Biggest cancel culture in the world.
I suggest you you read up on the rally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
These are the people the former president said included "very fine people," and there's no justification for that.
- Them being illegal immigrants doesn't excuse the former president's racist comments about them being "rapists and killers," with only "some of them" being good people.
- The former president was not against illegal immigration; he was against immigration of any kind from what he would consider to be "shithole countries." He did what he could to reduce legal immigration from specific countries, and this is one of the reasons why he instituted the deplorable child separation policy (despite it also affecting legal asylum seekers).
- Lots of Americans are rapists. Does that mean it would be appropriate to say, "Americans rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"?
- Immigrants, including illegal immigrants, are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.
- This wouldn't be evidence that immigrants are criminals.
- Isn't this all the more reason to fix our broken immigration system so this does not happen?
Again.. That's still Christians. "YOU SUPPORT ANOTHER GOD THEN ME! YOU NEED TO DIE! YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT! WE NEED TO STOP COMMUNION! YOU DON'T CONFORM TO OUR BOOK! YOU ARE GOING TO SUFFER FOREVER! IGNORE THAT I DON'T ABIDE THE RULES EITHER!"
Sounds pretty political to me.
wikipedia isn't a bad source inherently>Wikipedia
Biggest cancel culture in the world.
>Wikipedia
You know the point is that if illegal immigrants were prevented from entering a country they couldn't commit rape or murder to begin with. Unfortunately native citizens will commit crime and be punished for it. Where as any crime commited by illegals is 100% preventable by stopping them from coming in the first place.
You are right that Mexican is a nationality, not a race. I didn't say it was. That doesn't mean the former president's comments weren't racist, however.Also how is it racist against Mexicans? What race is Mexican?
Catholic Christians are the ones who are trying to prevent notable pro-choice Catholics from being able to take communion, not "Muslims." Your statement was absurd.Sounds more like Muslims than Christians to me.
If a person donates money to a vehemently anti-LGBT candidate like the former president, then that means the person either agrees with the candidate's anti-LGBT policies or tolerates them. The act of giving money to the anti-LGBT candidate is homophobic regardless. There are also a lot more issues than just the former president's homophobia.All online leftists do is whinge. "He's homophobic!!!" according to what? He donated his money out of his own free choice to the Republican Party? So that means he agrees with everything they do?
He might have sometimes said or implied he supported LGBT rights, but he demonstrably didn't. See my previous post on the topic:BTW Donald Trump supported LGBT rights.
Trump does not support any part of the LGBT community. You might be able to find some comments here and there about how he supports the LGBT community, but actions speak louder than words. At every chance he had, he did what he could to strip rights away from the LGBT community. They spent years ignoring Pride Month. As soon as the former president was sworn in, LGBT resource pages on the White House website were removed. They tried to remove LGBT questions from the census in order to erase LGBT people. They tried to remove LGBT people from the equal employment policies at the commerce department. They banned trans people from the military for no reason other than to be anti-LGBT. They ordered the Department of Education to remove anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people. They explicitly said they'd reject civil rights complaints at the Department of Education relating to LGBT issues. They gave federal funds to private schools that explicitly discriminate against LGBT people. They removed healthcare protections for LGBT people, effectively making it so anyone could refuse health care to anybody who is LGBT, for any reason. They established an office within HHS to specifically defend people who refused medical care to LGBT people. They granted federal funds to foster programs that discriminated against LGBT people. They engaged in an outright effort to specifically erase trans people from all existing protections and acknowledgements online. They ordered the CDC to stop using words like "transgender." They created a rule to stop doing data collection on LGBT foster youth, creating significant impediments to helping them, all for no reason but to cause harm. They ordered the removal of questions relating to LGBT people from forms belonging to programs that help the elderly and disabled, hindering the ability to help those people's specific needs as well. They ordered the removal of anti-discrimination policies relating to LGBT people from HUD. They ordered HUD to permit shelters to deny entry to trans people. They ordered the cancellation of HUD surveys relating to LGBT needs. They ordered the Justice Department to argue in court against anti-LGBT discrimination. They rolled back previously existing protections for LGBT people in prisons. They rolled back anti-discrimination policies affecting LGBT federal contractors. They ordered the denial of visas to same-sex partners of diplomats. They ordered a rule change so that a child born of a same-sex couple born overseas via a surrogate wouldn't be eligible for US citizenship. They removed the US from the UN Human Rights Council with one of the main reasons being because of LGBT issues (they were friendly to LGBT people and LGBT issues). They refused to sign a statement condemning physical attacks against LGBT people overseas. They ordered the removal of a pro-LGBT program in the 4H program, hurting LGBT children. They've nominated numerous justices, including ones even controversial among the Republican Party, who are vehemently anti-LGBT. Under their policies, ICE as specifically mistreated LGBT inmates in their custody. They did and said nothing relating to anti-trans violence and murders in this country.
Pay attention to what a person does, not what a person says. Regardless of whether or not Scott is homophobic, or thinks he's homophobic, the act of giving money to the former president was an anti-LGBT act.Scott has already said he's not homophobic.
Sometimes, an issue is simple. Supporting anti-LGBT politicians and policies is deplorable and deserving of condemnation. If a person who is pro-LGBT wants to say "I disagree with X's anti-LGBT actions and I don't want to spend money X in the future," where is the problem? It sounds like you're anti-speech and anti-freedom to me.Oh but that's right... internet leftists only believe in black and white, they don't believe in nuance like every normal person does.
Anti-LGBT policies are real problems. Deluding oneself into thinking they don't cause objective harm and aren't a problem worth addressing comes from a very special place rooted in homophobia and/or privilege.They also believe in inventing problems and then deluding themselves into believing that problem is real.
"Have you ever noticed how 99% of problems people wouldn't be concerned about if they didn't know those problems existed in order to be concerned about them?" Thank you, Captain Obvious.Ever notice how 99% of problems internet leftists cry about, they wouldn't even care about if they weren't on Tik Tok and Twitter
I don't know what issues you're referring to, but the issue being discussed in this thread isn't one of them.and many of those "issues" are blown up or straight-up false?
It sounds like he might be, but even if he isn't or doesn't think he is, that doesn't mean his actions weren't anti-LGBT, and that's all that matters.Scott is not homophobic
I didn't say he was a shit person, even though he might be one. We are condemning his shit actions. There is a meaningful difference.he's not a "shit person".
You're only going to find condemnations of harassment, doxing, threats, etc. in this thread. Nobody is condoning those things. However, the existence harassment, doxing, threats, etc., while deplorable, doesn't make Scott's actions any less deplorable.The people who harass, doxx and threaten him though? Hmm, funny now the internet lefties aren't shaming those people.
You tell on yourselves every day what you're really all about: controlling everyone and bullying those who refuse to be subordinate to leftist indoctrination.
Biggest cancel culture in the world but I don't see dA eViL KrIsChAnZ trying to "cancel" Scott Cawthon over a false accusation, doxxing, harassing and threatening him and his pregnant wife. Funny how the internet lefties looove to hate Christianity but then pull out the apologetics all day when someone points out that all Abrahamic religions e.g. Islam and Judaism have the same actually violent, actually homophobic, and actually misogynistic verses in them. Hypocrisy at its finest.
- Wikipedia is the best compendium of information on the planet. It isn't infallible, but it has high standards for citing primary sources. If you disagree with something on Wikipedia, you can try to change it and cite your sources.
- Regardless of how you feel about Wikipedia, what I said was verifiably correct. The Unite the Right rally was a white supremacist rally.
- "A lot of white people commit violent crimes. Those crimes would be 100% preventable by removing white people from the country."
- Again, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.
You are right that Mexican is a nationality, not a race. I didn't say it was. That doesn't mean the former president's comments weren't racist, however.
Catholic Christians are the ones who are trying to prevent notable pro-choice Catholics from being able to take communion, not "Muslims." Your statement was absurd.
If a person donates money to a vehemently anti-LGBT candidate like the former president, then that means the person either agrees with the candidate's anti-LGBT policies or tolerates them. The act of giving money to the anti-LGBT candidate is homophobic regardless. There are also a lot more issues than just the former president's homophobia.
He might have sometimes said or implied he supported LGBT rights, but he demonstrably didn't. See my previous post on the topic:
Pay attention to what a person does, not what a person says. Regardless of whether or not Scott is homophobic, or thinks he's homophobic, the act of giving money to the former president was an anti-LGBT act.
However, given Scott's previous statements on his Christian beliefs, how those beliefs affect other political positions, and the money he gave to anti-LGBT candidates, it isn't a stretch to think Scott might be homophobic. If it walks like a homophobic duck and quacks like a homophobic duck, it's probably a homophobic duck.
Sometimes, an issue is simple. Supporting anti-LGBT politicians and policies is deplorable and deserving of condemnation. If a person who is pro-LGBT wants to say "I disagree with X's anti-LGBT actions and I don't want to spend money X in the future," where is the problem? It sounds like you're anti-speech and anti-freedom to me.
Anti-LGBT policies are real problems. Deluding oneself into thinking they don't cause objective harm and aren't a problem worth addressing comes from a very special place rooted in homophobia and/or privilege.
"Have you ever noticed how 99% of problems people wouldn't be concerned about if they didn't know those problems existed in order to be concerned about them?" Thank you, Captain Obvious.
I don't know what issues you're referring to, but the issue being discussed in this thread isn't one of them.
It sounds like he might be, but even if he isn't or doesn't think he is, that doesn't mean his actions weren't anti-LGBT, and that's all that matters.
I didn't say he was a shit person, even though he might be one. We are condemning his shit actions. There is a meaningful difference.
You're only going to find condemnations of harassment, doxing, threats, etc. in this thread. Nobody is condoning those things. However, the existence harassment, doxing, threats, etc., while deplorable, doesn't make Scott's actions any less deplorable.
This is about condemning actions that cause objective harm. If it's "leftist indoctrination" to not condone or stay silent about deplorable acts, sign me up.
- The "accusations" against Scott are not false.
- I can't speak for all "internet lefties," but I don't hate Christians. I think Christianity (and the other Abrahamic religions) have a lot of immorality in their holy books, I don't think the religions have met their burdens of proof, and I think the religions promote anti-skepticism. Those are things that make me think Christianity can be harmful and absurd, but I and most "internet lefties" don't "hate Christians."
- There are plenty of "internet lefties" who are Christian.
Not to mention the "good people on both sides" fiasco, when he first said that he immediately said he didn't mean KKK or racist organizations and that they obviously are bad... didn't stop the media. I wouldn't care except that a lot of racist folks believed CNN and other media when they made him look racist, they took it as a sign they could cause chaos all they wanted now. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/Unlike Trump Biden's racism is cemented in stone.
The thing about the leftist media claiming this or that is "racist" you have to dig into their claims to see that most of their stories are fabricated. Case in point; when Trump tweeted 3 tweets telling members of Congress to go back to their home countries, fix their problems and then come back and tell us how it's done the media only used 1 out of 3 tweets to make it sound like Trump was only telling them to go back to their home countries. Well, that in itself wouldn't be racist, but that's not the point. The point was they selectively took only a small portion of what Trump said and made it out to seem like he said something completely different and that's not the only time the fake leftist media did things like that.
Yet, we have Biden on record saying actual racist things yet he gets a pass because people are hypocrites.
Basically, if you see the left calling someone or something racist you should really look into their claims because most of the time the shit is completely false. They just like shaming others and know their userbase is too stupid to look at the details.
Not to mention the "good people on both sides" fiasco, when he first said that he immediately said he didn't mean KKK or racist organizations and that they obviously are bad... didn't stop the media. I wouldn't care except that a lot of racist folks believed CNN and other media when they made him look racist, they took it as a sign they could cause chaos all they wanted now. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."
Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"
Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."
Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?
"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.
"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
"
All online leftists do is whinge. "He's homophobic!!!" according to what? He donated his money out of his own free choice to the Republican Party? So that means he agrees with everything they do? BTW Donald Trump supported LGBT rights. Scott has already said he's not homophobic. Oh but that's right... internet leftists only believe in black and white, they don't believe in nuance like every normal person does. They also believe in inventing problems and then deluding themselves into believing that problem is real. Ever notice how 99% of problems internet leftists cry about, they wouldn't even care about if they weren't on Tik Tok and Twitter and many of those "issues" are blown up or straight-up false? Scott is not homophobic, he's not a "shit person". The people who harass, doxx and threaten him though? Hmm, funny now the internet lefties aren't shaming those people. You tell on yourselves every day what you're really all about: controlling everyone and bullying those who refuse to be subordinate to leftist indoctrination.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Biggest cancel culture in the world but I don't see dA eViL KrIsChAnZ trying to "cancel" Scott Cawthon over a false accusation, doxxing, harassing and threatening him and his pregnant wife. Funny how the internet lefties looove to hate Christianity but then pull out the apologetics all day when someone points out that all Abrahamic religions e.g. Islam and Judaism have the same actually violent, actually homophobic, and actually misogynistic verses in them. Hypocrisy at its finest.
wikipedia isn't a bad source inherently
it's open to editing, but many articles feature levels of protection that prevent most forms of vandalism
the unite the right page is one of these
in addition, malicious edits to wikipedia pages are usually restricted to changing text to garbage
actual factual misinformation is rare and usually cracked down on very quickly- sources are given on every claim, a full list is in the references
if nothing else, it is a good place to get a general idea, and if anything is confusing or seems wrong, you can check the source to confirm
for example, the claim that unite the right was a white-supremacist rally has four sources for it alone, and the introductory paragraph has 19 different sources
it's pretty much rock-solid
If your issue is with violent crimes, then illegal immigration isn't a very efficient avenue, considering they're less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You can read the rest of my previous post for details when your attention span is higher.Too long didn't read LOL
I would be 10000% ok with removing 100% of white ILLEGAL immigrants. Their crimes are preventable. Obviously you can't just remove native people from a country. Nor would you want to. But illegal immigration should be stopped in any nation worldwide.
If your issue is with violent crimes, then illegal immigration isn't a very efficient avenue, considering they're less likely to commit violent crimes than American citizens. You can read the rest of my previous post for details when your attention span is higher.
Legal immigrants sometimes commit violent crimes too. Should we bar them from entry too? You don't seem to understand that the "some people in Group X commit crimes" argument can apply to just about any group. People out after 9:00 PM sometimes commit violent crimes, so why not institute a mandatory curfew after 9:00? There's no argument you can't make using your reasoning, and it's not compelling.One is literally preventable. The other is not.