our countries, the more effective we become at steering them back to stability.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

Well, some of these are not like the others.  Nobody is going to be offended if you call them 'leftist' or 'right-wing.'  I also don't see any issue with calling a spade a spade, for example if someone is walking around with swastika tattoos, obviously they're a neo-nazi and don't have any issue being identified as such.  'SJW' and 'NPC' were created with the express intent of being insulting, however, and they don't attempt to classify a person's political leanings in any meaningful way.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 7, 2019)

Meh...people will label others. Always have. Always will be. That in itself isn't so much an issue as it is that assuming that people with different labels have less value than you. It's also annoying that some try to deafen other labels by mischaracterizing their ideologies rather than promoting their own label (as a leftie, I should stress the importance of environment and social community instead of dissing others for what _I MIGHT THINK_ that extreme right stands for)



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> The whole Left vs Right is just a Monopoly game but supporters of both sides think their support makes a difference.


Erm...can you clarify what you mean with this? I don't get the term 'monopoly game' in this context. The latter...to me it seems like a conspiracy theory, but (no offense) it might just be your country.

Okay, I admit that there are some political agreements already being made (it's a good few weeks before the actual election), but that doesn't mean the support for the parties is useless.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> 'SJW' and 'NPC' were created with the express intent of being insulting, however, and they don't attempt to classify a person's political leanings in any meaningful way.



What? The term SJW was mainly used in a neutral or positive way to describe persons that hold specific political views. It became negative when people started pointing and laughing at their ideas.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> What? The term SJW was mainly used in a neutral or positive way to describe persons that hold specific political views. It became negative when people started pointing and laughing at their ideas.


It's never had positive connotations, you can simply call somebody 'liberal on social issues' instead.  'SJW' is a term created by the right to mock the left, an equivalent of the reverse being perhaps 'bible thumper' or 'gun nut.'


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's never had positive connotations, you can simply call somebody 'liberal on social issues' instead.  'SJW' is a term created by the right to mock the left, an equivalent of the reverse being perhaps 'bible thumper' or 'gun nut.'



Then please go and edit the the wikipedia article, just don't forget to cite your sources. We can't let this misinformation stand!

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Then please go and edit the the wikipedia article, just don't forget to cite your sources. We can't let this misinformation stand!
> 
> Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior


The entry there already seems to reinforce what I've said of the term.  The source used for it being originally 'neutral or positive' doesn't actually say that at all.  It says most people had never heard of the term until Gamergate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The entry there already seems to reinforce what I've said of the term.  The source for it being originally 'neutral or positive' doesn't actually say that at all.  It says most people had never heard of the term until Gamergate:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry



From your own source
Edit: Or rather the source linked in the Wikipedia article which substantiates what's in the article, sorry for that



> *When it was a compliment*
> 
> More than 20 years ago, the term was generally used as a neutral or even complimentary describer. Here’s a clip from a 1991 write-up of a Montreal jazz festival, from the Montreal Gazette:
> 
> [Quebec guitarist Rene] Lussier will present the world premiere of his ambitious Quebecois mood piece Le Tresor de la Langue, which juxtaposes the spoken word — including sound bites from Charles de Gaulle and Quebec nationalist and social-justice warrior Michel Chartrand — with new- music noodlings.



Seriously, start reading past the headline


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> From your own source
> 
> Seriously, start reading past the headline


Literally the first paragraph of the article:



> Most people hadn’t heard of a “social justice warrior” until about a year ago, when it emerged as the preferred term among the Gamergate movement for the people they believed to be their greatest enemies. Now, the word has crossed over enough into mainstream use that in August, “Social Justice Warrior” was included in the latest batch of words added to Oxford Dictionaries. The online dictionary from Oxford University Press defined the phrase as an informal, derogatory noun referring to “a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.”


By the time it was added to the dictionary, it was already declared a derogatory term.

Seriously, stop trying to cherry pick what to quote and what not to.


----------



## VartioArtel (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's never had positive connotations, you can simply call somebody 'liberal on social issues' instead.  'SJW' is a term created by the right to mock the left, an equivalent of the reverse being perhaps 'bible thumper' or 'gun nut.'


Not necessarily the right, even some of the left use it. To me at least, SJW is almost exclusively the extreme left - the sort who attempt to force views their way or... well.. see the Vic Mignogna situation... IE: these "SJWs" are doxing ANYONE who stands up for him (If you're not up to date: they literally started sending cellphones to individuals linked to the Vic Mignogna side to dox them via  tracking the phone's location).


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Literally the first paragraph of the article:
> 
> 
> By the time it was added to the dictionary, it was already declared a derogatory term.
> ...



We can play that game if you want. Explain your interpration of the usage of the word NPC in accordance with this then: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/npc .
Or we can be reasonable people and agree that words exist before a dictionary defines them.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> We can play that game if you want. Explain your interpration of the usage of the word NPC in accordance with this then: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/npc .
> Or we can be reasonable people and agree that words exist before a dictionary defines them.


I never said the term 'NPC' didn't exist prior to its negative connotations, quite obviously it has existed for decades.  It's only the meme form of it that's intended to be insulting.


----------



## kevin corms (May 7, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Seems politics have made people really dense as they can't help but use a political side and one of the usual buzzwords to label someone. It's like folks can't come up with intelligent arguments anymore and then you either have people saying "I'm going to take down all those Alt-Right Nazis with my wokeness!!" or "NPC SJWs are ruining everything."
> 
> As a kid I'd thought we'd have hover cars and have that cool technological products from _Back to the Future_ now but nah, you have people calling others "Nazis" or "SJWs." Politics... Smh.
> 
> ...


I call out people acting like idiots, but you have to admit the crazy far left people have the largest voice and are supported by the media including social media outlets. People who are racist are usually quickly dealt with, heck even people who did nothing but disagree with SJW are quickly dealt with. Yet you can say any racist comment against "white" people you want, and you can be as sexist as you want against men.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I never said the term 'NPC' didn't exist prior to its negative connotations, quite obviously it has existed for decades.  It's only the meme form of it that's intended to be insulting.



I'm confused, are you saying that meanings and the usage of language changes over time and dictionaries don't keep up?


----------



## kevin corms (May 7, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> Not necessarily the right, even some of the left use it. To me at least, SJW is almost exclusively the extreme left - the sort who attempt to force views their way or... well.. see the Vic Mignogna situation... IE: these "SJWs" are doxing ANYONE who stands up for him (If you're not up to date: they literally started sending cellphones to individuals linked to the Vic Mignogna side to dox them via  tracking the phone's location).


I think the easiest way to separate a SJW from someone who is left wing is too see if they are bigots and toxic. SJW dont even care what the truth is, as long as they feel "morally right". SJW and alt right folks are just toxic people, the side they pick depends on who is around them and/or what they think will get them the most likes on social media, or the most eyes on other media. The SJWs seem to hate Jews and use terms like "person of color" which was used to describe free slaves in the past, they also attack minorities who dare support right wing politicians viciously online. Everything they say is a bunch of bs, as a Cajun-Acadian (we were never considered to have "whiteness" and went to the same schools as the black kids) Ive done a lot of research on what we know as race... below is a good starting point that illustrates both alt-right and SJW are insane, and worse of all almost nobody has proper knowledge of what the concept of race even is.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Seriously, stop trying to cherry pick what to quote and what not to.



Regarding this: I took the liberty to mark up the parts of the article that talk about the words transition to be derogatory and attached it as a screenshot, it's about half the article. I cut it up because of possible copyright issues but you can look it up yourself. It even contains quotes from the Head of Lexical Content Strategy at Oxford University Press Katherine Martin where she acknowledged the term had a positive connotation.

Sorry but you accusing me of cherry picking quotes is pretty rich.


----------



## chrisrlink (May 7, 2019)

why be left or right when you can be an anarchist like me?


----------



## Superbronx (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> What? The term SJW was mainly used in a neutral or positive way to describe persons that hold specific political views. It became negative when people started pointing and laughing at their ideas.


Query: Why do we have social justice warriors? What is their origin? 
Is it possible that people in today's world are more easily offended? If so, why? If I may posit a theory.
People in the modern age are noticeably thinner skinned. They cannot endure constructive criticism as efficiently as previous generations. The mark of a wise man is that he accepts correction and learns from it. The mark of a fool is that he rejects correction and learns nothing. 
It seems to me that a fair number of people are literally searching for a reason to be offended. If you are going on an archeological excavation in search of offense, you can be sure that you will find it. If that fails then you visit your lab and manufacturing facility and create offense out of thin air.


----------



## VartioArtel (May 7, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> I think the easiest way to separate a SJW from someone who is left wing is too see if they are bigots and toxic. SJW dont even care what the truth is, as long as they feel "morally right". SJW and alt right folks are just toxic people, the side they pick depends on who is around them and/or what they think will get them the most likes on social media, or the most eyes on other media. The SJWs seem to hate Jews and use terms like "person of color" which was used to describe free slaves in the past, they also attack minorities who dare support right wing politicians viciously online. Everything they say is a bunch of bs, as a Cajun-Acadian (we were never considered to have "whiteness" and went to the same schools as the black kids) Ive done a lot of research on what we know as race... below is a good starting point that illustrates both alt-right and SJW are insane, and worse of all almost nobody has proper knowledge of what the concept of race even is.



I agree. Those who are true SJWs care not about "truth", they only care about their agenda, what gives them ego and power. I've followed a few of these cases, and these people are truly as delusional as the far right as you implied. Both sides only care about themselves or their agendas, and both enter the reigns of authoritarian or absolutist mentalities wherein there's no black and white, it's "Pick a color and destroy everything else that doesn't align with our color".

It's the result of 'freedom of speech' going too far, and it honestly begs the question of 'how much freedom is too much freedom'. I am not saying people shouldn't have freedoms, but the reality is, the more 'authentication' these absurd mentalities receive, the more traction they gain (because if they're permitted by law, then that must mean they're legitimate, right)? It's a harsh reminder that Freedom of Speech permits for some absurd reason to continued existence of hate groups, absurdities (groups) where logic is denied because they can spin a narrative where they're 'right' with no facts or basis, etc.

I think, and this is my opinion: the Bill of Rights in America (and any other relevant country) needs a thorough update, ancient laws need to be reconsidered with the present and future (I look at you, 2nd amendment and copyright laws, random ass ancient laws that were never purged from lawbooks), etc etc.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 7, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> I agree. Those who are true SJWs care not about "truth", they only care about their agenda, what gives them ego and power. I've followed a few of these cases, and these people are truly as delusional as the far right as you implied. Both sides only care about themselves or their agendas, and both enter the reigns of authoritarian or absolutist mentalities wherein there's no black and white, it's "Pick a color and destroy everything else that doesn't align with our color".
> 
> It's the result of 'freedom of speech' going too far, and it honestly begs the question of 'how much freedom is too much freedom'. I am not saying people shouldn't have freedoms, but the reality is, the more 'authentication' these absurd mentalities receive, the more traction they gain (because if they're permitted by law, then that must mean they're legitimate, right)? It's a harsh reminder that Freedom of Speech permits for some absurd reason to continued existence of hate groups, absurdities (groups) where logic is denied because they can spin a narrative where they're 'right' with no facts or basis, etc.
> 
> I think, and this is my opinion: the Bill of Rights in America (and any other relevant country) needs a thorough update, ancient laws need to be reconsidered with the present and future (I look at you, 2nd amendment and copyright laws, random ass ancient laws that were never purged from lawbooks), etc etc.



Can you clarify what you mean by „freedom of speech going too far“? Are you making the argument that authoritarians should be censored?

I‘m not too worried tbh, the market works pretty well in this case. Left leaning and specifically radical left media is in a freefall with massive layoffs. People aren’t interested in their ideas and are telling them to learn to code. Just keep pointing and laughing.


----------



## VartioArtel (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by „freedom of speech going too far“? Are you making the argument that authoritarians should be censored?
> 
> I‘m not too worried tbh, the market works pretty well in this case. Left leaning and specifically radical left media is in a freefall with massive layoffs. People aren’t interested in their ideas and are telling them to learn to code. Just keep pointing and laughing.


"The market works pretty well in this case".

If the SJW movements and far right leaning movements prove anything, it's that these groups can gain traction. With enough gaslighting and a large enough group, it wouldn't be hard enough to cause a revolt. And most people just wouldn't care. Trump could push to get his 2 extended years and succeed, and most of the country WOULDN'T CARE because, surprise: they are too lazy to get involved, partially out of self preservation instincts.

I got constant anxiety due to a mental condition, paranoia and considering these possibilities *is* my life. I can't just say "It won't happen", the possibility is it *can*, and that we'd all let it happen because people are under this delusional preconception that people wouldn't let it happen and point and laugh them off.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 7, 2019)

Only siths deal in absolutes.

But seriously? These people you are talking about are a minority. An extremely vocal minority, but a minority. They get way more attention than they deserve.
And yes, i'm talking about far right just as much as far left. They are not only cancer to each other but everyone around them.

In the meantime, nobody to talk about things that really matter. Jobs, education, health care...


----------



## Asia81 (May 7, 2019)

you forgot feminazis


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> Not necessarily the right, even some of the left use it. To me at least, SJW is almost exclusively the extreme left - the sort who attempt to force views their way or... well.. see the Vic Mignogna situation... IE: these "SJWs" are doxing ANYONE who stands up for him (If you're not up to date: they literally started sending cellphones to individuals linked to the Vic Mignogna side to dox them via  tracking the phone's location).


Are you kidding me? They are tracking people that support Vic?

I haven’t been up to date with the situation. Last I checked Vic was suing for 1 million, and one of the reasons Funimation fired Vic was over a stupid Jelly Bean story. He ate a Jelly Bean with Monica Rials name on it and said he ate Monica at a con, and they fired him over it. Man that poor guy having to go through non-sense from people that wanna destroy him.


----------



## VartioArtel (May 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Are you kidding me? They are tracking people that support Vic?
> 
> I haven’t been up to date with the situation. Last I checked Vic was suing for 1 million, and one of the reasons Funimation fired Vic was over a stupid Jelly Bean story. He ate a Jelly Bean with Monica Rials name on it and said he ate Monica at a con, and they fired him over it. Man that poor guy having to go through non-sense from people that wanna destroy him.



Yep. Seems Marzgurl I think it was (or someone affiliated with her) made a "YellowFlash2.com" website that was asking anyone interested to dox Yellowflash (a youtuber following and detailing everything said on the Mignogna incident). They sent a cellphone to his P.O. box linked to their account so they could ping its location (thankfully, they were stupid as F and forgot to charge the thing so it never REACHED his home, but they LIKE THE BLEEDING IDIOTS THEY ARE told him they doxed him), and it's  extremely likely he isn't the last. We also known AnimeNewsNetwork filed a false DMCA to try to censure HeroHei (yet another youtuber covering the KickVic movement) because their CEO has openly supporter KickVic and Marzgurl, etc. Basically it's just getting worse and worse even WITH the lawsuit with anyone who isn't covered in the lawsuit lashing out.


----------



## Superbronx (May 7, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> "The market works pretty well in this case".
> 
> If the SJW movements and far right leaning movements prove anything, it's that these groups can gain traction. With enough gaslighting and a large enough group, it wouldn't be hard enough to cause a revolt. And most people just wouldn't care. Trump could push to get his 2 extended years and succeed, and most of the country WOULDN'T CARE because, surprise: they are too lazy to get involved, partially out of self preservation instincts.


Sometimes it's easy for us armchair quarterbacks to think we know exactly what needs to be done when in reality we are poorly qualified to enter the arena. Something that is good for us to consider though is what exactly would be the consequences of limiting or even eliminating free speech?
 If someone were to restrict free speech, the next question would be who gets to regulate it? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is inappropriate? You would then find yourself on a very slippery slope. Odds are whoever would have the reigns and decide what we can't say would go too far and ban words that are not objectionable at all.
 Or what if they take it further and completely eliminate free speech? Then we no longer live in a free republic anymore. No one would be allowed to stand up and speak against tyranny.


----------



## SG854 (May 7, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> Yep. Seems Marzgurl I think it was (or someone affiliated with her) made a "YellowFlash2.com" website that was asking anyone interested to dox Yellowflash (a youtuber following and detailing everything said on the Mignogna incident). They sent a cellphone to his P.O. box linked to their account so they could ping its location (thankfully, they were stupid as F and forgot to charge the thing so it never REACHED his home, but they LIKE THE BLEEDING IDIOTS THEY ARE told him they doxed him), and it's  extremely likely he isn't the last. We also known AnimeNewsNetwork filed a false DMCA to try to censure HeroHei (yet another youtuber covering the KickVic movement) because their CEO has openly supporter KickVic and Marzgurl, etc. Basically it's just getting worse and worse even WITH the lawsuit with anyone who isn't covered in the lawsuit lashing out.


I swear they are sooo stupid. Everything they do they are making the situation worse for themselves. It makes them out be conspirators which will be used against them in court.

The 1 million is the first round of lawsuits, and it looks like there’s more to come.


Everytime I listen to a Nick Riketa video I get extremely pissed, because of the crap they pull off. Hearing Nick and Vic’s lawyer go on an angry yelling rant about the stuff they do really gets me mad.


----------



## mattytrog (May 7, 2019)

Extreme left or right wing views are made by idiots.

However, the media brainwashing towards a left bias is appalling. It is made to make you feel bad about caring about your country.

I mean, you have the Clinton News Network, BBC (who celebrate Karl Marx for crying out loud)...

There are bigger people at play here.

That vile Soros with his views and buying influence... The sooner he departs this earth, the better frankly.

Just don`t let yourselves be brainwashed. Don`t follow the lead because your friends do... I think its better to be without these "friends" and be true to yourself.

Wheres @notimp tonight? He hasn`t regaled us with his wall-of-text on such matters yet...


----------



## Superbronx (May 7, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> Extreme left or right wing views are made by idiots.
> 
> However, the media brainwashing towards a left bias is appalling. It is made to make you feel bad about caring about your country.
> 
> ...


I agree Soros needs to be removed from play. No one really knows just what evil he orchestrates behind the scenes


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I'm confused, are you saying that meanings and the usage of language changes over time and dictionaries don't keep up?


No...?  The definition of NPC hasn't changed from what it was originally.  It was obviously never meant to be a term directed at a person or people, though, and that's what makes it offensive.

Again, it also fails to have any political context.  Anybody can accuse anybody of being an 'NPC.'  Right-wingers are certainly guilty of parroting their news outlets of choice just as much as leftists do, if not more so.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 7, 2019)

Divide and conquer, baby. It's all bullshit. The partisan issues and labels are mostly distractions to prevent unity and progress. I think we all agree on the same basic principles.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Divide and conquer, baby. It's all bullshit. The partisan issues and labels are mostly distractions to prevent unity and progress. I think we all agree on the same basic principals.


Unfortunately we don't.  Leftists believe in supporting the working class, right-wingers believe in supporting 'job creators' and relying on trickle-down.  That's just economically of course, the two sides are even more divided when it comes to social issues.  Right-wingers haven't even been able to get past the fact that abortion is legal since Roe v Wade was decided nearly half a century ago.  Everybody else has long ago moved on to other issues.


----------



## Superbronx (May 7, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Divide and conquer, baby. It's all bullshit. The partisan issues and labels are mostly distractions to prevent unity and progress. I think we all agree on the same basic principles.


Exactly right. Divide and conquer is definitely the strategy being used against us. A house divided against itself cannot stand. There is also another element many times overlooked. A strong country is built on a strong foundation. The family was once our strong foundation and years ago someone figured out if they could just do away with that, they could weaken us immeasurably.


----------



## Superbronx (May 7, 2019)

Delete


----------



## Glyptofane (May 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Unfortunately we don't.  Leftists believe in supporting the working class, right-wingers believe in supporting 'job creators' and relying on trickle-down.  That's just economically of course, the two sides are even more divided when it comes to social issues.  Right-wingers haven't even been able to get past the fact that abortion is legal since Roe v Wade was decided nearly half a century ago.  Everybody else has long ago moved on to other issues.


Yea, keep aborting. Then we got none of you guys left.


----------



## Xzi (May 7, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Exactly right. Divide and conquer is definitely the strategy being used against us.


This makes no sense.  You believe this country should have only one political party?  That's how we end up a Banana Republic.

In fact, we need far more political parties added as options in the US.  Divisions don't have to be a bad thing, we can take the best ideas from multiple viewpoints and implement them.  The only reason things are so heated right now is that the leaders of the right-wing are being extremely combative.  Trump has never once tried to be a president to all of us, he only panders to his base.



Glyptofane said:


> Yea, keep aborting. Then we got none of you guys left.


Your mistake is believing that Republicans aren't often complete hypocrites about the subject, and don't get abortions themselves.  They are and they do.


----------



## Whole lotta love (May 8, 2019)

real centrist hours


----------



## Superbronx (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This makes no sense.  You believe this country should have only one political party?  That's how we end up a Banana Republic.
> 
> In fact, we need far more political parties added as options in the US.  Divisions don't have to be a bad thing, we can take the best ideas from multiple viewpoints and implement them.  The only reason things are so heated right now is that the leaders of the right-wing are being extremely combative.  Trump has never once tried to be a president to all of us, he only panders to his base.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand me. I'm not saying multiple parties are a bad thing. Libertarians sprang up because they were dissatisfied with the republican party which is supposed to be conservative. On the other side the democrats are supposed to be liberal but they left that behind years ago. They have become so radical that they are now basically socialist. Most old Democrat voters are not even aware how far left their party has gone. They stick by them because they don't know what they've become. Someone needs to break away from the democrats and form a new party that is true to their original ideals.
 The divide and conquer of which I speak is the people pushing agendas to divide our population. Agendas such as race. Racial tension had died down so much as to almost become non existent before obama took office and then after his 8 years in office they were suddenly higher than they had been in years. That's more than mere coincidence.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> On the other side the democrats are supposed to be liberal but they left that behind years ago. They have become so radical that they are now basically socialist.


That's ridiculous.  The last Democratic presidential nominee was Hillary Clinton.  It doesn't get much more centrist-bureaucrat than that.  Until Bernie Sanders or another progressive actually wins the nomination, Democrats have been playing things _too_ safe and _too_ close to the center.  Trump is an extremist, and that helped him win because people are tired of 'status quo' politicians.



Ssuperbronx said:


> Someone needs to break away from the democrats and form a new party that is true to their original ideals.


You must not know your history very well.  Democrats have been getting called 'Socialists' since the days of FDR.  It's just the right-wing crying wolf at this point, and they're driving more people to the left-wing as a result.



Ssuperbronx said:


> The divide and conquer of which I speak is the people pushing agendas to divide our population. Agendas such as race. Racial tension had died down so much as to almost become non existent before obama took office and then after his 8 years in office they were suddenly higher than they had been in years. That's more than mere coincidence.


Give me a break.  He was the first black president ever elected, of course there was going to be some 'racial tension' among people who don't like the idea of change.  You can't blame Obama himself as the cause of it, though.


----------



## Benja81 (May 8, 2019)

American politics has become a long day of middle school, he said/she said.


----------



## Superbronx (May 8, 2019)

But just when did the Democratic Party begin its slide down the road toward the Socialist/Communist ideology? It really began around* 1944,* when the six-time Socialist Party candidate for President *Norman Thomas* stated:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.... I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform." 

*Next step:The 1960's, Socialist Saul Alinsky*, a very good friend of Presidential hopeful, *Hillary Clinton*. Saul Alinsky stated that to change a society, one had to first infiltrate the major institutions, the school, the media, the churches, the entertainment industries, the labor unions, and the three branches of government, and then it would have the power to implement policies. 



*1972 elections*: Democratic Party effectively eliminated its opposition--the *centrist liberals* who had viciously opposed Communist totalitarianism. Once the Centrists in the Democratic Party were eliminated, the New Left took over the Democratic Party and incorporated the "*liberalism*" word it had destroyed through earlier elections. It was here that Socialism began its move into the depths of the Democratic Party, with *Hillary Rodham Clinton actually writing letters to Saul Alinsky telling him how great his work was and that his ideas were working well. *


*2001-2004:* Democrats under the cloak of Campaign Finance Reform included a small provision called the* 527 Organizations*, which allowed ultra-radicals like themselves to give unlimited sums of money to only the Democrats. The 527 included one *George Soros*, who was one of the leaders of the "*Shadow Party*." But it does not stop here; one of the groups inside the Shadow Party is none other than George Soros's own, *MoveOn.org*. It was after John Kerry lost the 2004 election that these groups stated;*  "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it."*



  Today's ruling Democratic Party faction, whose members include the so-called "Shadow Party" and its constituent elements, call themselves "*progressive Democrats*." These Democrats themselves have a leftwing faction in the House of Representatives which is formally organized into the *Progressive Caucus. The word "progressive" has been replaced with "Liberal," and Socialist Bernie Sanders was the founder of the Progressive Caucus. This should trouble people who love their freedom and liberties because the Socialists do not like either one and will lie and steal to remove both from the United States. *

*
2009,* former DNC Chairman *Howard Dean* said that "cooperation" between European socialists and the Democratic Party had "intensified significantly" over the preceding several years and involved "regular contact" at "Congress, Senate, party and foundation levels." He added that "efforts have been remarkable from both sides."  Howard Dean actually said that the Socialists are making significant gains in the Democratic Party, and that was in 2009, when the extreme Socialist Barack Obama was elected to office. 


In April 2010, the official website of the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) revealed that organization's ties to the Democratic Party. Describing itself as a "Party Within a Party," SDUSA stated the following:


"The Social Democrats, USA kept the name Socialist Party for our political arm and The Socialist Party, USA, in 1956, chose to stop running candidates of its own, except on rare occasion. During the 1960's, we began to work in the Democratic Party" 


"Our movement has been involved in the left wing of the Democratic Party since 1947. Socialist Party members helped found Americans for Democratic Action. ADA is this country's premiere "anti-Communist, liberal" organization. We are proud of our long relationships with Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, and others. We look forward to forging a good working relationship with our fellow pro-labor, anti-totalitarian, left Democrats." 



It may not surprise some to find out who organized the Shadow Party, but it will surely surprise many who think the names are wrong:


Here, the term "Shadow Party" is used specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initiatives -- to advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide the Democratic Party ever-further towards the left. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by *Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold Ickes*. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> But just when did the Democratic Party begin its slide down the road toward the Socialist/Communist ideology? It really began around* 1944,* when the six-time Socialist Party candidate for President *Norman Thomas* stated:
> "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.... I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
> 
> *Next step:The 1960's, Socialist Saul Alinsky*, a very good friend of Presidential hopeful, *Hillary Clinton*. Saul Alinsky stated that to change a society, one had to first infiltrate the major institutions, the school, the media, the churches, the entertainment industries, the labor unions, and the three branches of government, and then it would have the power to implement policies.
> ...


The shift started happening after 1994. The Right slightly moves more right, while the left really moved way far left.

From Pew Research. They moved heavily away from American median norms.

https://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/



Chart from the Economist. No matter what chart you look, or what different research you look at, Democrats have the most extreme shift while Republicans remain close to center with very slight shift to the right.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

Ssuperbronx said:


> Here, the term "Shadow Party" is used specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy initiatives -- to advance Democratic Party agendas, elect Democratic candidates, and guide the Democratic Party ever-further towards the left.


This literally just sounds like normal campaigning/mega-donor behavior.  Except the DNC establishment doesn't give a damn about pushing the party further left.



Ssuperbronx said:


> The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by *Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold Ickes.*


You know your conspiracy theory is bogus when it hinges on these three somehow being "far-left socialists" instead of the corporate centrists that they actually are.  It's the reason corporate interests couldn't lose in a race between Hillary and Trump, they were both on a leash held by mega-donors.  Bernie Sanders was the only person in the 2016 race who fell outside of that paradigm.



SG854 said:


> The shift started happening after 1994. The Right slightly moves more right, while the left really moved way far left.


The entire world has slowly moved to the left, otherwise we'd all be stuck in the dark ages when religion reigned supreme and science was blasphemy.  That's the nature of progress and the reason we have a 'progressive' wing of the party.  So the standard of living and the state of human rights don't end up declining more and more for future generations.  Only the US has been resistant to providing what every other modern first-world country has available in that regard.


----------



## Deleted User (May 8, 2019)

Why did they make the internet accessible and attractive to the intellectually impaired?

Used to be a peaceful place once.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This literally just sounds like normal campaigning/mega-donor behavior.  Except the DNC establishment doesn't give a damn about pushing the party further left.
> 
> 
> You know your conspiracy theory is bogus when it hinges on these three somehow being "far-left socialists" instead of the corporate centrists that they actually are.  It's the reason corporate interests couldn't lose in a race between Hillary and Trump, they were both on a leash held by mega-donors.  Bernie Sanders was the only person in the 2016 race who fell outside of that paradigm.
> ...


The right isn’t the only science denier. Plenty of people on the left shutting down science because it goes against what they want to believe in. It’s hard to get funding for IQ research for this reason. The left more likely deny’s biology, and human psychology.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 8, 2019)

Some people seem to think that socialism is always associated with communism and by itself brings the apocalypse.

It's... I mean I understand that's american propaganda 1:1, but it's socialism that can bring you some well needed safety nets such as health care or free school.
Not everything is bad in it, just like not everything is good with capitalism. Typically we live in a planet with finite resources and capitalism if applied "by the book" will just end up killing us all. What matters is to always keep an open mind and not automatically considering an idea bad because it comes from the opposite side. Hell, what a weird system where there's only 2 sides.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The right isn’t the only science denier. Plenty of people on the left shutting down science because it goes against what they want to believe in.


If by "plenty" you mean a small percentage, then sure.  You can be an anti-vaxxer or flat Earther on either side of the political aisle I suppose, but those that outright deny science in all forms are much more likely to be conservative.



SG854 said:


> It’s hard to get funding for IQ research for this reason.


I have no clue what you're talking about, IQ is not hard to measure.  It's also far from the only consideration when determining a person's overall intelligence, but that's a different subject.



SG854 said:


> The left is more likely deny’s biology, and human psychology.


LGBTQ individuals aren't "denying biology" by expressing their sexual identity, that's not how it works.  And psychology is just the study of how people think, including LGBTQ people.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If by "plenty" you mean a small percentage, then sure.  You can be an anti-vaxxer or flat Earther on either side of the political aisle I suppose, but those that outright deny science in all forms are much more likely to be conservative.


I don’t think so.



Xzi said:


> I have no clue what you're talking about, IQ is not hard to measure.  It's also far from the only consideration when determining a person's overall intelligence, but that's a different subject.


It’s been known for a long time IQ research is hard to get funding for. And the only way they can get funding is to say they are doing it to help Down syndrome people.



Xzi said:


> LGBTQ individuals aren't "denying biology" by expressing their sexual identity, that's not how it works.  And psychology is just the study of how people think, including LGBTQ people.


Not all LGBTIQ2S+ people are the same and believe the same. I never said being Gay or Trans wasn’t real. They are very real.

Human Psychology would be career choices, differences careers male and female chooses. Which is Universal in many cultures around the world.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t think so.


What do you mean you "don't think so?"  It only makes sense.  Tackling climate change and pushing for other breakthrough research is part of the Democratic platform.  The Republican platform strips all funding for that type of thing and puts climate change deniers at the head of the EPA.  I don't think there are even any science advisors left in the Trump administration at all.



SG854 said:


> It’s been known for a long time IQ research is hard to get funding for. And the only way they can get funding is to say they are doing it to help Down syndrome people.


Probably because large-scale studies of varying IQs would yield mostly-useless results.  I don't know the specifics, of course, it could just be bureaucratic red tape holding it up instead.



SG854 said:


> Human Psychology would be career choices, differences careers male and female chooses. Which is Universal in many cultures around the world.


Stereotypes are not the same as a lens into the world of psychology.  And different cultures do have different views about career choices.  Asians introduced the idea to the states that men could be cooks and cleaners, and they were initially ridiculed as being 'more feminine' because of it.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What do you mean you "don't think so?"  It only makes sense.  Tackling climate change and pushing for other breakthrough research is part of the Democratic platform.  The Republican platform strips all funding for that type of thing and puts climate change deniers at the head of the EPA.  I don't think there are even any science advisors left in the Trump administration at all.


Both Democrats and Republicans deny science, but deny different types of science that conflicts with their political view points. 

More likely

The Right - Evolution, Climate Change
The Left - Evolutionary Psychology (Grievance Studies), Biology, Sexual Dimorphism, Sex Differences.



Xzi said:


> Probably because large-scale studies of varying IQs would yield mostly-useless results.  I don't know the specifics, of course, it could just be bureaucratic red tape holding it up instead.


IQ research is considered the greatest achievement in Human Psychology. And the entire psychology field is based on testing standards IQ research has set. 

Most IQ studies aren’t useless, and give more accurate results then anything else in psychology. If IQ research is useless then the whole field of psychology that gives less accurate results (like depression, transgenderism, suicide) is useless. 



Xzi said:


> Stereotypes are not the same as a lens into the world of psychology.  And different cultures do have different views about career choices.  Asians introduced the idea to the states that men could be cooks and cleaners, and they were initially ridiculed as being 'more feminine' because of it.


It’s universal in many cultures in career choices male and females pick. The countries that have less differences are ones with less equality. The ones with higher equality has bigger career choice differences.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> Some people seem to think that socialism is always associated with communism and by itself brings the apocalypse.
> 
> It's... I mean I understand that's american propaganda 1:1, but it's socialism that can bring you some well needed safety nets such as health care or free school.
> Not everything is bad in it, just like not everything is good with capitalism. Typically we live in a planet with finite resources and capitalism if applied "by the book" will just end up killing us all. What matters is to always keep an open mind and not automatically considering an idea bad because it comes from the opposite side. Hell, what a weird system where there's only 2 sides.



Here's the problem. Socialism *is* associated with communism and it's not even American propaganda. The liberal part of the socialist movement made a clear distinction in the early 20th century, dropped the marxist definition of socialism, wanted to work in a democratic framework and called themselves social democrats. They went on and became a major political force across Europe.

My parents grew up under a socialist regime and while they would probably be more aligned with democrats, because of their rhetoric alone they would likely never vote for them and that's a big problem. My parents still roll their eyes and grind their teeth when they hear social democrats refer to each other as comrades, talk about traumatizing and problematic history!
Heck, I even remember TYT not being very happy with Bernie calling himself a socialist instead of a social democrat during the 2016 election because he was obviously referring to European social democracy.
It's not a propaganda thing! If you hear someone describe themselves as a socialist it means either of these:

they're imprecise and mean they're a social democrat
they're ignorant of the part of history where the socialist movement has dropped authoritarianism in the early 20th century and want to reform it all over again
they're actual authoritarians
For someone seeking to be elected into a position of power I wouldn't be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

With regards to health care, I can see where both sides are coming from. I'm living in a country with a socialized health care system and it's exploiting health care workers like crazy. It's gotten to a point where no one wants to work in health care and the lack of nurses has caused hospitals in big cities like Munich to close entire stations. It's not cheap either, we're paying between 200€ and 800€ a month depending on how much you earn and as soon as you're getting close to the upper end you want to switch to private insurance because coverage will be much better and they can't change it willy nilly because it's an actual agreed upon contract.
Right now I would say it's really a question of whether you prioritize quality or availability, but it's not that easy because even availability over here is kinda bad, it's not uncommon for people to have to wait months for appointments. Availability for emergency care is good but that causes people to show up to hospitals as emergencies for silly stuff because getting a regular appointment in a doctors practice would take so long.


----------



## notimp (May 8, 2019)

This thread is so bogus, I dont know where to begin..  Modern psychological research is based on IQ testing (method)? What the, where the, how? You mean the highly scientific studies of the mensa society? Post some of your proof on this one..  I'm interested in disecting it. 

The only reference on those matters I have, really is Adam Curtis Century of the self (and that thats my only reference there isnt good), which basically states, that early psychological tests where highly subjective.

On evolutionary psychology - afaik the entire field is somewhat sketchy, because they are using a Darwin term to popularize their findings - without having understood anything that Darwin wrote. The prerequisite for natural selection from Darwins point of view is, that you can chill on an island without any foes to your species anywhere, thats one - and then survival of the fittest is not survival of the "strongest", but of the finch, that actually learns how to use a thorn of a cactus to pull larva. Everything I've read in the evolutionary psychology field, simply negates that - and rather presents itself as a self help outlet that teaches humans how do ideally become "successful alphas". I mean, you could just as well accept scientologys teachings, they are not far off. If I'm grossly misrepresenting the "field", again - please provide reading material, I'm actually interested. Also, in social sciences they have something akin to a validity problem. They found out themselves (many of their landmark studies werent reproducible with the same outcome).


Only centrist is good. Far left, far right is always bad. First - left and right is a concept to grossly simplify I dont know - political standings? It in itself means nothing. It vastly changes over time. (Just mentioning the american work camps for japanese during world war two here for no reason. We dont have those any more, in the entire western world.) I myself hold viewpoints from both spectrums at certain times, and any politically interested person will find themselves doing so over time. In Germany we currently have a debate about climate change, where the actual "probable" solutions are spread all over the spectrum and coupled with slogans, an notions that then drive certain political positions. If I only go with left or right there, I'd be an idiot that chooses emotionality of the argument ("but are you with the poorer people (yes)") over the argument itself. When you are interested in political solutions, you are constantly surfing the entire spectrum of whats out there. Some stuff is taboo for me (racism, mainly) but thats about it. The conservative party in germany picked a "we have to get out of nuclear power" stance just a couple of years back, just because they thought it to be popular, when the elections came around shortly after Fukushima was on everyones mind (and necessary). That position for years on end, was something only the far left wings of the green party would utter - and then, suddenly mainstream. Wait, how did that happen? Well, thats actually politics, and seperating believes into left and right is childsplay.  Because it changes.
Also, please tend to remember, that in Europe we have 5 or more parties in parliament all the time, so the seperation in just left and right looses at least some of its rallying power. 

Now an argument for extremist believes. Humanity is a buch of idiots, prone to follow old believes, and leader types who most often are idiots as well. The allegory you usually bring, is one with fishermen. So someone detects where a swarm of fish is situated, then you have 90% of idiots imitating behavior because he was successful, 50% of them doing so for decades, because "it be tradition", and no one ever thinking - whats the point of all this. Then you have a far out there extremist actually saiying - eff this, I'll look around for other spots - and if they are successfull, the circle continues. And if they are not - they'll die being slightly socially unadjusted individuals. No progress comes from being centrist. Literally - none.  Liberals usually are the ones who recognize that most, but then - their views, as a result also are kind of out there.

Marx.

We have statues of Marx in Europe. He did coin a few concepts, that are still useful in the theoretical understanding of capitalism - today, he then pledged class warfair - which got him his bad name. To do that he pitched collectivism against a ruling class, in a way that some say HAD to end in disaster, and to their point, it pretty much did. Those werent "fair" societies. Regardless, what he wrote - is still taught in universities - and in the political sphere here in germany, he has become more of a symbol of a boogeyman, that people talk about - while thinking about the regime in east germany, which failed. (Because the americans brought the other part of germany democracy and capitalism, and the economic miracle, and a large product selection, and airbridges (Rosinenbomber)..  Lets just say - everyone liked the notion of germany being their anker point in another continent at that time..  ).
The statue, btw? A gift of the chinese.  (It actually was.)

Socialism.
In Europe that actually was a form of collectivism, that was and still is somewhat politically accepted. Thats what the social democrats (our big center left party for the better part of 70 years) derive the social from. What does colectivism mean in this case? Mostly unionization. Meaning, workers and entire occupational groups set minimal standards for their work - by themselves, no managers needed. Now the model that Europe was run by for centuries now, isnt that - but rather something called "social market economy". Which is the concept, that once the members of an occupational group have set their minimal standards, they actually get into talks with management, where they quarrel about whats economically viable. It also means, that there is actually a market economy as the main thing out there to regulate supply and demand. And thirdly, that there are social nets, that people in rough times can fall into, that prevent them from becoming homeless out of the gate, or to be engulfed in debt, because of a health problem they developed. Those are costs that we collectivized - so thats stuff that everyone pays for. Same with kindergardens, public swimming pools/halls, streets, police, and so on and so forth... Thats mostly what we think about, when someone mentions socialism. Not Stalin, Lenin, communists, and the FSB..  But then, I freaking carefully picked my words here - because every political term in this field is so emotionally loaded, that people will dismiss entire sets of ideas, only because of a word you used. Its dumb.

Interestingly, we currently have a big societal debate, because the speaker of the "young social democrats" (in party academy for the next generation political material) just publicly announced, that maybe we should think about making certain private enterprices state owned again, and only share the profits between the workers themselves. Which didn't go over very well with the rest of the political spectrum.  But yes, we still talk about that stuff.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

Part of the problem is lack of critical thinking skills. In college you are taught what a valid source of information is. Nowadays a lot of kids take youtube videos posted by a joe schmoe (sometimes not even being experts at a subject matter) that validates their world view as a valid and reputable source of information. That in itself is laughable. Critical thinking classes should be now a requirement before graduating high school.



Snugglevixen said:


> Why did they make the internet accessible and attractive to the intellectually impaired?
> 
> Used to be a peaceful place once.



the invention of the smartphone is one of the greatest inventions yet one of the greatest tragedies of our lifetime.

@SG854 if you honestly believe that republicans have remained centrist since the 80's... You must have been asleep during the tea party shift of the last decade.
Also The Economist is a known publication to lean right wing. That would be like me posting a graph from msnbc to support my left leaning claims. Take it with a pinch of salt.



Xzi said:


> What do you mean you "don't think so?"  It only makes sense.  Tackling climate change and pushing for other breakthrough research is part of the Democratic platform.  The Republican platform strips all funding for that type of thing and puts climate change deniers at the head of the EPA.  I don't think there are even any science advisors left in the Trump administration at all.



Should we tell him that there is footage of plenty of conservative senators circa 2006-2007 admitting climate change is a thing and that we should stop it and how nearly all of them pretended it was not real just to take an opposite stance to Obama during the elections?


----------



## notimp (May 8, 2019)

Now the stuff I'm actually interested in myself.

Help me understand from HERE on out:

Whats the "I understand the world, Soros is a bad guy - you never know what hes up to" meme? Ok, so - they guy has money - they guy finances NGO groups, and universities, the guy is politically active, and the guy is pretty much up front about it.

Now just take the last part away - multiply by 20, and you have a rough estimation of what goes on in those circles (people with much money - become interested in politics, because they tend to want to keep it for several generations. Unless you are Bill Gates, and you pubilically state, that you dont want to, and rather engage in philantropic efforts instead, leaving your kids only a few million.). They all set up trusts (which in return finance NGOs roughly), they all finance think tanks, they all finance political campaigns.

The Mercers, for gods sake, financed the entire "how to manipulate people correctly through microtargeting on facebook" movement, all but created cambridge analytica, stated - that they did so, because to them it was a new "political tool", raised up Bannon, and got Trump elected - which in return. First thing in office, lowered the taxrates for the insanely rich.

What I want to understand is, where the outrage and hatred against Soros in particular is coming from.

One of his NGO's apparently helped migrants crossing over to Europe with leaflets they disributed.

Is that it?

I mean, to me this person in particular has become a focal point of everything "thats wrong with the world" according to the far right, and I want to understand why.

My position in the matter - I read stuff that project-syndicate.org puts out, which is at least co financed by Soros - and I think that some of their views on current events, arent dumb at all. And to calm you down - no, they dont talk about "exchanging populations as a whole" - like, at all. 

In any case - on that front, the far right won anyhow. During the migration crisis they got such a huge growth spike, that the center right parties in the entirety of europe had to move further to the right, or they would have lost political majorities over the migration issue alone. So thank Soros for his leaflets, actually.. 

Democracy is still at work. We havent forgotten about that yet.

The other popular political form of ruling countries currently is called oligarchy, btw - and its better suited to describe the likes of russia, or america (tax cuts for the wealthy, fracking - then buld a wall for the masses? (The manufacturing jobs didnt come back, if you havent noticed - but other ones were created (weak enthusiasm).)).


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

notimp said:


> Socialism.
> In Europe that actually was a form of collectivism, that was and still is somewhat politically excepted. Thats what the social democrats (our big center left party for the better part of 70 years) derive the social from. What does colectivism mean in this case? Mostly unionization. Meaning, workers and entire occupational groups set minimal standards for their work - by themselves, no managers needed. Now the model that Europe was run by for centuries now, isnt that - but rather something called "social market economy". Which is the concept, that once the members of an occupational group have set their minimal standards, they actually get into talks with management, where they quarrel about whats economically viable. It also means, that there is actually a market economy as the main thing out there to regulate supply and demand. And thirdly, that there are social nets, that people in rough times can fall into, that prevent them to become homeless out of the gate, or to be engulfed in debt, because of a health problem they developed. Those are costs that we collectivized - so thats stuff that everyone pays for. Same with kindergardens, public swimming pools/halls, streets, police, and so on and so forth... Thats mostly what we think about, when someone mentions socialism. Not Stalin, Lenin, communists, and the FSB..  But then, I freaking carefully picked my words here - because every political term in this field is so emotionally loaded, that people will dismiss entire sets of ideas, only because of a word you used. Its dumb.
> 
> Interestingly, we currently have a big societal debate, because the speker of the "young social democrats" (in party academy for the next generation political material) just publicly announced, that maybe we should think about making certain private enterprices state owned again, and only share the profits between the workers themselves. Which didn't go over very well with the rest of the political spectrum.  But yes, we still talk about that stuff.



Good post!

I'd like to contest that people don't associate the soviet union with socialism but rather social democracy all over Europe. You're obviously right that it's an emotionally loaded term, but I believe that people are educated enough to make the distinction here. Either way I'd appreciate if the left would be precise in its language for once, which is something they're struggling with and I honestly believe that a lot of ideas that hold merit are rejected because of it.

If you want an anecdote, here's one. I'm a passionate cyclist. Generally if new stuff is shown off it takes a lot of time between being able to order and delivery because it takes a long time for general market availability of parts. A polish cycling youtuber made a video titled "The cycling industry is making me experience socialism all over again"

With regards to Kühnert, he isn't proposing to make enterprises state owned *again*, he's proposing to make enterprises that have always been privately owned to be taken over by the state. There's also talk about expropriation in the real estate market.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Both Democrats and Republicans deny science, but deny different types of science that conflicts with their political view points.
> 
> More likely
> 
> ...


Again you're just bullshitting that the left "denies biology."  If anything, you're the one denying that homosexuality and gender 'transitions' regularly occur in nature to better suit your biases.



SG854 said:


> IQ research is considered the greatest achievement in Human Psychology.


Bullshit.  Understanding the human mind and all its intricacies is the goal of psychology, not reducing complex concepts to a single number.  Again, IQ isn't even the only factor in determining intelligence, it only determines how quickly people are capable on picking up on new concepts.



SG854 said:


> It’s universal in many cultures in career choices male and females pick. The countries that have less differences are ones with less equality. The ones with higher equality has bigger career choice differences.


In other words, given the opportunity, the differences in career choice become negligible.  It's only in countries where women are given fewer/no opportunities that there remains a big difference.  On that we agree.


----------



## mattytrog (May 8, 2019)

notimp said:


> Now the stuff I'm actually interested in myself.
> 
> Help me understand from HERE on out:
> 
> Whats the "I understand the world, Soros is a bad guy - you never know what hes up to" meme



We know exactly what he is up to.

He is using his billions to subvert democracy(financing the remainers in the UK)
He wants cultural identity and the very idea of nationalism completely obliterated. Is it such a crime to want your nation and cultural identity to survive?

The guy is using his influence and money to interfere with anyone who is against nation state democracy and brainwash the young sheep into believing that nation state democracy is bad...

Ever seen the "Demolition Man"? Draw your own conclusions from the film... Quite enjoyable.

There is a "leader" called Dr Raymond Cocteau. I think Soros and that chap are a fair comparison.

The brainwashing by turning everyone into "peace-loving sheep" is well underway.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

with all due respect, I could make the same analogy to the Koch Brothers.
The reality is that Soros and the Koch Brothers are just power players in the ideologies that they believe in solely because of the money they put in play.


----------



## mattytrog (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> IQ research is considered the greatest achievement in Human Psychology. And the entire psychology field is based on testing standards IQ research has set.



I`m not sure about that...

The IQ test was designed in the 50s if I remember correctly.

We know a great deal more about the human brain and psyche and IQ testing isn`t really compatible any more.

An IQ test could be useful in diagnosing Aspergers though maybe...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> with all due respect. I could make the same analogy to the Koch Brothers.
> The reality is that Soros and the Koch Brothers are just power players in the ideologies that they believe in solely because of the money they put in play.


Exactly...


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> with all due respect. I could make the same analogy to the Koch Brothers.
> The reality is that Soros and the Koch Brothers are just power players in the ideologies that they believe in solely because of the money they put in play.


The right-wing even has its own (((globalist))) mega-donor, Sheldon Adelson.  Curiously, you don't hear nearly as many conspiracy theories about him or attacks on his character.


----------



## mattytrog (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The right-wing even has its own (((globalist))) mega-donor, Sheldon Adelson.  Curiously, you don't hear nearly as many conspiracy theories about him or attacks on his character.


I`d never heard of him.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> I`d never heard of him.


Half the Republican primary candidates were on his nuts for donations in 2016.  He owns a bunch of different casinos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson


----------



## pcwizard7 (May 8, 2019)

people like this are depressed and empty people and p.c thing is the only thing they have in their lives. if they stopped they realized how they wasted their lives


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again you're just bullshitting that the left "denies biology." If anything, you're the one denying that homosexuality and gender 'transitions' regularly occur in nature to better suit your biases.



This is exactly the problem with imprecise language I was talking about.
Gender is a social construct but somehow also natural? I take it you mean sex?
I've never heard that sexual transition in humans regularly occurs in nature, do you have resources on that?


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> This is exactly the problem with imprecise language I was talking about.
> Gender is a social construct but somehow also natural? I take it you mean sex?
> I've never heard that sexual transition in humans regularly occurs in nature.


Yes, sex, not gender.

And I didn't say in humans, I meant in certain species of animals.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again you're just bullshitting that the left "denies biology."  If anything, you're the one denying that homosexuality and gender 'transitions' regularly occur in nature to better suit your biases.


What do you mean? 



Xzi said:


> Bullshit.  Understanding the human mind and all its intricacies is the goal of psychology, not reducing complex concepts to a single number.  Again, IQ isn't even the only factor in determining intelligence, it only determines how quickly people are capable on picking up on new concepts.


Ya, I never said it wasn’t. But heavily G loaded questions tests for the G Factor. And IQ testing only means anything in relation to others. Numbers alone don’t mean anything. Have you read any books on the Neuroscience of intelligence? IQ testing isn’t worthless.



Xzi said:


> In other words, given the opportunity, the differences in career choice become negligible.  It's only in countries where women are given fewer/no opportunities that there remains a big difference.  On that we agree.



No, it’s the opposite. When not given the opportunity women take whatever job they can take, and a job where they can get money, so differences in career choices shrink like in stem. When there is more equality women are more free to choose what they desire so career choice differences is bigger. 



WD_GASTER2 said:


> Part of the problem is lack of critical thinking skills. In college you are taught what a valid source of information is. Nowadays a lot of kids take youtube videos posted by a joe schmoe (sometimes not even being experts at a subject matter) that validates their world view as a valid and reputable source of information. That in itself is laughable. Critical thinking classes should be now a requirement before graduating high school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn’t just list the economist I also listed pew research. I know about not only looking at one data which is why I look at multiple sources to see an underlying pattern. That’s how proper research is done. 

I know all about critical thinking. YouTube videos aren’t bad. And I use them as a supplement, and not the only source. I look at multiple sources. I also watch YouTube videos of doctors and scientists. I look at videos that links to researches and scientific articles so I can read them myself. And I read through studies and books written by scientists themselves. 

And I never said Republicans are centrist.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

"Chart from the Economist. No matter what chart you look, or what different research you look at, Democrats have the most extreme shift while Republicans remain close to center with very slight shift to the right." - @SG854

"And I never said republicans are centrist" also - @SG854

LOL. OK.


Also as for your pew reference the difference is not that big when you look at the chart either.
As a matter of fact that chart when set to "General Public and Overall" just goes to show that more people have shifted more to the left since 1994


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What do you mean?


What do you mean what do I mean?


> No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has _not_ been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Homosexuality and bisexuality are regular occurrences in nature, making them a regular part of biology as well.

Further, there are several species of animals that can change sex.



SG854 said:


> No, it’s the opposite. When not given the opportunity women take whatever job they can take, and a job where they can get money, so differences in career choices shrink like in stem. When there is more equality women are more free to choose what they desire so career choice differences is bigger.


That doesn't make any sense.  Obviously there's going to be a massive disparity in career choices between the sexes in countries where women aren't even allowed to have careers.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> I`m not sure about that...
> 
> The IQ test was designed in the 50s if I remember correctly.
> 
> ...


IQ testing isn’t useless and they are starting to apply Neuroimaging to it.

There’s a book called the Neuroscience of Intelligence written by Dr. Richard Haier and he goes into detail how IQ testing isn’t useless and all the myths about it, like how IQ testing only tests how good you do on IQ tests, which isn’t true because they test the G factor with heavily G Loaded Questions like with the Ravens Progressive Matrices. It’s a really good book.


In the U.S. army it’s illegal to have anyone lower then an IQ of 83. They take it seriously.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WD_GASTER2 said:


> "Chart from the Economist. No matter what chart you look, or what different research you look at, Democrats have the most extreme shift while Republicans remain close to center with very slight shift to the right." - @SG854
> 
> "And I never said republicans are centrist" also - @SG854
> 
> ...


Close to center doesn’t mean centrist. They are just closer to it.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> In the U.S. army it’s illegal to have anyone lower then an IQ of 83. They take it seriously.


No they fucking don't lol, the Army will take anybody willing to be a bullet sponge.  They even forced criminals into Army service when the Iraq war was starting to ramp up.

I wasn't given an IQ test to join the Coast Guard, so I can damn well guarantee that they aren't giving them to Army grunts.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What do you mean what do I mean?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
> 
> ...


Yes, I know homosexuality happens in nature. I made that clear in my post. I’m not denying any of it. I really don’t know what you are debating on.



Xzi said:


> What do you mean what do I mean?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
> 
> ...


It actually does. When people are restricted, nature doesn’t take over. When people are unrestricted nature does.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, sex, not gender.
> 
> And I didn't say in humans, I meant in certain species of animals.



I see, going back and reading the full exchange it becomes clear that you were talking about nature in general.

However, I do think you're quite disingenuous to accuse @SG854 of denying homosexuality or transsexuality after he clearly stated he believes they're "very real"

Personally I wouldn't go as far as to say that democrats deny biology but there's certain things in life where biological sex has to be the differentiating factor, like athletics, for obvious reasons. Democrats are trying to make the differentiating factor be gender identity as an anti discrimination measure. I can see how this could be seen as "denying biology". Obviously I'm aware of cases like Caster Semenya it's extremely difficult to be fair to everyone here but the point is that female athletics is a protected category precisely because there's biological differences.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No they fucking don't lol, the Army will take anybody willing to be a bullet sponge.  They even forced criminals into Army service when the Iraq war was starting to ramp up.
> 
> I wasn't given an IQ test to join the Coast Guard, so I can damn well guarantee that they aren't giving them to Army grunts.


It’s called the ASVAB. They won’t call it an IQ test.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s called the ASVAB. They won’t call it an IQ test.


Because it isn't one.  ASVAB tests your existing knowledge of various fields and trades, not your ability to pick up on new concepts.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

Also a person can have knowledge of various fields and trades and still be a complete idiot.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I see, going back and reading the full exchange it becomes clear that you were talking about nature in general.
> 
> However, I do think you're quite disingenuous to accuse @SG854 of denying homosexuality or transsexuality after he clearly stated he believes they're "very real"
> 
> Personally I wouldn't go as far as to say that democrats deny biology but there's certain things in life where biological sex has to be the differentiating factor, like athletics, for obvious reasons. Democrats are trying to make the differentiating factor be gender identity as an anti discrimination measure. I can see how this could be seen as "denying biology". Obviously I'm aware of cases like Caster Semenya it's extremely difficult to be fair to everyone here but the point is that female athletics is a protected category precisely because there's biological differences.


Yes he’s definitely misrepresenting what I’m saying. Not all Democrats and Not all republicans of course. I also made that clear when I said more likely in a previous post which implies not all. But more likely you will have someone on the left deny biology. While in the right more likely deny global warming for political reasons.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

@SG854 if we buy into what you just said for just a second.... One is inherently more dangerous than the other.
Consider this a rorschach test. which would you consider more pressing. (not taking sides on this one, just curious)


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Because it isn't one.  ASVAB tests your existing knowledge of various fields and trades, not your ability to pick up on new concepts.





WD_GASTER2 said:


> Also a person can have knowledge of various fields and trades and still be a complete idiot.


If it’s G loaded. The yes it can. It tests have fast you learn and pick up concepts which is related to intelligence.


----------



## Xzi (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Also a person can have knowledge of various fields and trades and still be a complete idiot.


True, but my point being that there are also jobs available in the military for people who suck at everything.  MP, for example.  They don't care if you "fail" the ASVAB, they'll find something for you to do.



SG854 said:


> If it’s G loaded. The yes it can. It tests have fast you learn and pick up concepts which is related to intelligence.


There are tons of study guides available for the ASVAB, you aren't required to go into it blind by any means.  It's not an IQ test.


----------



## notimp (May 8, 2019)

mattytrog said:


> He wants cultural identity and the very idea of nationalism completely obliterated. Is it such a crime to want your nation and cultural identity to survive?


Get it.

The only thing I can add ist, that there are people who come from a position of "imigration is good" because it actually increases intellectual proliferation (big word), if societies are roughly on the same level. In fact, thats what we were partly (not in those terms) told in school. (Mosaic (america), vs. Melting pot (europe) - meaning, that the americans were "more successfuly" as societies, because of it.).

The point they are making, even is "social darwinistic" in a sense, since some of them often seem to talk about, that the people who make it to another country - first (before you close your borders..  ), are actually the strong and motivated ones.
If you need a mental bridge, americans owe heir moonlanding project (and many technological advances because of it (people collectively solving problems for a target for about a century)) largely to a few german scientists. ("Competition about the best minds" - never looked at people through a racial or cultural lense.)

Then, and this is a better point - imho: Cost of labor for pretty much our entire parents generation always declined. First baby boomers, then women in the workforce, then automation, ... There basically always were people "willing to take the job" - if it was offered. Companies very, very seldomly had to actually raise pay, or benefits, just to entice people to take jobs. It kind of always was a "if you dont want to - someone else will" kind of environment. This to them immensely keeps costs down (stagnation in wage growth (while the economy growths, mind you) for 20 years and counting). Now the demographic switch over will be in 10-15 years (when the babyboomers get older), and companies dont like that one bit - their entire cultures arent set up do deal with it, basically.

So - "big business" in its entirety was pro Merkel "temporarily" opening Germanys borders for immigrants - because they wanted "demand side competition". Now Germany not only did it because of that, but also because Italy essentially told them, we cant handle it anymore, if you dont do anything we'll just open our borders unilaterally (chaos) - and the thing that no one had in mind was that Merkel being "very welcoming" (just a tactic so you get people in your society to be a little more welcoming as well) kind of "backfired" in that it actually had a "draw" effect, because of online media. That then quickly became the story, and the whole thing stopped. (Via democratic means.) Now we have a push back in action, where entire societies actually started to lean more toward rightwing positions. I dont like it, others do.  In our country we have a homeland ministry for the first time ever, because of it. That is now into preserving old song books, or whatever they do over there as days become longer.. 

So what I want to say is, that there are all kinds of factors behind any single decision of that magnitude. Rich political benefactors play a role - but then the outcome is varied.  Its hard to align trajectories at the right time - is the main lesson here. (See brexit having caused people to actually question the European Union project again... ) And maybe, that the concept of "intelligent planning" on most things political, is slightly overblown. At least from my perspective.

Of course there is always the question of who is paying for laws, or building economic syndicates, but even those change and  crumble throughout history. 
(Coin Francis Fukuyamas "The end of history" quote/concept. )


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

@notimp
just out of curiosity, are you from japan?


notimp said:


> So what I want to say is, that there are all kinds of factors behind any single decision of that magnitude. Rich political benefactors play a role - but then the outcome is varied.  Its hard to align trajectories at the right time - is the main lesson here. (See brexit having caused people to actually question the European Union project again... ) And maybe, that the concept of "intelligent planning" on most things political, is slightly overblown. At least from my perspective.



Perhaps. However you could say that the negative consequences of miscalculations when people disregard "intelligent planning" can be brutal.
I just think that we so intertwined at a global scale now that reverting the clock is a excercise in futility (and from my beliefs, maybe thats for the better if not atleast so we could all learn some empathy from one another and that the actions of some governments will have effects on others)


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> @SG854 if we buy into what you just said for just a second.... One is inherently more dangerous than the other.
> Consider this a rorschach test. which would you consider more pressing. (not taking sides on this one, just curious)



Which doesn't mean the less dangerous should be given a pass. Why can't both be really bad to a differing degree?
As someone who considers himself a centrist (within the German soceity), it's incredibly frustrating that some people on the left turn a blind eye to their problems.

It's like this post here: https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-np...ight-far-left-left.537924/page-2#post-8627861
Obviously, reasonable people have no problem with the concept of being anti fascist but dancing around the issue that Antifa as a loose organization is also involved with the following is really frustrating.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Which doesn't mean the less dangerous should be given a pass. Why can't both be really bad to a differing degree?
> As someone who considers himself a centrist (within the German soceity), it's incredibly frustrating that some people on the left turn a blind eye to their problems.
> 
> It's like this post here: https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-np...ight-far-left-left.537924/page-2#post-8627861
> Obviously, reasonable people have no problem with the concept of being anti fascist but dancing around the issue that Antifa as a loose organization is also involved with the following is really frustrating.



never said one should be given a pass. I just asked which one is more pressing. To which i ask of you as well.
Also, I am not blind to the faults of the left. I just have the prospects of possible nuclear war or global catastrophy higher in my list of worries.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 8, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Here's the problem. Socialism *is* associated with communism and it's not even American propaganda. The liberal part of the socialist movement made a clear distinction in the early 20th century, dropped the marxist definition of socialism, wanted to work in a democratic framework and called themselves social democrats. They went on and became a major political force across Europe.
> 
> My parents grew up under a socialist regime and while they would probably be more aligned with democrats, because of their rhetoric alone they would likely never vote for them and that's a big problem. My parents still roll their eyes and grind their teeth when they hear social democrats refer to each other as comrades, talk about traumatizing and problematic history!
> Heck, I even remember TYT not being very happy with Bernie calling himself a socialist instead of a social democrat during the 2016 election because he was obviously referring to European social democracy.
> ...



I lived most of my younger years in a country that thrives in socialism (France) and I do feel that there is a large misconception of what socialism is over here (USA).
That's the thing with "socialist" democrats... they're not... socialists. They're a fraud. I believe Bernie was absolutely right.

If you think Germany is bad, France is worse! I experienced it first hand and lost friends over this, but that doesn't mean the core concept is to throw away. You can't let people die, not because you're an idealist (well, yes...), but because it brings a whole lot of other issues, including social movements and disease. The US is the extreme opposite. No safety net. Great if you have good incomes, but you better not be working at walmart and having to go to ER. I've had to take someone there, it ended up costing them $4000 for a couple hours -with insurance-
I believe society needs a good balance between socialism and capitalism. Equality of chances is essential (severely lacking in the US), but not equality of outcome (the European problem, and far-left biggest misunderstanding).


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> @SG854 if we buy into what you just said for just a second.... One is inherently more dangerous than the other.
> Consider this a rorschach test. which would you consider more pressing. (not taking sides on this one, just curious)


Inherently dangerous what do you mean? People with lower intelligence are not inherently more dangerous.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> never said one should be given a pass. I just asked which one is more pressing. To which i ask of you as well.
> Also, I am not blind to the faults of the left. I just have the prospects of possible nuclear war or global catastrophy higher in my list of worries.



Instinctively I would say climate change is the more pressing issue.
However, I would also say that you can only really judge it by instinct. We know how bad the effects of climate change are because a lot of serious science has gone into it. We have no idea what the increase in political division will be doing to our social fabric. Instinctively I would also say that it feels like politically motivated violence is ramping up.

Ideally, I'd prefer we would take care of both issues.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

@SG854  re-read your post then re-read my question. different issue.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> I lived most of my younger years in a country that thrives in socialism (France) and I do feel that there is a large misconception of what socialism is over here (USA).
> That's the thing with "socialist" democrats... they're not... socialists. They're a fraud. I believe Bernie was absolutely right.
> 
> If you think Germany is bad, France is worse! I experienced it first hand and lost friends over this, but that doesn't mean the core concept is to throw away. You can't let people die, not because you're an idealist (well, yes...), but because it brings a whole lot of other issues, including social movements and disease. The US is the extreme opposite. No safety net. Great if you have good incomes, but you better not be working at walmart and having to go to ER. I've had to take someone there, it ended up costing them $4000 for a couple hours -with insurance-
> I believe society needs a good balance between socialism and capitalism. Equality of chances is essential (severely lacking in the US), but not equality of outcome (the European problem, and far-left biggest misunderstanding).


Yes, I agree we need a good balance between socialism and capitalism.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Instinctively I would say climate change is the more pressing issue.
> However, I would also say that you can only really judge it by instinct. We know how bad the effects of climate change are because a lot of serious science has gone into it. We have no idea what the increase in political division will be doing to our social fabric. Instinctively I would also say that it feels like politically motivated violence is ramping up.
> 
> Ideally, I'd prefer we would take care of both issues.


You see this feels like a sincere answer to me for which i thank you. I just happen to believe we solve the one that can possibly end our existence, while we have a disscussion on social issues where BOTH sides can concede something. On climate change denying wont fix squat.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> @SG854  re-read your post then re-read my question. different issue.


I’m getting bombarded right now it’s hard to keep up to exactly what point you mean. You talking about left vs right, what’s more dangerous? You weren’t clear since there is many different topics people are talking about.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

read my conversation with @supersonicwaffle. He answered the question, to which i ask the same of you. go to the last page and re-read.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> I lived most of my younger years in a country that thrives in socialism (France) and I do feel that there is a large misconception of what socialism is over here (USA).
> That's the thing with "socialist" democrats... they're not... socialists. They're a fraud. I believe Bernie was absolutely right.
> 
> If you think Germany is bad, France is worse! I experienced it first hand and lost friends over this, but that doesn't mean the core concept is to throw away. You can't let people die, not because you're an idealist (well, yes...), but because it brings a whole lot of other issues, including social movements and disease. The US is the extreme opposite. No safety net. Great if you have good incomes, but you better not be working at walmart and having to go to ER. I've had to take someone there, it ended up costing them $4000 for a couple hours -with insurance-
> I believe society needs a good balance between socialism and capitalism. Equality of chances is essential (severely lacking in the US), but not equality of outcome (the European problem, and far-left biggest misunderstanding).



Could you elaborate on what you think the difference between socialism and social democracy is? I feel like we have vastly different idea on what socialism is.


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> read my conversation with @supersonicwaffle. He answered the question, to which i ask the same of you. go to the last page and re-read.


Ok just asking jeez don’t have to be a dick about it.

Ditto what supersonic said.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

I am not. I just didnt feel like re-posting.
Also, having a mixture of capitalism and socialist programs is not the end of the world. Our post office is great (lets keep it that way) Also our fire departments (In the US firefighters are loved by everyone actually) seem to be doing ok.
@supersonicwaffle. I do draw the line at the government taking the means of production (to which i say hell no) However i dont think anybody is advocating for that here in the US


----------



## SG854 (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I am not. I just didnt feel like re-posting.
> Also, having a mixture of capitalism and socialist programs is not the end of the world. Our post office is great (lets keep it that way) Also our fire departments (In the US firefighters are loved by everyone actually) seem to be doing ok.
> @supersonicwaffle. I do draw the line at the government taking the means of production (to which i say hell no) However i dont think anybody is advocating for that here in the US


I agree with everything you say.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 8, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Could you elaborate on what you think the difference between socialism and social democracy is? I feel like we have vastly different idea on what socialism is.


Historically socialist countries tend to give more power to the government, through ownership or regulation.
It's not -necessarily- a bad thing even though as usual, too much of it can be catastrophic as well. Without some regulation, if you let the market regulate itself, you end up with situations of monopoly (hmmm comcast ~ hmmm disney).

When I mention socialism, I usually like to focus on what I consider are the important bits to take from it: Safety nets. Everyone should be given a chance in life, as fair as possible. What they do with this chance is up to them. But typically, some children have weaker bodies, or are born in poor families and can't afford proper education. That's where safety nets are necessary imho.

And these are real issues that we never hear about nowadays since it's all about far-left hyper-communautarism and far-right insistence on evil immigration.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> You see this feels like a sincere answer to me for which i thank you. I just happen to believe we solve the one that can possibly end our existence, while we have a disscussion on social issues where BOTH sides can concede something. On climate change denying wont fix squat.



Well, one issue has the capacity to end mankind, the other has the capacity to end liberal and free society, which would be something I wouldn't regard as being worthy of protection. I'm not going to pick my poison here. Letting extremist violence from either side thrive won't fix squat either.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (May 8, 2019)

I never said pick your poison. I said deal with the pressing issues first. If you think people with radically different opinions will end free society.... You do realize this has been the status quo for over the last century and we are still here right?

Gay Marriage was considered something so radical that would tear the fabric of our society just a few decades ago and it was a strong position held by many. I still await for our demise.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

deinonychus71 said:


> Historically socialist countries tend to give more power to the government, through ownership or regulation.
> It's not -necessarily- a bad thing even though as usual, too much of it can be catastrophic as well. Without some regulation, if you let the market regulate itself, you end up with situations of monopoly (hmmm comcast ~ hmmm disney).
> 
> When I mention socialism, I usually like to focus on what I consider are the important bits to take from it: Safety nets. Everyone should be given a chance in life, as fair as possible. What they do with this chance is up to them. But typically, some children have weaker bodies, or are born in poor families and can't afford proper education. That's where safety nets are necessary imho.
> ...



I agree that the examples you gave are good things. However, I asked you to elaborate on the difference between socialism and social democracy.
You mention socialist countries, according to what you said earlier you believe France is socialist? I wouldn't agree with that. Here's a list of what Wikipedia thinks are or have been socialist countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

So again, I ask you what do you think is the difference between socialism and social democracy? We need to find some way to define this so we can have a frame of reference for discussion.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> I never said pick your poison. I said deal with the pressing issues first. If you think people with radically different opinions will end free society.... You do realize this has been the status quo for over the last century and we are still here right?
> 
> Gay Marriage was considered something so radical that would tear the fabric of our society just a few decades ago and it was a strong position held by many. I still await for our demise.



I have no problem with differing opinions, even with radical opinions, what I have a problem with is extremism and that absolutely has the capacity to end free society.

radical as defined in Germany means holding opinions on the far end of the spectrum but political action will be in accordance with the constitution
extremism as defined in Germany means employing unconstitutional means to further one's political views
I gave you an example of a post earlier how the left is turning a blind eye and normalizing extremism on their end of the spectrum, of course you have the usual suspects liking it as well.


----------



## notimp (May 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> @notimp
> just out of curiosity, are you from japan?
> 
> 
> ...


No, I picked the flag way back when, when I actually was a lurker around here. Just because videogames/japan, there was a connection. Just a fluke, because I have the habit of entering wrong information in online profiles, when its not essential. 

Now I'm too stubborn to change it. 

In regards to intelligent planning on the big scale - ok, then plan away if you (the theoretical intelligent planner on the world scale, that might not exist ) must.  Just know that if you produce stuff like "we've got to abstain from economic growth for a while - to save the old economic system", and then you follow that up with "we've got to abstain from economic growth for a while - while creating the new economic system" - people will notice, and start to rebel.

And rightly so.

They might not notice, that you produce lost generations here, in the developed world, but those who do will not react pleasantly.

So to all the intelligent planners out there, your planing sucks. It sucks so much, that I refuse to think of you as intelligent.  And no, the "but we have to drive globalization forward - and have everyone settle in on the same economic standard, thats lower than in the past, and with a widening gap between the top and the bottom within a society", because on average it reduces more harm" stance is not a sufficient excuse.  And if you then resort to PR to sell it to folks, we'll hate you even more. Signed, the critical thinkers. 

(That dont want to look at every issue with "world scale" in their minds. Because we have noticed, that a few things get overlooked that way.

Also I personally would hate to live in a society that consists entirely of ivory towers, and rural "self governing" areas, where the "non important" decisions are handled. But thats just me.)

Also dear intelligent planner, the world economic crisis of 2008 was a hoot wasnt it? And that everyone acted "legally" in within their limits producing it was as well, wasnt it? And that as the public sentiment you spread just that notion was a hoot, wasnt it. And that you now have a risk management thats recoupled with asset management as a solution is admirable, but that you do that while announcing to the world, that the importance of the european market will size down more to reflect their actual population numbers, while advertising to the world, that population numbers dont count in the automation age. And you do all that while announcing minor growth spikes (0.5% max) over the next 10 years as a result of the automation and digitalization sectors, then to be followed up by - nothing, because you really outcompeted the demand side in terms of efficiency... Well, if I should swallow all that as intelligent planing, while convincing myself, that people following a child saint politically in europe, that tells them that the world is going to end, because of minor changes in rainfall and snowfall propensity in my childrens lifetimes (in comparison to the actual IPCC target of 2°C) is the new normal - I'd go mad. Sorry. 

The way thinktanks work, btw, is that you have people think about isolated potential solutions to issues - then you count on those to be implemented that are situationally, and politically viable at the time. That in itself is more patchwork, than intelligent planning.


----------



## BiggieCheese (May 13, 2019)

Calling the terms “alt-right” and “far right” buzzwords is hilarious in this day and age and reeks of either ignorance or a comment being made in bad faith.
They are very, very real, and are only growing as their ideals become increasingly mainstream, the leadership in certain countries drift further and further to the right and they indoctrinate the uneducated youth of the world. If an active attempt to stop and/or discourage the spread of those ideals aren’t made, the world will eventually head into a conflict unlike anything we’ve ever seen before, even if it takes a lifetime for things to fall into place.


----------



## Deleted User (May 24, 2019)

It's all apart of our inner tribal nature. We want easily assigned labels to generalize and sort out other people. Humans tend to love latching onto a group identity, unfortunately, and just love trying to destroy anybody falling outside of their approved categories.


----------



## Amapola62 (May 24, 2019)

As a French I usually wonder if all of that is just a US thing and it's normal that I only learnt about those things recently or if it's worldwide and I don't know much because I usually don't care about politics/live under a rock...


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 24, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Seems politics have made people really dense as they can't help but use a political side and one of the usual buzzwords to label someone. It's like folks can't come up with intelligent arguments anymore and then you either have people saying "I'm going to take down all those Alt-Right Nazis with my wokeness!!" or "NPC SJWs are ruining everything."
> 
> As a kid I'd thought we'd have hover cars and have that cool technological products from _Back to the Future_ now but nah, you have people calling others "Nazis" or "SJWs." Politics... Smh.
> 
> ...


Best just to stop caring so much, but the far right and the far left do frighten me lol....

Both sides need to be told not to be such crybaby's lol.


----------



## Amapola62 (May 24, 2019)

Stupid question here but: How many lefts are there? Because I think there are several or we all have different definitions... Because I think I would consider myself a leftist but in the sense of wanting a more social economy like those antiglobalization people who say that another world is possible and being an environmentalist and not in the "SJW" sense...


----------



## notimp (May 24, 2019)

There is no strict definition what left or right means. Because politcal positions change over time. Its literally just a way to describe positions in a spectrum.

Its what people use to talk about "the other".

In the US its change - vs four more years. 

Historically it was being against, or for monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics


----------



## notimp (Jun 14, 2019)

Little help for our american friends to identify the political standing of certain media outlets. 







src: The Economist 08 06 2019


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 15, 2019)

notimp said:


> Little help for our american friends to identify the political standing of certain media outlets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee Notimp, I love flashy charts and detailed graphic presentations as much as the next guy 


 Buuuut, we already have this nifty research from late April of 2019. It was conducted by Nicholas Diakopoulos. (Assistant professor Northwestern University School of Communication) and Daniel Trielli (Journalist and PHD student Northwestern University). Google Top Stories bias

It's an enlightening study and a good read.

Little help for our European friends to identify the political standing of certain media outlets 

This chart illustrates the percentage of media outlet referrals in google top stories. 




Source :Northwestern University School of Communication


----------



## Xzi (Jun 15, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> Buuuut, we already have this nifty research from late April of 2019. It was conducted by Nicholas Diakopoulos. (Assistant professor Northwestern University School of Communication) and Daniel Trielli (Journalist and PHD student Northwestern University). Google Top Stories bias
> 
> It's an enlightening study and a good read.


Thing is, that study doesn't suggest Google shows a political bias, only a bias toward major outlets.  The Economist chose a different, more direct title for their article on the matter: "Google rewards reputable reporting, not left-wing politics."  The graphs contained within the article are interactive, so I can't post them here, but they're definitely worth a look.  Tabloid sites like Daily Kos on the left and Breitbart on the right are given far less exposure, while reputable sites such as the New York Times on the left and New York Post on the right are given a lot more.  Forbes and Fortune have the highest percentages of their traffic come from Google, and both are considered center-right.


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 16, 2019)

Actually you have to read deep into the link I posted. It actually does indicate google to have a left leaning bias. The following is an excerpt from the original article


Xzi said:


> Thing is, that study doesn't suggest Google shows a political bias, only a bias toward major outlets.  The Economist chose a different, more direct title for their article on the matter: "Google rewards reputable reporting, not left-wing politics."  The graphs contained within the article are interactive, so I can't post them here, but they're definitely worth a look.  Tabloid sites like Daily Kos on the left and Breitbart on the right are given far less exposure, while reputable sites such as the New York Times on the left and New York Post on the right are given a lot more.  Forbes and Fortune have the highest percentages of their traffic come from Google, and both are considered center-right.


You have to read deep into the link I posted. It actually does indicate google to have left leaning bias. Keep in mind part of their research was based on a previous research project from 2015. 
The following is an excerpt from the original article/link I posted:

 "media diversity is an important aspect to the way that Google—or any news aggregator—curates sources and perspectives.To get at this issue in our audit, we looked at the diversity of sources surfaced in Google Top Stories in terms of their ideological lean. More specifically, we used ratings data published in an earlier study which identifies the ideological alignment of the top 500 most-shared news sites on Facebook. The ratings don’t measure the slant of the media outlet per se, but rather reflect the self-reported political affiliation of Facebook users sharing content from those sources. The criteria were published in the peer-reviewed journal _Science_ in June, 2015 by Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada Adamic from Facebook’s Core Data Science team.

*Our data shows that 62.4 percent of article impressions were from sources rated by that research as left-leaning*, whereas *11.3 percent were from sources rated as right-leaning*. 26.3 percent of impressions were from news sources that didn’t have ratings. But even if that last set of unknown impressions happened to be right-leaning, *the trend would still be clear: A higher proportion of left-leaning sources appear in Top Stories."*

@Xzi, I have not read your link yet but I shall.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 16, 2019)

Superbronx said:


> The ratings don’t measure the slant of the media outlet per se, but rather reflect the self-reported political affiliation of Facebook users sharing content from those sources.


Ah, an important distinction.  Not all left-leaning individuals are necessarily averse to posting stories from Fox News, and not all right-leaning individuals are necessarily averse to posting stories from the Washington Post.  Thus results of a study like that might be a bit scrambled.  The article I posted measures the share of each website's traffic that comes from Google, and compares that data to the factual accuracy and political bias of those sites.  So a very different methodology between the two studies.


----------



## Superbronx (Jun 17, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Ah, an important distinction.  Not all left-leaning individuals are necessarily averse to posting stories from Fox News, and not all right-leaning individuals are necessarily averse to posting stories from the Washington Post.




I recognize the logic in your line of thinking. 
However, I have yet to lay eyes on the liberal who has posted a link nor quoted from a conservative source. Unless to dispute, mock/make fun of the same. Also likewise for conservatives.


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> I call out people acting like idiots, but you have to admit the crazy far left people have the largest voice and are supported by the media including social media outlets. People who are racist are usually quickly dealt with, heck even people who did nothing but disagree with SJW are quickly dealt with. Yet you can say any racist comment against "white" people you want, and you can be as sexist as you want against men.



Is this a safe place where I can express my racist hatred for a certain sex, race and political party so I can fit in an feel better about myself? If so, I'd like to join in on the shit talk about white men and the President of the United States.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

cots said:


> Is this a safe place where I can express my racist hatred for a certain sex, race and political party so I can fit in an feel better about myself? If so, I'd like to join in on the shit talk about white men and the President of the United States.


Feels before reals, right?  White men are clearly the most persecuted group in the country, let's throw ourselves a pity party.  Woe is me.



Seriously though, just because the president acts like a baby-back bitch on the daily doesn't mean you need to mimic that behavior.  Narcissistic personality disorder combined with dementia is no joke.


----------



## Likeinside (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Feels before reals, right? White men are clearly the most persecuted group in the country, let's throw ourselves a pity party. Woe is me.



WOW you're first party! And you thought nobody liked you



Xzi said:


> acts like a baby-back bitch on the daily doesn't mean you need to mimic that behavior



You always resort to name calling to prove points or is it just a douchey habit of yours?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

Likeinside said:


> WOW you're first party! And you thought nobody liked you


I've never been so lonely that I thought _nobody _liked me.  Not that I'm big on giving a fuck about what other people think of me anyway.

And not to be too much of a stickler for grammar, but it's 'your.'



Likeinside said:


> You always resort to name calling to prove points or is it just a douchey habit of yours?


I try to avoid it when talking about other users/regular people, but public figures are typically fair game.  Especially when they make decisions that negatively impact the rest of us living in this country.  Assuming your flag is accurate, I don't see a reason for you to be offended on Donald Trump's behalf.


----------



## Likeinside (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've never been so lonely that I thought _nobody _liked me. Not that I'm big on giving a fuck what other people think about me anyway.
> 
> And not to be too much of a stickler for grammar, but it's 'your



Zero to not giving a crap...  WOW you are talented



Xzi said:


> I try to avoid it when talking about other users/regular people, but public figures are typically fair game. Especially when they make decisions that negatively impact the rest of us living in this country



Wasn't talking about Trump genius


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

Likeinside said:


> Zero to not giving a crap...  WOW you are talented


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.  I'll assume it's a bad attempt at an insult and just take the hit.



Likeinside said:


> Wasn't talking about Trump genius


Err...but that's exactly who I was insulting.  Maybe you just misinterpreted what I was saying?


----------



## Likeinside (Jun 19, 2019)

And on a final note. You spend waaaaaay to much time on here. Its a big world out there. 
Try seeing it. OK bored now.... Toodles! Oh and big smile big smile xzi!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

Likeinside said:


> And on a final note. You spend waaaaaay to much time on here. Its a big world out there.


I spend my nights playing video games with this site and a few others open in the background.  My days are spent doing everything else.  I appreciate the concern but I think I've found a pretty good balance.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Feels before reals, right?  White men are clearly the most persecuted group in the country, let's throw ourselves a pity party.  Woe is me.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, just because the president acts like a baby-back bitch on the daily doesn't mean you need to mimic that behavior.  Narcissistic personality disorder combined with dementia is no joke.



Oh right, just come up with some strawman argument. God it’s so bad for men these days that here in Canada they are investigating the high murder rate of female natives, not even looking into male murder rates which are 3 times higher. I could go on, but you must have your eyes shut. You could just as easily go on twitter to see all the hatred for the “patriachry” and an endless list of sjw bigotry. I’m not talking about how things were, I’m talking how they are today.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Oh right, just come up with some strawman argument.


Unfortunately it's not a strawman.  It's how the political right-wing as a whole chooses to operate.  The Colbert Report nailed it in 2005 with the definition of 'truthiness,' and nothing has really changed since then.

I'm all for a level-headed conversation on the struggles of working-class men.  I just can't stand whining from people with persecution complexes, nor the constant need to compare their struggles to other groups'.  Us straight white men don't lose out on _anything_ by acknowledging the rights of others and treating them with equal respect.  Not a single goddamn thing.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Unfortunately it's not a strawman.  It's how the political right-wing as a whole chooses to operate.  The Colbert Report nailed it in 2005 with the definition of 'truthiness,' and nothing has really changed since then.
> 
> I'm all for a level-headed conversation on the struggles of working-class men.  I just can't stand whining from people with persecution complexes, nor the constant need to compare their struggles to other groups'.  Us straight white men don't lose out on _anything_ by acknowledging the rights of others and treating them with equal respect.  Not a single goddamn thing.


There is only one group where it is acceptable to be sexist and racist against them on national tv, no matter what identity politics you play that’s the truth. Stop being so tribal and pay attention.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> There is only one group where it is acceptable to be sexist and racist against them on national tv, no matter what identity politics you play that’s the truth.


I've not seen a single example of this, unless perhaps these are comedians whose jokes you're taking way too seriously.  And even then, they tend to be equal opportunity offenders.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've not seen a single example of this, unless perhaps these are comedians whose jokes you're taking way too seriously.  And even then, they tend to be equal opportunity offenders.


Don lemon went on air and said it himself, on cnn. A young boy got death threats for wearing a hat and doing nothing. A black woman was killed and people were ready to riot because they thought the killer was white at first (then they didn’t even care when the truth came out), Jewish people are the biggest victims of hate crimes but the sjw movement says they have “white privilege” and so on and so on. There is so much hate crime against pale skinned people that isn’t reported, just because it doesn’t fit the narrative.  Let’s not even get started on black people who dare to be conservative, they are treated like traitors despite how racist the democrats can be.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Don lemon went on air and said it himself, on cnn.


Said what, exactly?  Google isn't being helpful in finding his supposedly racist statement.



kevin corms said:


> A young boy got death threats for wearing a hat and doing nothing.


Had absolutely nothing to do with his skin color, and he was not even remotely acting like an angel.



kevin corms said:


> A black woman was killed and people were ready to riot because they thought the killer was white at first (then they didn’t even care when the truth came out)


Was this story national news?  Because I must've completed missed this one.



kevin corms said:


> Jewish people are the biggest victims of hate crimes but the sjw movement says they have “white privilege” and so on and so on.


This seems more like a generalization than anything that's been stated directly on national TV.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Said what, exactly?  Google isn't being helpful in finding his supposedly racist statement.
> 
> 
> Had absolutely nothing to do with his skin color, and he was not even remotely acting like an angel.
> ...


Now you are just being ignorant, the boy certainly did nothing wrong except smile when a known race baiter started playing drums in his face. And don lemon,


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Now you are just being ignorant, the boy certainly did nothing wrong except smile when a known race baiter started playing drums in his face.


I'm not going to deny that his interaction with the native American was overblown, but again, these kids were far from angelic.  They were yelling, "it's not rape if you enjoy it" at women.



Not the type of behavior anybody should be defending or making excuses for.

As for the Don Lemon statement, I think he could've worded it better, but he is technically correct, and I don't find the statement to be racist by any stretch of the imagination.  We're just too used to the word 'terrorism' being associated with Muslims, but by now it should be obvious that the 'war on terror' was only a front to profiteer and distract us from domestic issues.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not going to deny that his interaction with the native American was overblown, but again, these kids were far from angelic.  They were yelling, "it's not rape if you enjoy it" at women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don lemon isn’t correct in being a racist, I’m done. If you want to prove me wrong give me actual numbers, not ultra biased op-Eds. What if I started posting Fox News articles to prove a point? You can actually see the sjw attacks on Jewish people all over social media, and every time the gaza situation is in the news there is a spike in attacks on Jewish people... figure it out.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Don lemon isn’t correct in being a racist, I’m done.


He is correct that white men are currently the biggest terror threat in America.  He didn't say all white men are terrorists, that would indeed be racist.



kevin corms said:


> If you want to prove me wrong give me actual numbers, not ultra biased op-Eds.


Those numbers come from the ADL, as the article states.  They're as accurate as you're gonna get for this statistic.  As you stated previously, most anti-religious attacks are against Jewish people, but the vast majority of those attacks are committed by non-Jewish whites.



kevin corms said:


> What if I started posting Breitbart articles to prove a point?


C'mon man.  ABC News is not even close to that level of tabloid-esque.  The closest thing to Breitbart on the left would probably be Daily Kos.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He is correct that white men are currently the biggest terror threat in America.  He didn't say all white men are terrorists, that would indeed be racist.
> 
> 
> Those numbers come from the ADL, as the article states.  They're as accurate as you're gonna get for this statistic.  As you stated previously, most anti-religious attacks are against Jewish people, but the vast majority of those attacks are committed by non-Jewish whites.
> ...


ABC is god awful, they are warmongering and preach hate. People don’t even know which countries the us military is bombing now, nor do they know that the biggest emitter of green house gasses is the military. They also wouldn’t dare show stuff like this https://mobile.twitter.com/YiddishNews/status/1126210137545478147?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1126210137545478147&ref_url=https://en-volve.com/2019/05/08/america-is-in-shock-after-video-shows-racist-black-man-attacking-a-jewish-man/


This doesn’t mean every black man does this, but if it was a white man abc and others would report it like every white man is doing this and they must all be trump supporters. This is dangerous and done just because they think it’s big ratings.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> ABC is god awful, they are warmongering and preach hate.


Yet another unsubstantiated claim I've seen no proof of, but even if these things are true, it's irrelevant, as ABC are not using themselves as the source in that article.



kevin corms said:


> People don’t even know which countries the us military is bombing now, nor do they know that the biggest emitter of green house gasses is the military.


And you're going to blame a single news outlet for all this?  These things seem like failures on the government's behalf more than anything.  Or perhaps they're even obfuscating these facts intentionally.



kevin corms said:


> This doesn’t mean every black man does this, but if it was a white man abc and others would report it like every white man is doing this and they must all be trump supporters. This is dangerous and done just because they think it’s big ratings.


Dude, mass shootings happen near daily in America.  There was yet another shooting attempt just yesterday, thankfully prevented by law enforcement.  A guy getting drive-by punched is going to be local news material at best, certainly not national.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yet another unsubstantiated claim I've seen no proof of, but even if these things are true, it's irrelevant, as ABC are not using themselves as the source in that article.
> 
> 
> And you're going to blame a single news outlet for all this?  These things seem like failures on the government's behalf more than anything.  Or perhaps they're even obfuscating these facts intentionally.
> ...




You arent even making any points anymore, just fallacy arguments...


----------



## cots (Jun 19, 2019)

Hey, I just was wondering if this was a safe place to show my racism and hatred towards a certain group of people with a particular skin color and gender. Good to know that's acceptable if the target group are old white men. I need to find more safe places. I'm a racist bastard and just want to talk shit, so I'm just looking for "safe places".


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They were yelling, "it's not rape if you enjoy it" at women.





I watched the video you posted there.

One kid said that. Not "they." And it was a smartass remark directed at whoever was holding the camera, not "at women." Because he was a 16 or 17 year old awkward dufus trying to get some attention/shock in the midst of all that was going on. 

You didn't have a dumbass or two in your high school??

Most importantly, he wasn't Nick Sandmann, the kid who got slandered in the press as a nazi when all he did was stand still when the Native American with truth-issues aggressively got in his face with a friggin drum. 

I don't look for parity of maturity when 15 year olds are confronted by 65 year olds, but Nick Sandmann showed much more composure and maturity in that encounter. He has my respect for maintaining restraint while being taunted for a reaction. Nathan Phillips should be ashamed of himself for that bullshit. And I hope the media entities Sandmann has sued pay dearly for dragging his name through the mud.


----------



## kevin corms (Jun 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I watched the video you posted there.
> 
> One kid said that. Not "they." And it was a smartass remark directed at whoever was holding the camera, not "at women." Because he was a 16 or 17 year old awkward dufus trying to get some attention/shock in the midst of all that was going on.
> 
> ...




Thanks, people arent helping their cause by spreading lies that are easily debunked. You do it enough and observant people will just assume you are always lying.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cots said:


> Hey, I just was wondering if this was a safe place to show my racism and hatred towards a certain group of people with a particular skin color and gender. Good to know that's acceptable if the target group are old white men. I need to find more safe places. I'm a racist bastard and just want to talk shit, so I'm just looking for "safe places".


You can even say stuff like #killallmen on twitter, you can even keep your job as editor at the huffington post. just make sure you dont go against any of the groups classified as oppressed by the SJW movement. So yes, you can actually go full anti Semitic, anti Christian and even anti republican now too if you want.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 19, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> You arent even making any points anymore, just fallacy arguments...


Did you even have a point to begin with, or are you just proving my point that conservatives tend to be entirely too thin-skinned when it comes to what they see in the media?  Everything looks like discrimination to people with persecution complexes.

Besides, the premise that you can't say anything racist on national TV directed toward minorities is completely false.  President "shithole countries" makes it a non-starter.  The man uses a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle.



Hanafuda said:


> You didn't have a dumbass or two in your high school??


Sure I did.  I didn't feel the need to put my own reputation on the line by defending their actions, though.



kevin corms said:


> You can even say stuff like #killallmen on twitter


Hey, so that's racially-inclusive, lol.

Really though, everybody hates everybody on Twitter.  'Tis a silly place, and not at all representative of the country's majority viewpoints.  Maybe just don't go there.


----------

