Comments by "ItCouldBe Lupus" (@itcouldbelupus2842) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
371
-
329
-
181
-
102
-
87
-
84
-
76
-
74
-
69
-
67
-
62
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
47
-
47
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@armondtanz
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative man now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Is vigilantism legal in America now?
You can show up somewhere uninvited, after a police curfew, claim to be protecting property, and then insert yourself into a situation that justifies you, the most heavily armed person involved, to use deadly force.
Incredible, what a country, the law doesn't apply to you so long as you don't protest the police and pretend to be a medic or defending property.
Those two things seem at odds at each other, but nevermind, he tried really hard to cry on the stand!
Not guilty, thank God a strangers car dealership was protected by vigilantism and two worthless lives were lost.
America is sick.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Justme-rt4gj Fetuses are not as human as you or I, no more than an egg is a chicken.
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jtstevenson81 No I wouldn't have, because I wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place, I would have deescalated the situation and not antagonized them, I wouldn't have responded to the possibility of getting hit with a skateboard with deadly force.
I would have dropped the gun and put my hands up and told them to stop and turn me into the police.
The guy trying hit him with the skateboard wasn't trying to kill him, he was trying to stop him from running away from what he thought was an unjustified shooting.
I would not have responded like Kyle did, I would have backed up and deescalated, I wouldn't have shit someone in the head for threatening to kill me.
If someone said I'll kill you if I see you again, I'd make sure they didn't see Me again, remove myself from the situation.
So was Kyle pretending to be a medic or defending property?
Those are both contradictory, and he wasn't invited or asked to do either, and he most definitely wasn't qualified to do either.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Callisto Uh no, that isn't true at all, have you actually researched this bud?
In ancient Greece, the intersex goddess Cybele was worshipped by trans priests. Christina, the 17th Century Queen/King of Sweden presented as a man, and likely would identify as trans today. A personal heroine of mine is Lucy Hicks Anderson. She was born in 1886, and began presenting as a girl at a young age, choosing to wear dresses to school. She—and this is surprising—had a family doctor who said that was fine, and her mother should raise her as a girl. And it was! For a while, at least. She was beloved in society and married twice. However, when it was found that she had been born with male sex organs in 1944, she was accused of perjuring herself (by stating that there would be no legal objections to her marriage). She told reporters at her trial, "I defy any doctor in the world to prove that I am not a woman. I have lived, dressed, acted just what I am, a woman.”
Trans people are not crazy, and pretending they are to justify your ignorance and bigotry is pathetic.
They obviously deserve love and acceptance.
Your bigotry isn't logical, just based on ignorance and fear of the unknown.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dan3428 Well Gun control works in the rest of the world, America might be too far gone with it's gun culture to ever be fixed, but there are lots of common sense gun laws they could pass to reduce and restrict the amount of death caused, an assault weapons ban for instance.
During the period where the US had it's last assault weapons ban there were a reduced number of deaths.
Once the ban lapsed, deaths skyrocketed, so there is a lot more they could be doing.
I don't know what Rock you have been living under or what you've been smoking, but there are so many things that have reduced crime, what an insane thing to say.
Poverty is proven to be the root cause of petty crime, which is pretty obvious to anyone with basic reasoning skills, and it's proven that poverty reduction is the most proven and effective way to reduce crime, it's worked everywhere it's been tried.
The neighborhoods with the lowest crime rate don't have the most cops, they have the most resources.
You could look up how countries in Europe have reduced crime, Finland has been very successful, and Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has reduced the amount of overdoses, drug users and drug related crimes.
There are so many ways to reduce crime, America just refuses to learn from more successful countries and try anything, they just keep doubling down on 20th century "solutions" to crime that have never ever worked, more police and more people in prisons.
But in a country with privately owned for profit prisons, there is no incentive for the rich to want to reduce crime, not when there are billionaires profiting off slave labour in their facilities.
Look at Finland's crime rate and prison system to compare.
You'll be shocked how dystopian Americas system is by comparison.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kathleenmahoney7650 America has not been fighting poverty for 60 years, the government has been making it worse for the past 60 years, wealth inequality and poverty skyrocketed under Regan and hasn't come right since.
America loves its virtue signalling by declaring endless wars against nebulas concepts, surprised you fell for that line.
Progressives don't want the govt to be our parents, we just want our taxes to be spent on something useful like helping human beings and improving society, that's literally the ENTIRE point of taxes.
We don't want our taxes wasted on a bloated military budget to be used to kill poor people in other parts of the world or tax breaks or bailouts for the rich.
You want corporations to have all the power and control everything, or at least the people you vote for want that.
I don't know what obvious lies or pandering nonsense you're gullible enough to fall for that makes you vote republican, but that's the only goal of the GOP.
Erode the government, serve the rich and screw the poor.
You're voting against your own interests Kathleen, because I'm assuming you aren't rich.
But maybe you aren't a republican, maybe you're an independent or something.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jameeyg87 nice strawman but that isn't what I'm saying.
No, everyone has a unique biological sex on the spectrum, that's how spectrums work.
It isn't a binary, the binary was socially constructed in recorded history, I don't know the exact time off the top of my head.
The point is right wingers understanding of biological sex is wrong and outdated, and based on a social construct.
Which is what their definition of women is based on, it's based on a faulty premise.
And their definition of women is designed to exclude trans people.
Yes gender identity and biological sex are not the same thing.
But Walsh's argument that trans people's gender identity is invalid because of biological sex is incorrect, it's built on a rocky foundation, kinda like his understanding of reality, because this is a man who thinks God literally created the earth in 7 days, that all humans are descendants of two people and that Noah's ark was real.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheReddShinobi13 That's a pretty ironic example considering I'm from New Zealand.
That isn't my logic at all, I did not make an argument that if a Maori person lived in England for generations they would no longer be indigenous to the land.
And I understand what a diaspora is very well, I know that's what happened to Jewish people and it's very sad that it's what they are doing to the Palestinians.
But the Israelis are not indigenous to Palestine, they are European colonizers of that land.
DNA is not the determining factor in whether someone is indigenous or not, although if it was the Israelis have less shared DNA with ancestors from Judea than Palestinians do, so that argument wouldn't work in that case either.
I'm not denying history, but Jewish people living in the general region thousands of years ago do not give Israelis the right to call themselves indigenous while they colonize another group.
It's not their land, they have zero claim to the land.
They are colonizers who don't have any connection to the land whatsoever.
Please go learn what indigenous means and stop repeating this silly lie that Israelis are indigenous to the Palestinians land.
Israel didn't exist 100 years ago, there is no land for them to claim indigeneity to.
There is no history to justify your argument.
The country was created through colonial violence by taking land from the indigenous, it's not possible to be indigenous to a country created under those circumstances.
This would be like me, a white boy from New Zealand, going to Africa and killing people and taking the land with the justification that "I'm indigenous to this land, it used to be Pangea, my ancestors lived here, I have the right to this land.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, they want to discriminate and eliminate trans people, they don't care about children at all.
Children are not having surgeries, except in some extremely rare cases, and it is not happening as a first resort or on a large scale.
If conservatives care about children, why are they only targeting trans kids?
Why aren't they doing anything to fix the broken foster care system?
That affects thousands more children and leads to death and abuse that are far more damaging long term than any gender affirming care, but conservatives don't give a shit.
It's about hating trans people, not protection children, you can tell because the trans part is what they are obsessed with, when it comes to just protecting children they are silent, because they are irrelevant unless there is a way to make it about trans people.
You've been lied to and fed a false narrative, don't buy into it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmorris8444 Are there less Asian people in America living in poverty than there are white people?
You're literally arguing my point for me, a large percentage of the Asian population in America are immigrants who moved there with more money than most poor white people have, of which there is a much higher percentage.
If you were to look deeper into the statistics on Asian crime you'd probably find that Asian people living in poverty are the ones committing the most crime.
Poverty is the root cause, look into any racial and cultural group and you'll find that the ones living in poverty are committing the sorts of crimes we are talking about.
That applies to White people as well, despite the fact that White people have privilege in America due to its white supremacist roots, many white people live in poverty and are economically disadvantaged just like other cultural groups.
Arguments that conservatives like Sean make about black crime and cultural problems are used to divide the poor working class, so they don't unite and demand change.
That's why things like the minimum wage or the homestead act was given to White people only after slavery ended, the rich couldn't have the poor white people realizing their interests aligned with all the recently freed but extremely poor black people.
So decisions were made to create those hierarchies and divisions, that's what systemic racism is.
It's been well studied for decades, and is extremely relevant when talking about crime, especially crime in the black community.
You're just wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnmorris8444 What evidence is there that culture is a factor at all?
I don't know why there is less crime in the Asian community, other than the fact that most Asian people are immigrants and regardless of cultural background immigrants tend to commit less crime than those born in the country.
Asians commit plenty of crime in Asian countries, pretty sure you'd find that immigrants in Asia also commit less crime than nationals.
But even if there is a cultural factor, how is that relevant to this debate?
There are very simple policies that are tried and tested for reducing poverty, they have been proven to work.
Poverty is without a doubt the main universal factor in crime and it can be easily addressed through policy.
How would you implement a policy that addresses the cultural factor, and why would you focus on a minor factor that isn't universal rather than the main factor which would universally help everyone.
You guys on the right are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
Just address poverty and stop locking so many people up, other countries have tried it and succeeded, it's an overall benefit to society.
It's time to stop doubling down on 20th century solutions that don't work and try a solution from the 21st century with a better chance of success.
I know there are a few right wing billionaires who are currently profiting from the slave labor in their for-profit prisons, but why would we listen to the opinions of obviously evil people?
They don't want crime to go down, the largest population of incarcerated people is a resource to ghouls like that, but I personally don't think we should let ghouls decide how society functions.
1
-
@johnmorris8444
Poverty has been proven to be the main factor, it isn't just an empty left wing talking point, it's been well researched for decades.
I could recommend a few books on it if you'd like.
You're just regurgitating right wing talking points that have no evidence supporting them, just open ended questions that imply something without actually proving it.
I'm not pretending it's the driving force, there is overwhelming evidence that it is.
You probably don't even believe systemic racism is real despite the overwhelming evidence that it is.
It's not a conspiracy theory, and you still didn't answer my question about how one would pass a policy that influences any cultural factors in crime.
Do you even want to reduce crime?
We've already found the solution.
Look at what Portugal has done with decriminalization of drugs and treating addiction as a medical issue, which it is, rather than a criminal one.
Overdoses and drug use have gone down, addicts are getting help and living healthy lives instead of being locked up in cages to get worse.
Look at how Finland has addressed homelessness and prisons, that is having a huge positive impact.
Other countries have already found progressive solutions that work, America could just copy these solutions, the country had the money to do it.
The government could permanently end homelessness for 20 billion, a one time payment that would save the country money in the long run, reduce crime, reduce stress on the healthcare system.
Don't conservatives care about being fiscally responsible?
It's strange that they would rather waste more taxpayer money letting the homeless die in the streets when they could save money by housing the homeless and reduce human misery.
It's almost like cruelty is the point of Conservative politics.
Seems like you don't even care that there are millions of people incarcerated for non violent crimes that are being exploited by slave labor which is enriching billionaires.
Do you think that's a good thing or do you just not care?
It's interesting how you ignore that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
@armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
@armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
@armondtanz @armondtanz I see you're an old head who is now stuck in a conservative bubble so that explains why you are so out of touch with reality and not up to date with where comedy is actually at.
Your references are conspicuously out of date.
There are so many new young comedians working today who are getting their start on smaller comedy channels playing small rooms, the comedy scene is booming.
As for progressive comics pushing the genre forward there is James Acaster, Bo Burnham, Josh Johnson, Mike Birbiglia and Bill Burr.
There are also older comedians like Marc Maron and Frankie Boyle who are better than ever and haven't let themselves get out of touch with culture and have stayed hilarious and relevant.
Maher was never that funny and is a sad old conservative nam now, Rogan has always been an extremely mediocre stand up who only sells tickets because of his podcast popularity and he has launched the career of several terrible stand ups who make him look good by comparison.
Jimmy Carr isn't a conservative, he's just an edgy comedian doing the same thing he's been doing for years, nothing much has changed there.
I don't know why you brought up Jimmy Dore other than to prove my point that you're out of touch... and Tarantino?
You mean the film director?
I don't blame conservatives for anything comedy related, this is how it always goes.
They struggle to connect with young people as the world progresses and their references are lost in time and they become bitter and angry as they become irrelevant making room for new comics to take their place.
That's why we have conservatives podcasts now, so the irrelevant old guys have something to occupy their time and out if touch losers can listen to their whining and imagine a world where they were cool and Funny and popular.
There's something for everyone, comedy is doing better than ever.
I'd be happy to recommend you sone stand up specials so you can get back in touch with the scene if you like, don't worry, I was born in the 90s and I have good taste, I'll only recommend the best stuff from what's current, and I won't recommend Hannah Gadsby, I know how how she enrages you lot, definitely more of a art house vibe which has never been your scene I imagine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bosertheropode5443 No, conservatives just said they would vote for him for president, offered him jobs, openly praised him for killing two people, interviewed him every chance they got, and filmed a documentary glorifying him.
He worships cops and dreams of becoming one, American cops have well documented ties to white supremacy, historically and currently. He hung out with members of the proud boys after Kenosha, a violent right wing militia with direct ties to white supremacy.
He keeps hanging out with Tucker Carlson, the most popular and trusted media figure if white supremacists.
Dude has a lot of red flags, the fact that he responded to a right wing militia Facebook pages call to action to arm themselves and "assist" the police in Kenosha, to "protect property".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bosertheropode5443 1 @böser Theropode You know Germany had to pay reparations to Europe for both world wars? Haiti had to pay France reparations for all their list wealth when the Haitians rose up and freed themselves, those reparations have left Haiti impoverished to this day.
Reparations are paid all the time, but only to white people.
White people invented affirmative action for themselves and benefit from it more than anyone.
No one is paying for the sins of their grandfather, the United States government is. Taxes are already wasted in trillions every year on military spending, paying reparations to the descendants of slaves will drastically improve the lives of millions of hardworking Americans, reduce wealth inequality and bolster the economy.
It's not only the right thing to do it's also the smartest thing to do.
White people got to keep all the wealth they made off slave labor, the freed slaves mostly were forced into indentured servitude, or were so poor that they had to steal to survive and were then imprisoned and made slaves again. As I'm sure you know the 13th amendment states that slaver is legal for prisoners, and with America today having the highest population of incarcerated people, for profit prisons, and corporations making billions using prison slave labor, then it's safe to say that slavery hasn't been as abolished as you were taught in school. Freeing the slaves doesn't magically fix anything.
During the reconstruction era free people formed their own communities and built their own wealth. That was all destroyed and stolen again by white people and the newly formed KKK.
There is so much that took place in American history after slavery ended that is worthy of reparations.
It's the least that could be done to start to undo the institutional racism the United States is built on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burbujita0811 Steven is an idiot, this is an absolutely terrible criteria for judging whether someone did well, listening to the cadence of their voice.
This is literally how Ben Shapiro pretends to win debates in front of college freshman, he'll make a strawman argument or just say complete nonsense in a calm and pithy manner with a smug smile, and the audience laughs because it sounds like he said something smart when he in fact didn't.
Body language and sense of humor are not criteria for judging a debate, the content of what was said and the cogency of the argument is all that matters.
Hawley didn't even make an argument, he just played word games smugly and got her flustered.
Conservatives are such emotional and irrational people, this is the least logical and rational criteria there is, seriously, you guys are like children.
It sounds like he won, therefore he won.
Nevermind that he didn't actually say anything of value.
But I guess Trump really lowered the bar for y'all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@haywoodjablowme4945 Those are my thoughts on the matter.
You're right that Sam does nothing good for Crowder, getting destroyed in a debate by Sam would be really embarrassing for Crowder, which is probably why he keeps running away.
But most people Crowder debates have smaller platforms than he does, especially the college kids he debates in change my mind.
Those are debates by the way, not "conversations".
If you are having a conversation with someone and either party is trying to change the others mind by arguing, that's a debate, just an informal one.
That's literally what debate means.
Enough of Stevens audience wants him to debate Sam Seder, if he really isn't scared and believes he could hold his own then he should do it.
But everyone knows that he doesn't have what it takes.
All Crowder does is vomit boring, offensive drivel, so you must be used to it.
At least Sam would get Crowder sweating and stammering, maybe he can have one of the 5 guys his Dad pays to sit in the room and laugh to sub in for him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rey You aren't better, you're just bigoted.
You aren't pro life, you're pro-forced birth and anti-freedom.
Conservatives have been making a lot of noise about drag Queens lately, and generally pushing a narrative that LGBTQ people are inherently harmful to children.
Why don't conservatives have anything to say about the thousands upon thousands of abused and murdered children in the foster care system?
Conservative media doesn't talk about it, conservative politicians don't even seem to acknowledge the existence of the problem, much less solve it.
In fact, many conservative politicians are actively passing bills that would have trans kids taken away from their parents and put into the foster care system, where there is a high chance they will be abused or killed.
That is all on top of being trans, making them much more likely to be the victim of violence.
These bills would tear families apart and ruin the lives of children.
Why don't conservatives do anything to help the thousands of children in foster care and instead focus all their attention on trans kids, less than one percent of the population, and the supposed harm being done to them.
Why make such a small fraction of the population such a central issue, while ignoring massive systemic problems?
What's up with that man?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoodTuber Being trans isn't a mental issue.
You're just factually incorrect and being bigoted.
Minors are only getting mastectomies in very rare circumstances, and it's very context dependant.
There are plenty of checks and balances in place.
If you actually cared about kids you'd focus on a real issue affecting thousands of them, like child brides or the broken foster care system.
But you and other conservatives never talk about either of those issues, because you don't actually care about kids, you care about winning.
You just use kids to try and win the culture war.
Also, the left is not losing the culture war.
The right has almost no culture, you won't ever win the culture war.
You'll only win through fascism, that's the only way the right ever wins.
Culture is created by the oppressed, and that isn't the right.
Very rarely is groundbreaking art made by conservatives, because you don't push boundaries, you like things the way they are, or the way they were.
You're dreaming if you think the right is ever winning the culture war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenhogg6154 A reasonable guy?
He's a con man who surrounds himself with criminals and is one himself.
He has multiple credible accusations of r*pe, sexual assault, including two instances against a minor at an Epstein party.
There is also his close and personal 10 year long relationship with Epstein, a man he knew liked them "on the younger side".
Add all that up and the multiple instances of saying creepy stuff about his own daughter, the chances of him being a sexual predator are astronomical.
You call leftists "groomers" but the republican party is full of them, from Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, and Donald Trump.
But I bet you couldn't name a single leftist with credible accusations against them, certainly not one with any power.
Trump has been impeached twice, said hundreds of insane and stupid things, lied thousands of times and knowingly planned the January 6th insurrection to undermine any democracy America has left.
He gave tax cuts to the rich, his administration repealed and undermined civil rights, gutted the EPA, pulled out of the Paris climate accords and the only world leaders he got along with and didn't make fun of him behind his back were straight up dictators.
He told the Proud boys, a fascist militia, to stand down and stand by.
White supremacists killed someone in Charlottesville and he said there were good people on both sides.
And you don't understand why the left hates him?
You truly are completely clueless about the left huh?
The guy is not reasonable in any sense of the word, the fact that you think he is says a lot about where you are in terms of reality.
He's an obvious narcissist with the mind of a child, a terrible businessman who only likes people who say nice things about him and demanded loyalty from thise in charge of government institutions that are supposed to be impartial and serve the people, not the president.
He's the leader of an authoritarian movement in every sense of the word.
Haha and you think you are in touch with an empirical shared reality?
Oh Steven.
Sigh and Rand Paul, the libertarian moron.
He would be your choice.
No wonder you are so clueless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenhogg6154 Steven, you can't be bigoted towards trans people and complain about being called a bigot.
No one is forcing you to use the language of gender studies.
Your free speech is not under threat.
You can say whatever you want, but if you say something that is bigoted, you're going to be called a bigot.
That's how free speech works and it is more than fair.
On matters of gender, it would be deliberately ignorant to discount all gender studies for ideological reasons.
That would be like ignoring all of quantum physics because you feel like it and then getting upset when no one agrees with your opinions on the future of space travel.
It's not an infringement on your free speech to point out where you are wrong on the facts.
You can say and believe what you want.
But just like it's been since the beginning of time, there are consequences for what you say.
There are millions of trans people in your country, human beings just like you.
They are discriminated against on a daily basis, one of the most vulnerable marginalized groups.
But their suffering is only theoretical to you, and it seems you'd rather pedantically debate the validity of their identity and existence.
I think all it would take is for you to have this conversation with a trans person, preferably in person, and after that experience you'd probably have different priorities when it comes to this "debate".
I think I understand you just fine.
Most Transphobes are pretty simple, with regards to this topic.
It's good that you want to understand but I find it difficult to believe you are talking entirely in good faith.
You did say Maybe, implying that understanding isn't actually your reason for wanting this conversation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AndyCan How is yours less arbitrary than ours, when ours is based on material reality and yours is based on a religious text that has potentially been mistranslated.
You'll need to explain that one.
Although I can't believe I need to explain such a basic concept like harm to you.
physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc. No harm was done.
material damage.
have an adverse effect on.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
So, for example, if a large number of religious leaders, say priests, were to molest children that would be an example of harm, and according to people whose morality is based on material reality those priests should be punished, kept away from children and prevented from ever doing something morally reprehensible again.
But a religious organization whose morality is based on arbitrary criteria from a mistranslated text that is thousands of years old would prioritize the hierarchy of the religious institution, and just move those priests to new parishes, obfuscate the molestation and try to sweep it under the rug.
I could come up with dozens more examples, or would be happy to answer any questions if you find the concept of harm based on material reality to still be too confusing and seemingly arbitrary to you.
But first I would like to hear you justify why your criteria is less arbitrary in your mind than ours which is based on material reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrisyowell3013 You're conflating sex and gender and clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Trans people are validated by our current understanding of biology, you're just making ignorant assumptions based on outdated information.
You're the one who isn't living in reality, trans people exist, they have always existed and they are the gender they say they are.
Gender is determined in the brain, so their gender identity is mismatched with their biological sex.
Trans women have female brains even though their body is male.
And no, that isn't the only way to help gender dysphoria that's just plain wrong.
That doesn't help gender dysphoria at all, I don't think you even understand what gender dysphoria is, let alone understand it enough to speak confidently about solutions to it.
You don't want to believe trans people exist because they make YOU uncomfortable.
You want to pretend that the world is simple, that gender and sex and biology are simple, but they are complex and not fully understood.
Trans people just need love and acceptance and the same freedom to do what they want with their bodies that everyone else has, to not be discriminated against by systems of power and not be legislated against by evil, ignorant politicians.
You're the one who is uncomfortable with reality, trans people just want to be left alone, you're the one who needs help with feeling comfortable about modern science.
Trans people have always existed, throughout human history.
You can't just not believe in facts because they make you uncomfortable.
Do you believe that anyone is born intersex?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnescobar6 Could you give me the name of the study you are citing, your claim that "a lot" of individuals end up taking their lives 10 - 15 years later not because they weren't affirmed?
Bit of a sus claim to be honest, conservative Transphobes have a nasty habit of citing studies to support their arguments when they haven't actually read the study and it doesn't say what they claim.
You clearly don't understand how gender and transitioning works, because your assertion that he is bringing "sanity" back by saying they aren't what they weren't and all that, just isn't accurate to the trans experience.
Sanity isn't being wrong about the facts in a calm and collected manner.
Conservatives are so emotional, you guys don't seem to care about the facts, only the feelings.
She got flustered and a little upset, therefore she lost the interaction, because he was calm and collected while he played word games and didn't actually address or refute any one of her points.
So that means he won.
It's the same way Ben Shapiro argues, and you guys all think he's smart and logical.
But not a single thing she said was nonsense.
If it sounded like nonsense to you, then you obviously don't know what you are talking about, and maybe you should go learn more about trans issues before trying to act like an authority on them.
Someone explaining how nuclear fusion works would sound like they are speaking nonsense to me, but I don't know shit about that subject, so I would never say they are wrong just because I don't understand what the words they are saying mean in that context.
That's literally what you are doing.
I live with trans people, my siblings are trans, I know more about trans issues than you do, and I'm not your "brother" ass clown.
You don't know shit about the reality of what it's like for trans people.
Don't insinuate I don't care about Trans issues, as if you give a crap.
Josh Hawley is a bigoted, soulless ghoul, who doesn't give a crap that his rhetoric emboldens the many bigots who follow him to attack and terrorize Trans people.
They are murdered at a higher rate than any other group, because of their identity.
Most states Still have a trans panic clause.
Trans and non binary people exist, they always have, throughout human history, and some of them can get pregnant.
Those are just the facts.
Playing bigoted word games to try and erase their existence doesn't change those facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aliamjon2550 Conservatives think like sociopathic a-holes, if they think at all.
Who will pay for the free healthcare and education?
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, David Koch, Richard Branson, Oprah Winfrey, Rihanna, and all the other billionaires who abuse this dying system to avoid paying taxes.
A billion dollars is more than any human being could ever need, so every dollar accrued over a billion dollars is taxed at 90%, will pay for everything, healthcare, education, infrastructure, housing all the homeless, and eliminating reliance on fossil fuels.
Alternatively, the United States govt could just halve the military budget and pay for everything I just listed, and still have a bigger military budget than all of their allies combined.
They could do it tomorrow, and if they did, within five years the country would be back on it's feet and the economy would have tripled. It would save America.
But sadly it seems far too many Americans are like you, and they ignorantly believe that halting progress and continuing to do the same thing the country has been doing for decades will somehow fix things, somehow you believe that things were better for everyone in the 80s, or at the very least for people like you, and you want to return to a mythologized image of the Regan era.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kwad3d10 I largely agree with everything you said about the state of politics.
As for Obama, I do think his greatness was overrated in a material sense, but in a spiritual sense he was truly great, especially to non white Americans.
He's a symbol of real change and progress in America, a black president literally would not have been possible throughout most of the United states history.
It shows how far the country has come in terms of structural racism.
As far as his actual achievements go he improved the healthcare system in many ways, it's still terrible but millions of Americans benefited greatly from the affordable care Act.
It was a hard fight to get passed with the GOP and Mitch McConnell doing everything in their power to stop it.
He also just stabilised the economy and state of affairs he inherited from Bush, much like Clinton did after Bush senior.
They are mostly remembered positively by people who see them as competent, sensible, the kind of president that will do an okay job and be somewhat affable so people don't have to think about politics so much.
Obama being funny, with perfect comedic timing is one of the biggest reasons many people like him.
He was cool, smart, funny, handsome and not afraid to be emotional but also responded with strength to his opposition.
He's kinda the platonic ideal for an imaginary president of Hollywood America.
I think people enjoyed living in a fantasy for a while, everything is gonna be fine, cool black president has got this.
There are a lot of things I dislike and loathe about Obama as a leftist, but I can't deny the charisma and charm.
Id have to google what he actually did, but I think it's mostly fixed a few things and tried not to break anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 Please don't lecture me on "how Capitalism works" like you know better when you clearly don't.
You're not a genius for listening to the other sides arguments buddy, that's what everyone on the Left does. Half of our arguments exist to combat the idiocy of the right as we try to pull you along with us into the future.
Basing everything you believe in on your personal experience is stupid and childish. It doesn't matter if you listen to other people's ideas if the only filter you ever run them through is your "life experience".
Your failure to empathize and analyze anything from any perspective other than your own is precisely why you are a libertarian.
Your ideology is nonsense and I don't think you truly understand what you believe or gave the slightest clue about how to implement it.
Facts are still facts regardless of your experience, or in other words, how you feel about them.
So no, I don't agree with you at all that people flee Socialist countries to go to Capitalist countries.
You haven't provided any reference, because you're just guessing.
It's a stupid question as well, because a glance at the history of the United States shows that any time a country of brown people tries to implement Socialism they are destabilized by the US either directly or indirectly, and they install a Capitalist dictator in charge and then blame the collapsing countries on "Socialism".
While european countries trying to implement the exact same policies as those countries in South America and Asia are soaring ahead of the United States in every respect, other than prison population and unrestricted military spending.
Just Google US interference in foreign affairs.
You'll see a very clear, obvious, unhidden and entirely confirmed history of the United States destabilizing countries such as Cuba, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Nicaragua, and probably a few other obvious ones I'm forgetting.
Oh yeah, vEneZuElA!
Please google venezuela and the United States.
Not to mention the decades of acts of terror committed on the Middle east for oil and international power.
Capitalism sucks bro, it's rotten to the core, as rotten as your failed divided states of america.
That's an undeniable fact, not a matter of disagreement.
I'm right and you're wrong, the facts clearly prove this.
I'm happy to keep talking to you if you insist on debating reality, once we've both had some rest.
I'll even send you some links, like homework back in highschool.
But I would appreciate if you brushed up on the basics first, like human history and how the past influences the present.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 Oh also, vietnam is only complicated because you tried to make it sound complicated.
What happened was a country of non white people wanted to be communist and the United States and their white allies the french didn't want that, especially since the cold war was still fresh in everyone's minds.
They couldn't have communism rising up so they tried and failed to put it down.
Vietnam has recovered from the genocides committed by the American superpower and is now the closest thing to a functioning communist society that the US will allow to exist.
Not complicated at all, quite simple in fact.
That's why I brought vietnam up, because it proves my point.
Not only that Communism works, but that it can defeat fascism and imperialism (which is just postmodern fascism) and thrive in the 21st century.
Like I said at the start. All of the facts are on my side.
You cannot win this argument based on the facts.
Capitalism is exploitative and it destroys itself.
Every five to seven years since the inception of america there has been an economic crash. Sometimes it's small and some people don't notice it. Sometimes it's big and we all remember it. But like clockwork, every five to seven years. The solution is always some form of Socialism, whether it's for the people, like after the great depression, or for the Corporations, like the bank bail outs of 2008.
How severe the crash determines how severe the Socialism is to fix it.
Every.
Single.
Time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 Dude, as I've already explained, it's impossible to have proper socialism when most of the wealth and power in the world is controlled by conservative capitalists.
The USSR was stronger than the US until WW2, it didn't fall because of it being an inherently flawed system, it collapsed because they ran out of resources during the war and following the war they were more interested in power than people.
If they didn't have to beat the germans for you then they would have lasted longer. But as I already stated, that is state capitalism not socialism. More akin to China today than anything else. A country whose state capitalism is doing quite well, the benefits of which are not being passed on to the people as they do in a more socialist country.
I'm not advocating for the US to turn into the soviet union overnight, You're the only one bringing them up. You can't go from capitalism to socialism without a mixed economy as a transition period. I just want the US to start catching up with the rest of humanity.
I want the US to enact basic socialist policies like The New Deal, and declare and provide healthcare, food and housing as a basic human right. As well as nationalising the internet and making it accessible to everyone. It belongs to everyone, and we all benefit from equal access.
Finland has already ended homelessness and most of the developed world has healthcare as a human right.
If the US implemented just one of these policies it would change the lives of millions of working class people, and inspire other countries to do the same.
It can't happen all at once.
I'm simply talking about taking those first steps into a mixed economy that is obviously superior.
Once we stop letting other human beings stare to death despite already having enough resources to house and feed them currently, and maybe stop killing each other for profit. Then we can talk about proper socialism. A mixed economy first.
YOu catch up and do healthcare, hopefully New Zealand and other countries can follow Finlands lead and end homelessness. Then we can all move onto food after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukelewis9165 I've already explained my position very clearly, and explained who would pay for it. So I'm not going to answer stupid questions I already answered.
You're obviously someone who gets very hung up on dictionary definitions of words, not surprising since all of your political knowledge is entirely theoretical.
The USSR was state Capitalist, not full Socialism, despite the name. The Nazis also had Socialist in their name, but they were still fascists who killed the real Socialists once they took power.
The United States calls itself a Democracy when it clearly isn't.
I've grown quite tired of talking to you because you clearly only take in information you want and ignore the rest.
You have a terrible understanding of Capitalism and Socialism but I'm not your teacher, and frankly, I think you're unreachable.
I hope you have a good life and that believing in the fairy tale of the free market will keep you happy.
I'm no longer interested in having political discourse with you because you don't listen and think you're the best educated on these subjects when you're not.
Also wrong, the government doesn't decide the value of labour under Socialism, the workers do. There ones who actually create the wealth and value, through their labour.
I would recommend you actually read some Socialist and communist Theory and watch those videos on American history.
I doubt you will though.
Good day libertarian luke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Elnegro.. Right, so you're a conservative who believes that teachers and leftists are a big threat to kids, is that it?
The don't say gay bill is specifically targeting queer issues, that was it's goal, it's been successful.
Teachers are afraid to even tell kids about the reality that gay people exist, because they are afraid of being sued by unhinged conservative parents emboldened by fascist GOP politicians.
Gay people are being specifically targeted by the GOP, what I'm saying isn't false, and you know it.
Thing is catholic priests and child marriage are far bigger problems facing kids today and putting them in danger, but your conservative politicians are completely silent on those issues while fabricating a moral panic about drag queens, who are not a proven danger to kids.
You guys don't actually care about protecting children, you're hypocrites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanhubbard1885
Ah, the classic bad faith argument conservatives roll out when they are losing an argument.
Buddy, I'm poor myself, I don't have anything spare to give to the poor, I occasionally give homeless people change when I have it after buying food.
Democrats are not progressives, and I'm not a Democrat, I'm a leftist & there isn't a leftwing party in the United states since they made it illegal to be a member of the communist or socialist party back in the day.
Democrats have no interest or courage in actually fixing things in places like San Francisco, they could choose to invest a few million or billion in reducing poverty and long term solutions for preventing poverty and crime, but most democrats are just interested in keeping their seats and being reelected, and all they need to do is be slightly more progressive than the GOP, which isn't difficult since the GOP is literally the party of the 3 K's and Qanon these days.
Systemic problems, like poverty, require systemic solutions.
I support progressive systemic solutions, I'm not a hypocrite for not trying to solve a systemic problem as an individual by giving away all my money to the poor, that's such a bad faith argument.
But it probably makes sense to you, the concept of systemic solutions is probably completely over your head and you don't have a clue what I'm talking about huh?
1
-
1
-
@ryanhubbard1885 Do you have a response to this comment?
@ryanhubbard1885
Ah, the classic bad faith argument conservatives roll out when they are losing an argument.
Buddy, I'm poor myself, I don't have anything spare to give to the poor, I occasionally give homeless people change when I have it after buying food.
Democrats are not progressives, and I'm not a Democrat, I'm a leftist & there isn't a leftwing party in the United states since they made it illegal to be a member of the communist or socialist party back in the day.
Democrats have no interest or courage in actually fixing things in places like San Francisco, they could choose to invest a few million or billion in reducing poverty and long term solutions for preventing poverty and crime, but most democrats are just interested in keeping their seats and being reelected, and all they need to do is be slightly more progressive than the GOP, which isn't difficult since the GOP is literally the party of the 3 K's and Qanon these days.
Systemic problems, like poverty, require systemic solutions.
I support progressive systemic solutions, I'm not a hypocrite for not trying to solve a systemic problem as an individual by giving away all my money to the poor, that's such a bad faith argument.
But it probably makes sense to you, the concept of systemic solutions is probably completely over your head and you don't have a clue what I'm talking about huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BrianStevens-n2z 😂 Oh wow, you're serious.
You actually believe Elon taught himself to build rockets.
You must still be a teenager or something.
The man spends his days tweeting, playing videogames and creating a hostile work environment, he didn't build those rockets dude, the scientists and engineers who work for him did.
Elon isn't a smart businessman, he's a decent snake oil salesman and has succeeded in spite of his own incompetence, mostly by stealing other people's companies and taking credit for other people's work.
He's a trust fund kid who was born rich, that's it.
And he's now a divorced Absentee father turned reactionary troll who is addicted to Twitter, a company he vastly overpaid for and didn't want to buy and was forced to, which he's now sueing the lawyers who forced him to buy it, and he's now running that company into the ground.
He's literally the most famous loser in the world.
IQ tests aren't a real measure of intelligence, they are debunked pseudoscience.
You need to get better heroes kid, and improve your critical thinking skills.
Simping for Elon isn't going to impress anyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SebastianMorrow No it isn't strange Dipsh*t, because doing a G No cide isn't their only goal, they also want to try and justify it in front of the world and steal the land and try and act like they were the good guys in this.
Obviously they could use their full military might but then the rest of the world would have no choice but to condemn them and might go to war with them.
The United states did a G No cide in the Native Americans but they didn't use their full military might either, because logically there are other factors to consider.
The population increasing is irrelevant, the result do not matter, their methods and intentions are what make it apply.
They are literally meeting the definition of it, I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.
The destruction of a specific group IN PART counts, did you miss that part of the description?
This "conflict " absolutely DOES meet the requirements, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You aren't qualified to make that judgement, you're just some ignorant schmuck online who doesn't care about war crimes or the loss of innocent life.
Two of the most respected humanitarian organizations in the world think it applies, they are experts on the word, you are not.
They are targeting civilians, destroying civilian structures, carpet bombed neighborhoods leveling them, making areas completely unliveable, slaughtering children, stealing land, selling oil rights to that stolen land and had their plans leaked of their intentions to move the survivors to Egypt.
It couldn't be more obvious to the people who are qualified to judge whether the word does or doesn't apply and it couldn't be more obvious to people who are paying attention and who care.
You are obviously not one of those people, maybe you share the views of the IDF and don't even see them as human beings.
1
-
@SebastianMorrow A week into Israel’s war on Gaza, 800 eminent scholars and practitioners of law sounded the alarm about an imminent G n0 cide in the territory. What made this warning both powerful and chilling was that so many legal experts came to this sombre conclusion together. It is not a claim that can be made easily.
Since that letter was released, the situation in Gaza has only gotten worse. The death toll has passed 11,000, while some 2,650 individuals, including approximately 1,400 children, are reported missing, potentially trapped or deceased beneath the rubble. Tens of thousands of wounded are overwhelmingly struggling medical facilities. The humanitarian situation has reached horrific levels, compounded by the lack of food, water, fuel and electricity.
To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define G n0 cide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the G n0 cide Convention.
According to these documents, "the G word" involves acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing them serious harm, and imposing conditions of life aimed at physical destruction of the group in whole or in part, among other underlying acts. Notably, the people targeted can be a geographically limited part of the group.
Gaza’s devastating reality mirrors these components of genocide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza. In just the first week of its relentless assault, it dropped more than 6,000 bombs on the Strip – nearly as many as the United States used in Afghanistan in a full year.
Using high-impact munitions in one of the most densely populated places in the world inevitably leads to a high death toll among civilians, as we have witnessed already in Gaza. In a month, the Israeli bombardment has killed more than 4,400 children and 2,900 women, with many of the men in these horrific statistics also non-combatants.
The Israeli army has also dropped any pretence to “precision strikes”, as its spokesperson Daniel Hagari said its emphasis is “on damage and not accuracy”.
It has also mass-targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools sheltering the displaced. It has bombed residential buildings, wiping out whole families from the population registrar; more than 45 percent of homes were destroyed or damaged, many of them in the supposed “safe areas” of the south where the Israeli army had instructed Palestinians to evacuate to.
This mass killing of civilians is accompanied by the imposition of life conditions aimed clearly at the physical destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has put Gaza under complete siege, with “no electricity, no food, no water, no gas”, as declared by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Israel’s bombing of hospitals, the targeting of their solar panels and the blocking of fuel deliveries indicate an intent to prevent Palestinians from accessing life-saving healthcare. More than one-third of hospitals and two-thirds of primary healthcare in Gaza have already shut down.
The Israeli refusal to allow adequate amounts of much-needed humanitarian aid – including food and water – indicates it is willing to allow the Palestinian population to succumb to starvation and disease.
Israeli government and military officials have also verbalised their G n0 cidal intent towards the Palestinian people. On October 9, when announcing the full blockade, Gallant described the 2.3 million people in Gaza as “human animals”. On October 29, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used Judaic scripture to justify the killing of Palestinians. “You must remember what Amalek did to you, says our Holy Bible,” he said, quoting a verse that goes on to say: “Now go and smite Amalek … kill both man and woman, infant.”
Hmmmm, who should I believe?
The experts on the subject who have studied the information we have or some guy in the comment section who is just repeating propaganda?
I don't think you are a credible source on this one Buddy.
1
-
1
-
@SebastianMorrow No response to this?
A week into Israel’s war on Gaza, 800 eminent scholars and practitioners of law sounded the alarm about an imminent G n0 cide in the territory. What made this warning both powerful and chilling was that so many legal experts came to this sombre conclusion together. It is not a claim that can be made easily.
Since that letter was released, the situation in Gaza has only gotten worse. The death toll has passed 11,000, while some 2,650 individuals, including approximately 1,400 children, are reported missing, potentially trapped or deceased beneath the rubble. Tens of thousands of wounded are overwhelmingly struggling medical facilities. The humanitarian situation has reached horrific levels, compounded by the lack of food, water, fuel and electricity.
To understand what is transpiring in Gaza, we must turn to the key legal frameworks that define G n0 cide: Article 6 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and Article 2 of the G n0 cide Convention.
According to these documents, "the G word" involves acts committed with the specific intent to destroy, either in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts encompass killing members of the group, causing them serious harm, and imposing conditions of life aimed at physical destruction of the group in whole or in part, among other underlying acts. Notably, the people targeted can be a geographically limited part of the group.
Gaza’s devastating reality mirrors these components of genocide. Despite claiming to target only Hamas, Israel is engaged in an all-out assault on the whole population of Gaza. In just the first week of its relentless assault, it dropped more than 6,000 bombs on the Strip – nearly as many as the United States used in Afghanistan in a full year.
Using high-impact munitions in one of the most densely populated places in the world inevitably leads to a high death toll among civilians, as we have witnessed already in Gaza. In a month, the Israeli bombardment has killed more than 4,400 children and 2,900 women, with many of the men in these horrific statistics also non-combatants.
The Israeli army has also dropped any pretence to “precision strikes”, as its spokesperson Daniel Hagari said its emphasis is “on damage and not accuracy”.
It has also mass-targeted civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools sheltering the displaced. It has bombed residential buildings, wiping out whole families from the population registrar; more than 45 percent of homes were destroyed or damaged, many of them in the supposed “safe areas” of the south where the Israeli army had instructed Palestinians to evacuate to.
This mass killing of civilians is accompanied by the imposition of life conditions aimed clearly at the physical destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has put Gaza under complete siege, with “no electricity, no food, no water, no gas”, as declared by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Israel’s bombing of hospitals, the targeting of their solar panels and the blocking of fuel deliveries indicate an intent to prevent Palestinians from accessing life-saving healthcare. More than one-third of hospitals and two-thirds of primary healthcare in Gaza have already shut down.
The Israeli refusal to allow adequate amounts of much-needed humanitarian aid – including food and water – indicates it is willing to allow the Palestinian population to succumb to starvation and disease.
Israeli government and military officials have also verbalised their G n0 cidal intent towards the Palestinian people. On October 9, when announcing the full blockade, Gallant described the 2.3 million people in Gaza as “human animals”. On October 29, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used Judaic scripture to justify the killing of Palestinians. “You must remember what Amalek did to you, says our Holy Bible,” he said, quoting a verse that goes on to say: “Now go and smite Amalek … kill both man and woman, infant.”
Hmmmm, who should I believe?
The experts on the subject who have studied the information we have or some guy in the comment section who is just repeating propaganda?
I don't think you are a credible source on this one Buddy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@howardpalys6929 Unfortunately buddy, my point has been made, you just described a systems that dozens of other countries already have, including mine, and are not far left.
All of those things, healthcare especially, have made these countries objectively better places to live for regular people than the United States.
The wait times are usually longer in the United States and the medical debt is responsible for 60% of bankruptcies, which is insane.
It's a stupid and frankly dystopian problem only present in your underdeveloped right wing country.
You are not a moderate if you think any of those things are radical far left, they aren't.
Portugal has shown immense success with their legalization of drugs, there are less drug users and less overdoses per Capita than the United States by a lot.
You're not a centrist, you're a conservatives with commitment issues who is totally ignorant of the world outside his backwards country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sandyunderpants4376 uh no, not every American who wants that gets that for free, what are you talking about?
Homelessness is on the rise, as are levels of malnutrition and child poverty.
My problem with the current leadership is they are incompetent and spineless, they won't fix any problems and won't stand up to the increasingly fascistic GOP.
But they are happy to keep giving the military hundreds of billions of dollars every year instead of using just 20 billion to end homelessness permanently.
There are so many things an actual left wing party could address in America, getting money out of politics, ending the war on drugs, mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex.
Better funding for education and environmentalism, Defunding the police and putting the money into community services that actually help people and save and improve lives.
Breaking up corporate monopolies, taxing billionaires and big pharma, passing single payer healthcare and medicare for all.
Funding a public transportation system for the 21st century.
There is so much a left wing government could do in power and America actually has the money to do it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jacktoth-egeto45 Your describing governments that were communist in name only, ideology is defined through action, not words.
Stalin wasn't a communist, his regime is often referred to as Stalinist for this exact reason.
He payed some lip service to communism while imposing authoritarian state capitalism on his people.
Communism is a moneyless, classless, stateless society.
It's an ideal that is to be strived for, something to be achieved over hundreds of years.
Stalin had no interest in communism, he wanted power.
I definitely disagree that they did worse than the Nazis, the death toll of the USSR is wildly exaggerated and has been repeatedly debunked.
Capitalism has a higher death toll than any state calling itself communist.
Communism has never been achieved, not even close, so you can't say that it doesn't work.
Communism is democratic by design, if it isn't democratic, it isn't communism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UncleTravelingMatt2 So do you just lump all mental disorders in the same basket?
How very scientific of you.
I guess Kleptomania is similar to OCD because they both fall under the umbrella of "mental disorder" which contains hundreds of different disorders.
I'll quote an article for you.
This year is on pace to see more legislation targeting transgender youth than any prior year, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Some measures take issue with LGBTQ+ participation in high school and college competitive sports — 140 of the bills introduced would deny them medical care for gender transitions and impose limits on which bathroom they may use. Overall, more than 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been proposed in 2022, according to the advocacy group's tracker.
"Some of our research has shown that as many as 85% of trans youth say that they are watching these debates over their identity play out," Ames said. "The direct results of these bills when they pass are to take away things that we know are correlated with increased mental health and decreased suicide risk: sports team participation, seeing yourself represented in a classroom, being accepted by your parents and your healthcare professionals. These are all associated with significantly lower odds of attempting suicide."
The policies show a trend in Republican legislatures to push what they see as an animating issue for their base, in the face of outrage from LGBTQ+ groups and vetoes by some Republican governors.
Alabama has passed the most "anti-transgender" legislative package in history, Oakley said.
Its main bill, "The Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act," prohibits the use of puberty blockers or any medical procedure for those under 19 years old that is related to changing gender. The bill also requires teachers and school employees to inform parents if a student's "perception of his or her gender or sex is consistent with the minor's sex"
The bill makes it a felony — with a maximum prison sentence of 10 years — for a doctor to perform surgery or prescribe any medication for a gender transition.
"It is not permissible for a legislature or governor to be making law that discriminates against a very small group, very vulnerable group of people, simply because they don't like them," Oakley said, referencing HRC's legal challenge to Alabama's bill. "That's a violation of equal protection of the law."
Bills that restrict healthcare for trans youth, similar to Alabama's, have been introduced in at least 19 states, according to the ACLU. The Arkansas Legislature passed a similar law in 2021, but it was overturned by a federal court.
Damn, a quick Google search is all it would take to cure your ignorance.
If only you weren't so intellectually lazy, a moral coward who would rather start with a conclusion and work backwards to prove it rather than just be open minded and learn something new.
I can't wait to see how you weasel out of this one.
Hundreds of anti trans bills passed each of the past few years, so you couldn't be more incorrect about conservatives simply "respectfully disagreeing".
You can't respectfully deny someone their humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Goulash45 I'm not saying you're wrong and that it's not a factor, but unless it's being compared to the socioeconomic factors then you can't conclusively say it's the main factor, just that it is a factor.
And I've already made an argument for why that doesn't mean much when it comes to the United States and crime because of the historical context, are you going to respond to that argument or just ignore it?
You do know that there are decades-long studies showing the impact of poverty on crime in America and how the ending of slavery in normal life led to the rise of the prison industrial complex?
It's been proven that socioeconomic background has a major impact on whether people are more likely to commit crime or not in the united states.
Now is that in part because of a culture of manifest destiny, the emphasis on freedom, might makes right mentality that is baked into the fabric of the United States?
Sure, you could make a strong argument for that.
But it would be more practical and straightforward to just end poverty, tax the rich, cut the military budget, move towards prison abolition and invest in low income communities.
The better access to education, healthcare and housing people are the less likely they are to commit crime, and education would be where any cultural problems would be addressed anyway, so what leftists are suggesting would be the solution to the problem you are choosing to highlight as well as change the material conditions of the least fortunate.
Conservatives don't have any comprehensive plans for HOW to address the problem of crime, in part because of the wealthy conservatives who control the movement being heavily invested in private prisons and benefiting from the status quo.
They don't want to eliminate crime, when it increases it gives them a chance to lock more people up, which doesn't fix anything in society and nothing improves, but their bottom line goes up. The US didn't end up with the largest prison population in the world by accident.
1
-
1
-
@Goulash45 So is white crime caused by a "problematic" culture?
Or is that one of the "better" cultures?
Weird how you choose to single out black culture, I'm realizing precisely why you follow AJW and that these "correct solutions" you were talking about earlier are not actually comprehensive policies that can be implemented to improve society.
I basically said the same thing earlier, just in a less um, "racially insensitive" way.
That culture can't be changed from the outside and it's a waste of time to focus on it the way you conservatives do.
Would be much more practical and logical to address poverty, a universal factor in crime that would help everyone regardless of race, and reduce crime.
Plus it won't require singling out any race of people in a way that's really sus to anyone who is smart enough to know that the phrase "Make America Great Again" is a racist dog whistle.
Oh yeah of course, 'American exceptionalism" means that practical common sense solutions to poverty and crime reduction just magically don't work in that country, how could I forget such a rational and logical point?!🤣
Interesting how black people have a "problematic" culture but you don't consider American culture as a whole to be problematic even tho it apparently means practical improvements to material conditions don't work to improve people's lives in America for some unspecified reason, which seems pretty problematic to me.
To the rest of the world, American culture seems very problematic to us, with your unparalleled amount of mass killings, domestic right wing terrorists, cops who routinely murder unarmed innocent minorities, corrupt political and private sectors, and wannabe fascist leaders.
But according to rational and logical conservatives like you America's culture is too special and powerful.
I feel completely owned by facts and logic, gonna go change my entire worldview now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Normie_Normalson Jesus dude, literally everything you assumed about me could be applied to you and the people in your echo chamber, you're just projecting.
You're the one picking and choosing which aspects of history fit your narrow worldview.
You pointed out a single example which are rare exceptions from the pattern I demonstrated of the united states imperialism against non white countries.
The fact that they bombed Serbia doesn't change the fact that they have invaded or interfered with Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bolivia, and those are just off the top of my head, I could google dozens more.
A single example doesn't disprove the pattern.
You suck at debating dude, cherry picking single instances in history to fit your narrative compared to an extensive list of multiple events spread over decades.
Not even close.
You guys are only good at debating in your own echo chamber, everyone else knows that facts aren't on your side, that's why you're so selective with the ones you choose to acknowledge.
TLDR: Pot calling Kettle, "cartoonishly reductive worldview" couldn't put it better myself, stop projecting.
There is nothing more cartoonishly reductive than saying European countries are successful because they are majoring white and implying that non white people have inferior culture or genetics or whatever.
That's the definition of reductive dude.
Jesus Christ.
1
-
1
-
@Normie_Normalson You gonna address my first reply to you or nah?
If free market economies are so good why is everything in The United States so terrible?
The middle class is disappearing, wealth inequality continues to increase, low income people can't afford housing, healthcare, childcare, education or find a decent enough job to sustain them.
Homelessness is on the rise, a problem Finland has almost eliminated by providing housing, and the only thing America is number one in is military spending and incarceration.
What mental gymnastics do you have to perform to excuse those things?
America is one of the worst places to live unless you are rich.
"Free" market economies do not equal freedom for poor people.
Vietnam was destitute until 86 because it was recovering from the war, you can spin a narrative that it was because of the communist government but the most obvious explanation was the war waged on them by the richest country on earth left them destitute especially because the population was so low after all the war crimes the US committed on civilians.
You are ignoring so much history to try and spin your narrative.
A childish reductive view, that is the best description for your views on race and culture.
You can't deny that, only ignore it like a coward.
France should really ask for the Statue of liberty back, since the United States no longer believes in giving liberty to the tired and the poor.
They should reclaim the statue and give it to a more developed country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1