Youtube comments of (@A86).
-
265
-
210
-
145
-
144
-
140
-
93
-
90
-
83
-
82
-
73
-
72
-
68
-
And a special thank you*, TYT trolls, Alex Jones, Breitbart, Paul Joseph Watson, Mark Dice, Sargon of Akkad, Atheism-Is-Unstoppable, Steven Crowder, Hard Bastard and H. A. Goodman fans who regularly come here to troll, for making this possible!!!! I've been subscribed to TYT since 2006 back when they were WAY smaller. I've seen them grow over the years and you guys helped push TYT over the top in Internet fame and Internet traffic to have enough subscribers and viewers to get this kind of deal. You idiot haters subscribing so you can faithfully troll every single TYT video 15 seconds after it's uploaded expanded their subscriber count, and thus their ad dollars and attractiveness to investors. *THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! TYT trolls = secretly biggest TYT fans of all!! (BIIIIIIG HUGGLES)
68
-
58
-
58
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
Somewhat, but not necessarily. Most people who prefer blondes won't absolutely refuse to date a non-blonde. Some people absolutely refuse to date people of a certain race, no matter the circumstance. That's pretty much the textbook definition of racism - believing race determines value, worth or character. If you absolutely refuse to date people of certain races it implies you find something about being that race inherently undesirable. Say if someone was your soulmate in every way - yet their skin is black, and thus you'll choose a person who has less of your dream traits but is white. Gotta keep it real, that is a form of racism. Mild, casual racism (as opposed to virulent, severe racism), but still a type of racism. Not the worst thing in the world, but still.
Now if you prefer a certain race/ethnicity/features, but will still "date out", that's different.
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
15 to 20 years ago I would have hard disagreed. Now as a nearly 36 year old man who has since then read hundreds if not thousands of cases of serial killers and rapists, missing persons, abused children, abused spouses, and seen countless mass shootings (some of which were by kids of gun nut extremists who let them play around with real assault rifles since they were little children), I've come to agree with you. I don't know how such a thing could be implemented, but I've significantly warmed up to governments requiring you to have a license before you're legally able to have, adopt or foster children. A license that would require a professional psych evaluation, a personality test, and some kind of examination of your dynamic with your significant other to see if it's healthy, sane, and safe to bring children into the equation of. A significant minority of the population are simply not psychologically equipped to be parents. Not everyone is meant or deserves to have children. Some people shouldn't even be allowed to own pets.
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
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
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
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
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
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
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
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
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Abortion is no big deal It's not Murder - For Conservatives, black adulthood begins at 8 or 9 and white adulthood begins around 35 or so (if said white person is a conservative, if they're a white liberal, they're an adult at 14-16). Blacks, minorities and white liberals are completely and utterly responsible for every problem or barrier they face in life and have no one and nothing to blame but themselves. Utterly. White conservatives' failings are the fault of Liberalism, Affirmative Action, reverse racism, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, the Clintons, Rev. Wright, Marilyn Mosby, Eric Holder, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, immigrants, taxation, regulation, gun laws, welfare, single mothers, white college students, SJWs, Feminists, etc.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Maximus Desimus - You suffer from the same problem as Maher. The central foundation of Islam is the Five Pillars. That's it. Beyond that, it's up to interpretation, sect, denomination, etc. Some Muslim sects are basically hippies, like the mystic Sufi sect who are as liberal as Wiccans and get killed by Islamists like ISIS as "heretics". You're conflating radical conservative Islamism as ALL OF ISLAM, or acting as if their interpretation is the "true" interpretation which you can't prove any more than a Fundie Muslim could. Their interpretation is no more valid than liberal and progressive Muslims. There are plenty of Muslim Leftists like Malcolm X (he was a self-identified Muslim SOCIALIST), Mustafa Kemal Attaturk (the founder of modern Turkey), Keith Ellison, Majid Nawaz, etc. Islam is no more incompatible with Progressivism than Christianity or Judaism. As long as you don't have a conservative Fundie interpretation of the Koran and don't follow the regressive stuff in the Hadith (different sects of Islam differ on the Hadith, some sects don't view it as valid at all).
11
-
11
-
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
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@BLAIR M Schirmer - Women get raped far more often than men outside of prison, make up the majority of injured parties from domestic violence, make 4-10% less than men for the same jobs in acerage, don't tend to rise above and certain level in companies (even unmarried and childless women), make up the majority of people on welfare and single parents, usually end up poorer than men after divorce, make up a disproportionately small percentage of employers, executives, politicians, etc. Men don't sound very oppressed. Your post was very one-sided, only focusing on certain issues. You also neglected to mention that most of the problems men face have little or nothing to do with Feminism. Feminism doesn't make men work dangerous jobs, go into the military, kill and rob other men or refuse to see a doctor until it's too late.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@Lovely Candice - Bill, like many New Atheists is a moderate Neoconservative on foreign policy. He even self-identified as a "9/11 liberal", which is the 21st century equivalent of "Cold War liberals": people who were liberal on domestic issues but rabid anticommunist pro-war hawks. That about sums up New Atheists. They share Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" worldview where they see "the West" as inherently good and "progressive" and the peak of Human Enlightenment and see the rest of the world as "barbarians". Kind of how Romans and Greeks viewed non-Romans and non-Greeks (except for a few choice non-European Civilizations like Egypt, Nubia, Phoenicians, Persians and Scythians). This is why they have a special animus against Islam. They identify it as a "foreign" faith, unlike Christianity and Judaism, and identify it with "Eastern despotism and barbarism" and see it as a huge threat since it's the world's 2nd largest religion and therefore the main competition to Christianity and Judaism. Islam does have a HUGE legitimate problem with Islamism but they go an extra step and suggest the entire religion is evil and irredeemable and somehow "more evil" than other religions. They dislike all religions but view Islam as a special evil with no good or redeeming features while viewing Christianity and Judaism as annoying but "Western" (therefore "more civilized"). Islam is somehow more religion-y than other religions in their mind or they believe Muslims somehow believe harder somehow than other religious people. Basically, they view Islam the way Cold War Neocons view Communism: pure world-destroying evil and ineffable Eastern despotism with which there can be no compromise. They view the other Abrahmic faiths the way Cold War Neocons view Fascism: not preferable but an acceptable temporary bulwark against Communism. Like Nixon said: "A bastard, but OUR (the West's/Capitalism's) bastard." Basically, they're Western Supremacists who have replaced Communism with Islam as the big Eastern "Great Satan" now that the Soviets are gone. That and many New Atheists are hardcore Zionists, like Maher, Harris, Condell, Krauss, etc. When you press them on this stuff they'll try to do a "motte and bailey" retreat to make their position seem less controversial or extreme. lol
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
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
-
Love it! My personal dream team isn't too far off from yours. Mine is Bernie Sanders as President, Tulsi Gabbard as Vice President, Nina Turner as Secretary of State or Chief of Staff, Elizabeth Warren as Chief of Staff or Secretary of Commerce or Treasury, Robert Reich as Secretary of Labor, Larry Lessig as Secretary of the Treasury, Alan Grayson as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Van Jones as Secretary of Energy, Jill Stein as Secretary of the Interior, Ralph Nader as head of a Transportation-related department, Symone Sanders as Press Secretary and still debating Secretary of Defense.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Marvelous Moostache Man - While I largely agree with you, you sound like you've been given a sanitized version of the Civil Rights Movement. While it always had very large elements like what you descrive, the CRM had hateful black separatists and supremacists as well who made up a large minority of the Movement. Like H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, Elijah Muhammad, most of the NOI, Nation of Gods and Earths, some more radical chapters of the Black Panther Party, etc. Even MLK was VERY controversial when he was alive. He and Ralph Abernathy were very commonly called "anti-white", "Communist agitators" and black supremacists. In 1963, polls showed about 2/3 of white Americans had a negative opinion of MLK. Everyone pretends to love him now and have supported the Civil Rights Movement, but at the time less than half of whites supported the Movement. People like it now that it won and it's become politically safe to oppose Segregation. MLK was often hated because he denounced Capitalism and also criticized white liberals who wanted the Left to shy away from social and racial justice and only talk about economics. Like some in this comment section. Based on comments here, a lot of the people in the comment section calling themselves "Progressive" would have called MLK an "SJW". While he tied economic and social justice together, MLK criticized white liberals who thought you could get rid of all or most racism simply by making sure poor whites have good jobs. It also takes cultural change and getting people to change their mindsets.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
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
-
I'm a new Green, but I have no illusions that the Greens will not be nationally relevant for another 8-20 years. Our best plan is to form a Coalition with the Berniecrats. There is nothing to be gained from Greens antagonizing all people on the Left who haven't completely abandoned the Democratic Party and still have hope to reform it other than making the Greens EVEN MORE irrelevant. Completely abandoning the Democratic Party would just ensure Trump becomes a 2-term President. The Greens aren't going to magically get over 50% of the national vote in 2020, even if Bernie went Green. The Greens have almost no infrastructure, state-level funding apertures or voter mobilization organizations, no TV ads, a Media blackout, we aren't allowed in debates, etc. We Greens need to focus on saturating the government at a state, city and county level first as we have no realistic chance of winning the White House in 2020, and even if we did, we have no Green politicians at any level of government as allies. We need to focus on electing Green judges, sheriffs, DAs, mayors, aldermen, State Representatives and Delegates, State Senators and Congressional Senators and Representatives. Berniecrats will have to stop Trump and win the White House in 2020.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Caucasoid =/= White. Ethiopians, Somalis, Nubians, Egyptians, Berbers, Tuaregs, Bedouins, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Indians and some other Turkic groups can all be classified as "Caucasoid". It's a craniofacial type and linguistic grouping, not an ethnic or genetic group.
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
-
Apartheid is caring about diversity? That makes no sense. It also shows you don't understand dick about Genetics and Biology. If 100% of people bred interracially (not at all realistic, but okay, let's go with it for the sake of argument) the resulting offspring wouldn't be homogeneous. They'd be a whole new range of phenotypes. Biracial half-black, half-white people can come out looking all kinds of ways. Some look mostly black, some look mostly white, some look mestizo, some look Arab or Indian-looking, etc. According to the Punnett Squares, a Biracial kid has a 1/8 chance of looking indistinguishable from a white person. Half-white, half-Asian kids would look different from half-black, half-Asian kids, etc. A 100% mixed society wouldn't look homogeneous at all.
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
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
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
-
7
-
Tangerine Farmer - Noticing the pattern? When cops or racist vigilantes (like George Zimmerman) kill a minority or poor white person the cops and police/vigilante defense lawyers always come up with some cockamamie story that bigots, cop-defenders and authoritarians are always eager to eat up anyway. Trayvon Martin was running scared for his life after being stalked for several minutes, but for some reason suddenly becomes homicidally angry (even though he's never committed a crime in his life other than tagging a school wall and smoking pot, things he doesn't even have a record for), and decides to commit Murder....yet neglects to put his cell phone away (he talks on the phone to Rachel all the way up until the fight begins) and doesn't leave his groceries at home. He's "armed with a sidewalk" (Mark O'Mara's words) and screams "You're gonna die, motherfucker!" or something along those words to Zimmerman before being shot in the chest, sitting up and saying "You got me" like some cheesy Hollywood summer action flick villain after getting shot by the hero cop (this is medically extremely unlikely). People eat it up.
Michael Brown, who is also going to college next month and has no criminal record, suddenly decides to go on a rip-roaring rampage of violent crime and brutalize a clerk (even though the video clearly shows money being exchanged and Brown being pushed first in the argument, and the owner never calls the cops and denies anything was stolen). He's told to get off the street and suddenly decides to.....commit Homicide for no reason. He absolutely brutalizes poor Officer Wilson (and somehow does so without leaving a single mark on Wilson), tries to grab the gun (but leaves no evidence, and gets shot in the hand while doing so, which would require expert marksmanship by Wilson), and runs away scared. Wilson gets out of the car, chases Brown and opens fire on the fleeing Brown (his own admission), and Brown suddenly goes from running for his life to.....suicidally brave. He turns into a "demon" who "bulks up" (Wilson's own words) and decides he's the Incredible Hulk and tries to run through a hail of gunfire with his head down (a very unwieldy running stance as any athlete knows, a story concocted by a discredited crazy liar) but somehow only moves 20 feet in 6-7 seconds while supposedly doing a full-on charge. Public eats it up.
Tamir Rice, a 12-year old kid playing with a toy gun, suddenly decides he's gonna simulating a shooting spree (even though the video shows no one else in the park and him not pointing the gun at anyone). The cops show up and suddenly he decides to.....take out his fake gun (which he knows is fake) to....what? Shoot the cops with a fake gun? The cops gun him down and the video contradicts this story, but the public eats it up.
Now Freddie Gray gets scared and runs from the cops and is arrested "without incident". But for somehow is able to effectively simulate paralysis and decides on the way to the station to break his own neck..........for no reason. He's somehow able to break his own neck, with his hands cuffed behind his back and the cops can't stop him for some reason. For what gain, no one knows. I'm sure some of the public will eat this up.
Black people sure have a funny habit of defying logic, all known human behavioral patterns and even the laws of Physics when cops or vigilantes confront them, don't they?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
In one sense it's hilarious to watch the GOP falling apart at the seams. It's almost like watching an episode of Monty Python, watching the cretins bumble around and destroy the silly creation they worked so hard to make. At the same time it's pretty damn alarming. What's alarming, as others here have pointed out, is that the GOP is crumbling because its base (which is now somewhere between 85-92% white) is becoming so damn extreme their politicians can't bring themselves to go along with their base. The GOP, a mainstream party, has a base that is now openly embracing White Nationalist/White Separatist doctrine and embracing ideas from the govts of countries like Iran, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.
They're quickly becoming an openly white supremacist, patriarchal, theocratic party that supports elements of Italian Fascism and Chinese corporatist capitalism, killing non-Christians and possibly even beating gays in the streets.
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
-
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
-
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
-
+TheOriginalGOAT - The vast majority of Republicans aren't racist? I call bullshit. The more bigoted someone is, without being an outright Klansmen, the more Republicans tend to love them. Just look at any Republican/Conservative forum or website and read their stories relating to black people and read their comment section. Look at their love of the Confederate flag, their hatred for BLM, their hatred for Trayvon Martin, their love or at least defense of any cop who mows down a black person, what they say about Obama, their political record when it comes to minority rights/civil rights, etc. Because you're not as deranged as Dylann Roof doesn't mean you're not racist. Most of them wouldn't go that far, but most of them share the same opinions as that guy at the Donald Trump rally in New Hampshire, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, MIchael Savage, etc. Most of them think black people are a bunch of bums and ne'er-do-wells living on the government who have it too good and face no real barriers or obstacles. I specifically remember a survey back in 2008 showed the majority of Republicans had pretty racist views about black people. Some Democrats were racist too, but they were much less likely overall to be racist than Republicans. At least, significantly less racist.
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
-
***** - 1) Defending yourself against terrorists doesn't give you a right to indiscriminately fire at civilian areas. It's not an accident either, many times the Israelis INTERNATIONALLY target civilians or civilian areas. Terrorism does not excuse mass murder or collective punishment of civilians (like their bombing of UN centers and UN aid workers and childrens' hospitals). That's an international War Crime. He's being an apologist for war crimes.
"And they are constituionally committed to the genocide of the Jewish race"
I'm sorry but that's an inaccuracy. They refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Israeli government. That's different than genocide. However, the Likud Party Charter in Israel also constitutionally refuses to ever admit the legitimacy of the Palestinians or their right to own any land in Israel and vows nothing if off limits to keep them from owning land or having a state. So, the Likud are no better than Hamas. Yet the Likud is supported by the US.
2) I understand shades of gray, but I think the things he disagrees with the US government about don't make up for the scale or scope of how bad the policies he supports are. It's like if I think Rape is okay but Murder isn't.
3) "Islamic extremism has existed for centuries"
Yes, but it was nowhere near as widespread in the Middle East before the past 60 years. Where was ISIS or all the terrorist groups and suicide bombers in the 1920s? The 1800s? The 1700s? The 1600s? In the 1800s and early 20th century much of the Middle East used to be a playground for wealthy Westerners, similar to how Cuba was under Batista. Like Morocco, Iran, Libya, etc. Islamist groups existed but were a small minority considered nutty by the majority of the population. In much of the Middle East it was relatively rare to see women wearing burkas or hjiabs. Now it's everywhere. What changed? The Western and Eastern (Soviet) involvement in the Middle East during the mid-to-late 20th century helped turn Islamism popular.
Back in the day Pan-Arabism (which embraced secularism or Islamic secularism and Islamic modernization) was the ideology du jour throughout much of the Middle East. When it collapsed in the late 70s (which one could argue was mostly due to internal reasons), Islamism became the new, uniting nationalist ideology throughout the Middle East largely thanks to the US supporting Islamist regimes and groups in order to oppose the Soviet-supported Pan-Arabism and regional alliances or trade deals with the Soviets. We supported the Shah to oppose the Democratic Socialist the Iranians elected to power, which in turn helped the Ayatollah gain popularity. We helped Saddam Hussein into power to oppose the Ayatollah, and supported the Mujahideen to oppose the socialist leader of Afghanistan and the Soviet incursion into the region. We also supported other Islamist groups in order to oppose Pan-Arabist leaders (like the Islamists we supported to topple Gaddafi and al-Assad).
Islamist extremism would still exist if it weren't for the US, but it would probably be more like how the Klan and white nationalist groups exist in the US and Europe today: largely relegated to a political minority (scarily too large a minority but still with not much actual power).
As for Turkey, it actually was and still is one of the most modernized and secular Muslim countries in the world. The Ottomans did indeed use religion to justify what they did, but so did the US use religion to justify colonization of the continent (Manifest Destiny explicitly invokes God and Christianity). Or the War on Terror (God told Bush to). But the Ottomans fell after WWI and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk explicitly founded the modern Turkey to reject religious extremism and theocracy.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
It killed me at the time that he did that, but given how under the gun he was (maybe even literally, as Julian Assange has heavily hinted, the Clintons and the Bushes do have a Putin-like habit of their political enemies mysteriously and conveniently dying), in retrospect I understand why Bernie did it. Setting aside possible threats to his own life and his family, had Bernie made a huge affair at the Convention, the Establishment Democrats would have STILL CORONATED QUEEN HILLARY ANYWAY and there would have been the added disgrace of Bernie being cast as selfish interloper who only became a Democrat for his own self (since the Establishment Democrats weren't going to let him become the Nominee, him cutting up would feel cathartic for his voters but achieve nothing). The MSM would have painted him as a loon and delusional like they are with Trump and his claim that 3-5 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary. While the evidence of election fraud during the Primaries is now undeniable, back in July 2016 it was a strong possibility but not conclusively proven enough to win a court case. If you accuse the DNC at the Convention of Fraud, they'd demand you present evidence strong enough to win a court case. Even if you did, most Hillary superdelegates would not have cared and would have remained with her because she bought them off 4-8 years before the 2016 Primaries started. The DNC, under the control of Donna Brazile, would still refuse to do the Primaries over again, so the pledged delegates would have remained with Hillary. Bernie can't take pledged delegates just by claiming the DNC cheated. Then after Hillary was Coronated anyways, Bernie would have become anathema in the Democratic Party and lost any and all power he did have. Especially if he went Green after contesting the Convention. He'd be billed as a self-interested sore loser.
I hate that he had to campaign for that woman, but it was for the best in the end. He's now a de facto Democratic Party leader and is steadily infiltrating the Democratic Party with Berniecrats at the local and state levels (soon federal level). Meanwhile Hillary is now nothing but a mythical forest sprite in Upstate New York. It's not helpful to spend the rest of your life twisted up over the hard choice Bernie had to make. It didn't taste good going down *AT ALL*, but I understand why. Bernie also truly did view Trump as someone he couldn't work at all with while he viewed Hillary as someone he could to a degree. He was right in retrospect. I still wouldn't have voted for Hillary, but Trump did turn out to be the greater evil. He totally sold out and went back on his populist promises. He's a complete puppet of Neocon Dominionist Theocrat Mike Pence and quasi-Nazi Steve Bannon.
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
-
I think old Mandela well deserves the fond praise he's receiving. Of course the man was not an angel or a perfect man (What revolutionary leader was? What human in general is?), but he was far from the demon that his right-wing/imperialist and white supremacist detractors make him out to be. He helped transform South Africa from a dictatorship enclave where only a minority (the top 10%) of the white minority (who themselves only made up between 5-10% of the population) could be affluent to a multi-party, multiracial democracy with social mobility and opportunity available to all. SA still has a LONG way to go but it's a far cry from what it was during the Apartheid years where SA was basically a country club for a small portion of the population with everyone else starving in concentration camp-like township slums surrounded by governmental/military blockade (not unlike Palestine today...).
Although the ANC does have a bloody side, like almost every revolutionary movement, it's still a far cry from the tyrannical dictatorship it fought and that the West often supported. Thankfully Mandela was able to stop the ANC from devolving into a group of thugs with no real noble goal anymore (like the neighboring ZANU mooks in Zimbabwe and militaries in Cambodia, Myanmar, Colombia and now maybe Egypt) and turn it into a legitimate democratic party. Probably singlehandedly preventing a bloody civil war and a possible racial purge/genocide. Now SA has transformed from a nationwide plantation into an economic power in the same categories as nations like Russia, China and Brazil. The man has earned his pages in history with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, Simon Bolivar, Toussaint L'Overture, Sun Yat-sen, Patrice Lumumba, etc.
R.I.P. Madiba
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Look guys, I'm a black Bernie supporter (Bernie 2020!) and I think you guys should listen mire often to us nonwhite Progressives and nonwhite Bernie supporters. I really hate to go there, but this has to be said (many of us feel this way since Charlottesville): I suspect some white Progressives are overly tolerant and indulgent of the alt-Right (not at Trump voters, just his remaining supporters and the active alt-Right) because they're fellow white non-Muslims. A lot of white people, including white Progressives (Kyle and Jimmy Dore included, sorry), probably because the alt-Right are mostly fellow preppy or "normal all-American"-looking white guys, see them and go "Yeah, they're fucking awful, but C'MON!! Th-th-th-th-they're not truly evil! They're just economically anxious and scared!! If only they could hear the Good News and Word of Bernie Sanders/Progressivism/Social Democracy they'd sober up and become good people and stop their racism. Come on! See! A few former Neo-Nazis even de-converted! We can help these lost souls. They just need jobs." Even though I think this bias in these white Progressives is unconscious, not intentional and malicious. Just an unconscious Tribalism. Welp, you see just how the alt-Right returns the favor of Progressives "taking the high road" and trying to heal and "understand" them. They just shit in your face and laugh as you cough, then take out a knife to try to stab you while you're down rolling on the ground in a coughing fit. Just like the Nazis of Old did to Neville Chamberlain and Americans who wanted to stay out of the War. Take it from us nonwhite Progressives who hab e dealt with white supremacy our whole lives: THEY. WILL. NOT. CHANGE. AND. WILL. NOT. STOP. THEY. ARE. LITERAL. FASCISTS. AND. NAZIS. They see this as a "Racial Holy War" for the "Survival of the White Race and Western Civilization". They view Progressives and Socialists as even more of an enemy than they view Establishment Democrats as they view us as "Commies". Which is to a Nazi as a Satanist is to a Fundamentalist Christian or Fundamentalist Muslim. Treat and view the alt-Right the same as you would someone who has become a radical Islamist who has pledged allegiance to ISIS. Work from the assumption they are a lost cause. View them as a ticking time bomb you're now simply in damage control mode to prevent them from killing anyone, just like any ISIS sympathizer. The alt-Right are not fellow anti-Establishment brothers-in-arms who are just wrong-headed and just waiting for the Good Messiah Bernie Sanders to convert them to Progressivism. They're a lost cause just like most German adults who signed up to join the Wehrmacht. Treat them as such. They are enemies. I'm sorry, some of your fellow white neighbors and family members have declared themselves your enemy. It's a tragedy, but that's what it's come to. Just like you view Centrist Democrats as the enemy, that goes double for the alt-Right. Centrists want you immobilized and powerless and want you alive to lend your unquestioning vote in election years. The alt-Right wants you DEAD. They view you white Progressives as "race traitor cucks" who must be liquidated for the Good of the White Race and Western Civilization.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
How easy it is for white Centrists to play Democratic Party purity games against women and people of color, like Randall Woodfin, khalid kamau, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Keith Ellison, Wendy Wang, etc. instead of joining nonwhite Progressives who are fighting for progress and our rights despite not being good "Blue No Matter Who" Democratic Party purists. Don't you dare let our "BernieSis"'s name, Heather Heyer, come out of your mouth. She was a Bernie supporter and part of the so-called "alt-Left" you white centrists were slamming just the day before. Fuck you.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@Maximum Desimus - After reading your post, my opinion hasn't changed much. You can only speak for your experiences with your family, that's not all Muslims or Christians. Your thought process starts from the assumption that religion conservatives are somehow following the faith more "correctly" than religious liberals which you cannot prove. You cannot prove what the "proper" way to practice a faith is or what the "correct" interpretation of a faith is, so the form followed by conservative Fundamentalists is no more correct or valid than religiously liberal followers. So, I see no hypocrisy in being a Progressive Christian or Muslim since the Bible and the Koran both have have tons of stuff that supports progressive ideology. Or appears to. It has tons of stuff that is or seems regressive as well and progressive religious people have their own interpretations that interpret it in a less sinister way or why it is dispensational or not important. Same with religious conservatives. They cherry-pick and ignore all the progressive stuff in the Bible and the Koran and have interpretations for why they should basically ignore it. Religious Fundies are actually no more literal followers at the end of the day than non-literalists. Biblical literalists don't generally give 10% of their income to the poor or turn the other cheek, do they? Religion is a man-made way to get in touch with the divine and Religion evolves like everything else. Are you a hypocrite for being a "liberal, but holding what most liberals view as a very illiberal view on Islam? Do you have to be 100% liberal on all issues to be a liberal? No. Likewise, you don't have to be a 100% literalist to be a "true follower" of a Religion. Lastly, Christianity outside of the Industrialized World is just as regressive and backwards generally as Islam. I fail to see how Islam is "worse" than other religions. How would you quantify that? India has a HUGE problem with Hindutva and Hindu Fundamentalists killing Muslims and Christiansand Buddhists and Hindu men raping women for "dressing improperly". Africa has a HUGE problem with corrective rape, killing gays and witches. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Thailand have Buddhist terrorists. You perceive Islam as worse because they're "foreigners" attacking the West. Those other religious Fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim ones, but since they're not attacking the West you see them as less of a problem. Christian Fundamentalists pass laws, hold office, control the US military and have access to nukes but you see them as less bad because they're "Western", therefore "less evil". Even though Muslim Fundamentalists hold no power in the US and pass no laws.
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
-
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
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
@chocolateking1 - While I agree, I don't see nearly as much outrage when nonwhite characters (sometimes even nonwhite historical figures) get portrayed by white actors. Like Moses, Rameses, Memnon (a semi-historical Sudanese king) in "The Scorpion King", most of the cast from "Avatar: The Last Airbender", Princess Andromeda in all "Clash of the Titans" movies, Goku in "Dragonball Evolution", Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, Jesus in every movie ever, etc...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's the problem, though. The Bible, Koran, etc. are not "consistent" books. The positive stuff is just as much a part of them as the negative stuff. So while you can talk about positive religious people "cherry- picking the good stuff" the same could be said of religious fundies cherry-picking the bad stuff and ignoring parts that don't fit their agenda, like the Christian Right and Islamists do all the time. You're right that atheism is not a religion and has no holy book. I hear you on that, but atheism is still an idea (a rejection of theism), and any idea can be interpreted negatively in the wrong hands. Stalin and Mao could make just as much of a claim to be legitimate atheists as atheist Humanist icons who were legendary humanitarians, not unlike Religions. Because atheism and religions are all ideas, religions are just far more specific and codified, systematic ideas/ideologies. An Antitheist atheist who believes Religion is inherently bad/evil/repressive could (and some have) take that idea to the next level and decide that it's so dangerous/backwards/whatever that people who believe in it need to be killed for the good of Humanity (like Sam Harris's "Some ideas are so dangerous it is reasonable to kill people for believing in it" proposal). Harris is not the first man to have that idea and not all atheists disagree with him.
It all comes down to what strand of the idea a person holds. Whatever holy books say it all comes down to how different denominations interpret them (Christianity, Islam, etc. are not monolithic). Unless you can prove there is an objective "correct" way to interpret the religion and texts, which if you can prove that you need come kind of award because no one has done that in all these thousands of years. Likewise, it all comes down to if a person interprets atheism to just be a non-belief in gods, or to be a commitment to purging the world of people who do that you view as "backwards".
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
-
@Alex xeon - WTF is "creative individuals"? Please cite a legitimate source that objectively and scientifically defines "creativity" and shows Asians supposedly have less of it and less genius-IQ individuals. Your IQ is very low because, firstly, I explicitly said NOT JUST EGYPT. I was also referencing Nubians, D'mt, Punt, Nok, etc. All of which predate advanced European civilizations. Secondly, most Egyptians don't look like Al-Assad (who is Syrian). Most look closer to Gamal Nasser and Anwar Sadat. Egyptians are genetically most closely related to Nubians, Somalis, Berbers, Bedouin Arabs and Assyrians. They range from looking like neighboring Sudanese and Ethiopians to looking like Italians and Arabs. There is no singular Egyptian look. They don't fit into a Western racial category, although some would definitely be assumed to be "black" if pulled over by an American cop. Learn to read and get off Stormfront. Shit's rotting what little brain you have.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
***** - Although not exactly an unbiased source visit "We Hunted The Mammoth" or "RationalWiki" and see some shining examples. Or just look at some of the gems of wisdom form popular MRAs and Manosphere figures like The Amazing Atheist (who taunted a rape victim, an assholish one but still a rape victim, by making fun of her rape and saying he hopes it happens again), Karen Straughn/GirlWritesWhat (who thinks men punching or striking women during an argument is natural and makes for good sex), Stephen Molyneaux, Thunderf00t, Paul Elam, the abominable Roosh V (a racist white supremacist who is ironically actually Persian himself who believes Rape should be legalized), Warren "date fraud and family sex" Ferrell, etc. I could go on for a while but I think that's enough to make my point. These aren't obscure people either, they're "leaders" in a similar sense to Anita Sarkeesian among SJWs.
The Neckbeard/Fedora stereotype exists for a reason. They're every bit as unbearable as Tumblrinas. Tumblrinas hate anything that isn't arguably a minority of some category and accuse them all of being part of the "white patriarchy" and Reddit MRAs believe white conservative males are the most oppressed group on the planet being oppressed by the evil wimminz, civil rights groups and liberals.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Go Fish - Bernie actually agrees with Trump on that. There are geopolitical dangers, but its not really necessary to spend over a Trillion a year fighting ISIS. That's more than we spent on mobilizing against the Soviets, who were a far more powerful foe. We can fight ISIS with half of what we spend now. A lot of our spending is, as you saud, a Military-Industrial Complex that acts as a jobs program and corporate welfare for Defense contractors. It couldn't get done all at once, but we could gradually cut non-defense-related military spending (at least half of it is discretionary soending, a.k.a Pork), so we can grow new jobs for defense contractors to go into, and increase the amount other NATO members need to pay. A single-payer system would also reduce COSTS, which would reduce the amount we need to spend on healthcare in the first place. We actually currently spend 2-4x more on healthcare than any single-payer system does on theirs because we allow the private sector to charge exorbitant prices and do unnecessary testing and doctor visits to profiteer further. I wish Bernie had pressed that more aggressively in the debate. I think Bernie won, but he could have won more decisively by not letting Cruz get away with as much crap and disinformation as he did. He needs to be less polite with snakes like Lyin' Ted.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1) According to what polls is minority support for the GOP increasing? In what universe? The conservative polls claiming Romney would win by a landslide (lol)?
2) Nothing but misery, eh? In 1964 almost 1/3 of black Americans were illiterate, or nearly, only 5-7% were middle-class and about the same percentage for college attendance, around 40-50% of blacks were poor! etching. By 2007 23% of blacks were middle-class, poverty rates were down to 20-21%, college attendance was up to about 1/3 of blacks (zits gone up even more in the past 6 years), and black illiteracy rates were below 10%.
3) The GOP took in the Dixiecrats to gain votes. What wealth did the DNC gain? They don't tax voters.
4) The majority of black voters to this day still live in red states. What has the GOP done for them since voting for the Civil Rights Act along with the Northern Dems in 1965? Other than propose ending Pell Grants which help poor blacks go to college, promote outsourcing of urban jobs, cut food stamps and funding for urban public schools, try to dismantle the Voting Rights Act, etc.? The GOP hasn't really done much for black voters since 1965 other than hurt them.
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
-
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
-
+John William - 80% in what country? I remember every Muslim country having only a minority who supported that nonsense (an uncomfortably large minority in war-torn hellhole countries, not the more industrialized Muslim countries). I'm sure it's nowhere near that large in Turkey. Anyways, I wish that was all Bill Maher said, but Howitzer was right. Maher went further and cosigned that "Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas" nonsense from Harris (implying that Islam is the largest source of bad ideas in the world, which is not even true) and outright claimed that Islam is the worst religion and is inherently worse and more dangerous than Christianity or Judaism. That's not a supportable view. Bill even outright claimed that Syrian refugees "Don't share our (American) values" (although Trumpites show that tons of Americans don't share Bill's idea of "American values") and that we should be wary of them. He essentially echoed Ben Carson's sentiments about refugees. Nevermind that the refugees are RUNNING from extremists and are a mixed bag including middle-class professionals, Christians, Syrian Jews, Yazidis, etc. I'm sorry, but Bill has a long history of saying batso stuff himself, especially when it comes to Islam, vaccines and GMOs. Bill is a Zionist who has a man-crush on Netanyahu and hangs out with Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who has made comments almost identical to Donald Trump about Muslims). That overwhelms his rationality sometimes.
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
-
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
-
@Ser Twenty Of House Goodmen (mrbeeboy) - Hm, I didn't know Neckbeards, Dudebros and Gamer geeks represent all men.......Sorry to burst your bubble of inflated ego, but you guys don't. I'm a man and none of those groups represent me. I'm a black man who has an offline life, lives independently from mom and dad, healthy relations with the opposite sex, healthy self-esteem and social skills. I also don't play video games very often and have no account on Reddit or Tumblr. So, like the majority of the human population, Fedoras, Tumblrinas, Duckfaces, Redditors, gamers and Dudebros don't speak for or represent me.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
JordanScottMills - Respectfully, one of my Majors is in PoliSci, so I'm pretty confident I know what I'm talking about. I said that I "hate" Stalin, nowhere did I praise him as a great leader. I said the Left could use "some" Stalin in them at times, one of the few things about him that I viewed as effective. No leader is 100% negative or 100% positive. Stalin is not 100% negative and 100% evil and neither is Hitler. As a Leftist, I hate Hitler but he DID do a few good things for Germany. Just like Stalin did increase Russia's standard of living to equal some Western European countries when 40 years earlier it was a backwards agrarian society. Anyways, you contradict yourself, you got mad when I compared the alt-Right to Nazis but admit some are indeed Neo-Nazis. The alt-Right is not just kids in the Internet trolling (even though a casual review of their boards show most are serious with their views, they just use a Milo Yiannopoulos-like approach towards people who don't agree with them). Grown-ass adults are the ones who voted Trump into office. Mostly Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation. They comprise the majority of the alt-Right, not 4Channers and Redditors and /pol/ers. They're just the younger ones. Poll after poll of Trump voters shows the majority of them have an authoritarian worldview, agree with most of his most noxious policies and the majority continue to support Trump EVEN AFTER his disastrous 1st month in Office. Most support his most unpopular policies and most agree with him about his critics and what should be done to them.
Yes, some Trump voters were simply desperate and some were disillusioned former Obama voters, but the majority *ARE NOT*. Polls show most hold odious and dangerous racial views, horrible views abutting immigrants and Muslims and bad policy positions. Not all Trump supporters are alt-Right, but most of the alt-Right are pure garage. So, you can take your chastising me elsewhere. I don't softsoap things. I'll call a spade a spade and many/most of the alt-Right are proto-Fascists (they even freely admit to being hypernationalists), Nativists, Producerists and Neo-Nazis.
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
-
That's why I hardly get mad at politicians anymore. I nearly 100% blame the stupid motherfuckers who voted for them and the lazy motherfuckers who did nothing to keep them from getting voted in. Liberals love that "It's not that Americans are a bad people, we just have a bad government" line, but no, its the fucking people. The American people are the fucking problem, they brought us Bush and the wars in the first place. The sooner libs drop this "people are basically good/decent" mentality the better. People are not basically decent, the average person is basically an ignorant, irrational, uniformed, bigoted, selfish jackoff who doesn't wake up until they really start hurting (missing meals, getting laid off, losing their home).
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
-
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
-
FuckYouYouFuck - "No one controls society. It's not a top-down centrally managed hierarchical authoritarian thing, and has become less so over time, especially increasingly pluralistic"
Might want to rethink that sentiment. If it's true that no one is in charge in society and (Western) society is an egalitarian and pluralistic cooperative then Progressivism is pretty useless since you've already achieved its objectives, according to how you described society. If what you said is true then you should stop speaking out against "The Rich", Wall Street, etc. Like you said, no one is in charge and everyone is responsible for their situation in life. That would be the ultimate implications of what you said if what you said is true. The Rich aren't in charge, racism isn't a problem, the Religious Right aren't in charge either, the government isn't authoritarian and society is fair for the most part.
It's funny TYT is supposed to be a "progressive" place but its comment section, most of whom presumably consider themselves "progressives", have reactionary conservative-minded sentiments when it comes to issues or groups they personally don't empathize with the plight of.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Because we have real-world examples to go by. Like Australia. Yeah, you can still buy a gun off the black market in Australia: for like $45,000. How many criminals have that kind of money to spend on one gun? Also, your argument is idiotic. By your "logic" let's get rid of traffic laws, Drunk Driving laws, laws against Rape, Murder, etc. Murderers, Rapists, drunk drivers, bad drivers don't follow them anyway, so why have them, right? Or laws against home invasion. Burglars don't follow anti-burglary laws anyway. Let's get rid of 'em.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Leonard Greenpaw - That's a great point. My dad had the same talk with me when I was about 7 or 8 years old. That's around the age that black people, particularly black boys, start being looked at or targeted by police. Definitely by 12-13. If you're a minority, you deal with police the way you'd deal with an armed, crazed gunman holding people hostage with a gun to their heads if you were a negotiator (except without the SWAT Team backup). Don't make direct eye contact, don't really question them unless you absolutely, absolutely have to, keep your hands visible at all times, just go along with whatever they ask (unless it's totally unreasonable and beyond the pale), agree with them as much as possible and let them feel in charge at all times. Don't antagonize if at all possible because the consequences could be fatal. Literally. That's basically the mentality a lot of cops seem to have around minorities. The mentality of an unstable, paranoid person with a gun thinking at any second they're about to be ambushed or killed, so they're in a constant "Be ready to shoot at the drop of a hat" mode. Like an ordinary citizen dropped off all of a sudden in a firefight in Fallujah, Iraq. I'd advise white people these days to have a similar talk with their kids and advise them to treat cops the way you'd treat a robber in a dark alley at night putting a gun to your head and demanding your wallet and jewelry.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
think about it - Thanks for sharing your thoughts too! I see we do have a difference of opinion but I try to be fair to your opinion as well. The Communism you're describing is the policy of countries controlled by Communist Parties. Their particular ideology was usually Stalinism or Maoism (different flavors of Bolshevism). They believed the State could be used to redistribute Capitalism into Socialism and then into Communism. That was Lenin's interpretation of Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" maxim (of course evidence shows their interpretation was likely WAY different from Marx's). They never proclaimed to have achieved communism, they claimed to be in transition towards it. Some other communist ideologies, like anarcho-communism, propose that the State can never create a communistic society and that it can only be reached with the abolition of the state along with capitalism.
Anarchism itself is compatible with communism but it is also compatible with other economic systems like socialism, collectivism, individualism and Georgism. Some argue it's compatible with capitalism ("anarcho-capitalism"), but I largely disagree with the latter. I think it's only compatible with capitalism if capitalism gets rid of most of its involuntary hierarchy and free from the influence of monopolies, oligopolies and cartels, and people are free to renegotiate or leave contracts. Basically it would have to change to the point of becoming very similar to Individualist Anarchism (which is an anarchistic flavor of Market Socialism), it would barely be capitalism anymore.
Personally I'm a Libertarian Socialist and I tend to be non-partisan towards different varieties of socialism and communism. I like your idea about how wealth need not be solely classified as capital or monetary resources. I think as economies and societies become more advanced in the future expanding the definition of "wealth" will become very important, even vital. Thanks for sharing your viewpoints with me.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Horny Rebecca Chambers - By that logic if you could pay illegal immigrants less employers would never hire Americans. Therefore, "The Race To The Bottom" must be a myth. The problem with your argument is you assume biases are logical. When it comes to issues like these, money is not the main concern. Take blacks for example, they were paid far less than whites yet white business owners would still hire the more costly white applicants. When biases are concerned, the rational and logical mind is not concerned with money, it is simply dominated by the fact the employee is a women, a black, a gay, <insert race, sex, religion here>. That, and you're working from the premise that employers see all laborers as equal. They do not. Most employers will hire labor that is more expensive if they view it as significantly more skilled. Women and minorities are often seen as less skilled than white males.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Omphi193 - By "rich" I define it the way economists define it: a person with personal revenue in excess of $250,000-350,000/year. In France it would only be people with income over that mark who would be affected by this tax rate. A small business owner who earns $140,000/year is a capitalist, but is not "rich".
"Average" means typical or the majority. Not necessarily a specific number.
"What are your numbers in relations to"
The 75% tax rate is the marginal federal income tax rate pay people on every dollar they earn over over that $250-350,000/year mark. 75% is the statutory rate (the number they would pay by default without all the other factors). The effective rate is the rate they ACTUALLY end up paying after deductions, exemptions, write-offs, credits, etc. are factored in.
The 75% tax rate is on personal income (salary) ONLY. Not on dividends or capital gains. Most rich people gain the majority of their personal annual revenue from capital gains and dividends, not their salary.
Most rich people DO NOT earn most of their money from paychecks like you and other Working Joes. A lot of people work from the false assumption that rich people get paid paycheck-to-paycheck like most people. They don't.
"You seem to understand how the french economic system works in detail than I"
To be honest I understand the American tax system much more in-depth but the French system works pretty similar to how our tax system works. They seem to have fewer deductibles and less exemptions, though. That's probably why the French effective income tax rate is higher than the American effective income tax rate. Theirs is like 22-25% for most rich people, ours is like 14-18% for most rich people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Haha. And these lovely gentlemen are the kinds of people that half of Americans think are more trustworthy than Edward Snowden (since polls show half or slightly more than half of Americans think Edward is a "traitor") and who they are willing to hand totalitarian power over to, trusting they won't abuse it. They seem like real sane upstanding citizens, don't they? Not at all psychopathic, sociopathic, power-hungry, paranoid, vengeful or narcissistic.....not one bit.....yet there are articles all over the web psychoanalyzing Snowden as some kind of "moralistic nationalist" (oh the irony), attention-seeking narcissist with low self-esteem.
Honestly, the American sheep deserve 1984. I appreciate what Snowden did but I feel little sympathy for the American people. What the hell can you say about a slave who delusionally believes he is free, despite all the evidence to the contrary handed to him on silver platter, and actively fights against people who fight for his freedom and praises his slaveowner? What can you, really? Someone like that honestly deserves to be a slave since it seems to truly make them happy and they seem like they would despise being truly free and seek to go back to slavery ASAP. The US public is Stephen from "Django Unchained".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, basically, these people are ego-tripping/power-tripping and experiencing a form of OCD hoarding and using legalized theft/extortion/exploitation in order to achieve those ends? They almost sound like movie or comic book villains. I would feel kind of sympathetic for them if they didn't hurt so many people in the process. Maybe I'd still feel more sympathy for them if they at least at some stopped, came out and admitted they have a problem (like this guy did), or tried to make amends for what they've done. I don't feel any sympathy for most of them, even if they realize they have a problem, because most of them still have the audacity to be a dick about it like the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Perkins and act like they're the victims of the people they're victimizing.
That's why I can feel more sympathy for comic book and (well-made) movie villains. Because they often have some point in the story where they realize what they've become and make a public confession, commit suicide, renounce their ways and make amends after being defeated, or become "Death Seekers" (as TV Tropes would call it) and intentionally search for someone to stop them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
bulbinking - 6-8 occurrences isn't really much to talk about. 6 to 8 unconnected crimes, spread out over years, out of the tens to hundreds of thousands of crimes a year that occur in NYC, is minuscule. There have probably been more people in New York state struck by lightning in the last 10 years than have been a victim of "Knockout".
Are you now accusing the NYPD of engaging in a conspiratorial cover-up?
"I guess you are one of the ones who got out of the thick of it"
I'm originally from Mississippi. Live in Tennessee, Kentucky and Alaska for a while (military brat). Been in Maryland since the late 90s. Nowhere I've lived, even when I lived in majority-black neighborhoods, have I ever heard of anything like this.
"Otherwise you would know that lean is a common and popular thing which teens do"
Says who?
"it even has a wiki page"
A Wiki page? Must be serious business! :o
But a quick look at the Wiki page:
"Some have cast doubt that the knockout game is a trend and have called it a myth or an example of panic"
In the "Race" section it continues:
"Jeffrey Butts, the director of John Jay College of Criminal Justice's Research and Evaluation Center at the City University of New York (CUNY), stated that “There's an element to who wants to see this through the lens of race" and that the fear stems from racial roots"
"Multiple people this year alone have died from it"
Names, dates and incident locations, please.
"and what blacks do you know who go reporting crimes to the police?"
Uh, my many of my relatives and their black neighbors. Myself (I'm part of my local neighborhood watch). -___-
Anyways, now you're admitting there is little evidence and blaming it on victims not reporting it. So how do you know it's even happening then if it's not being reported? What you just said goes to one of the hearts of the problem. This blog (yep, a blog this time) does a pretty good job pointing out the absurdity with this Internet rumor:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2013/11/the-knockout-game-myth-and-its-racist-roots/
"In order to draw any remotely competent conclusion about these assaults, you’d have to deal with all the above problems and also consider if crimes by whites are reported as frequently as crimes by blacks, whether teens of other races might refer to the game by another name or not label it at all, how the percentage of attacks by blacks compares to the general percentage of assaults by black teens, and so on. Analyzing data is not as simple as watching some YouTube videos and Googling “knockout game.”
Just like I can't go watch some YouTube videos on hate crimes committed by white supremacists and use that as "evidence" to conclude there's a national epidemic of white people waging race war against black people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Derpalon - That's only if you hold to a literalistic interpretation of religions. Many religious people are not literalists, which is why many have no problem agreeing with science and why many scientists are themselves still religious. Because most of the time Religion and Science don't even deal with the same topic. Religion isn't primarily concerned with how stars work or how old the Universe is or what the Earth is made of. It mostly deals with purpose or meaning of life, how to achieve peace, enlightenment or be a better person, how to strike a balance or equilibrium with the world around you, what kind of life you should lead, and how to deal with death. Many/most religions now openly endorse agreed-upon science. The Catholic Church openly accepts and promotes the Theory of Evolution (the earliest version of that theory actually comes from a medieval half-black/half-Persian Muslim, Al-Jahiz), and the Big Bang (a Catholic priest can be credited with the idea). It's only "God of the Gaps" when you hinge your belief in God on areas of scientific knowledge. If you see scientific knowledge as evidence of God, which most theistic/deistic scientists do, it's not "God of the Gaps" (ironically, this term was coined by a Christian Theologian warning against using lack of knowledge to prove God's existence).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Okaro X - Most homicides in poor black communities are related to the drug trade or gang activity. That has nothing to do with blaming others for one's poverty. White homicides tend to be largely based on rage, personal revenge or social grievances (mass shootings, spree killings) or serial killings. Also, do you have any evidence that poor whites blame others for their predicament less than poor blacks or are you just making shit up? Because I constantly hear tons of white people blame black people, Hispanic people, illegal immigrants, immigrants in general, Muslim/Arab refugees, taxation, labor unions, welfare for minorities, regulation, etc. for white people's poverty or under-employment. Hell, look at the popularity of Donald Trump. His whole schtick is that anybody and everyody except for poor white people themselves are responsible for white Americans being poor. It's the Chinese's fault, the Mexicans' fault, liberals' fault, etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Akinari Watanabe - You can blame Gentiles as much as you blame Jews. Most Zionists aren't even Jewish. Most are Christian, Hindu, atheist (and even some Muslim Zionists). We can blame the Christian Right, Neocons and even New Atheists on the Left (a lot of popular and influential big-name so-called "New Atheists" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Pat Condell, Daniel Dennett, P.Z. Meyers and the late Christopher Hitchens are Islamophobic, Neoconservative pro-torture, pro-racial/ethnic/religious profiling hawkish Zionists on foreign policy and national security) just as much as Zionist Jews.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
HammerheadGuitar - It hasn't cost Bernie any support, so why would it harm Justice Democrats? There aren't enough xenophobes and racists to doom anyone who touched social justice. You see how few votes Trump got, you just need to motivate the other side to come out.They need economic justice to go along with the social justice rhetoric.
By your logic, you'll lose if you have different solutions for a homeless starving man and a middle-class suburban family in debt. People have different issues. Ignoring that and pretending everyone is suffering equally and suffering in the exact same way is ineffective (obviously a homeless man and a middle-class family don't have the same exact issues) and can come off as patronizing and insulting. It would eventually involve pretending Racism does that exist or isn't a big problem (since most whites are not effected by it while other groups are), pretending xenophobia doesn't exist (since that's an immigrant-specific issue), or pretending Sexism isn't a big deal. It would be class reductionism which is no better than SJW-ism because not all problems are an issue of Class. Even Karl Marx said that.
If you can address Gay Marriage, which doesn't affect everyone since most Americans aren't gay, you can address minority, immigrant, gender, etc. issues. The Establishment Democrats make the mistake of running on social issues with no economic justice alongside it (and really don't do anything for social justice other than rhetoric). We're not going to make the opposite mistake of running on economic justice whole ignoring social justice. You should listen to MLK. Aside from criticizing conservatives, he also criticized white liberals who shied away from social justice for fear of offending bigots.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
AsifIcarebear3 - "By having nice shit I increase my risk of theft, yes. However, my pleasure at having nice shit outweighs my fear of thievery, so I have nice shit. That's my decision."
And likewise, that's the feeling of women who get drunk in public or wear skimpy clothing.
Now, if you were to get robbed because of your decision to live in a nice house, own nice clothing or have nice things, how would you feel? How would you feel if someone said your decision to do things makes you at least somewhat complicit? Think about that honestly for a while.
"However, if she wishes to lower the risk of rape as much as reasonably possible, it's not far fetched to advise her to take a cab home."
And you not wearing nice clothes is also not far-fetched either. Nowhere near as unreasonable as not having a nice house. How is that asking so much for you to "dress down"?
"making you, to a lot of people, a victim blamer"
Anyone who feels that way is being dumb/foolish.
"A whole other debate entirely"
It's the point of the video we're commenting on. -___-
Hello? McFly?
3
-
3
-
3
-
Not all, but there are many like that. As much as MRAs go on about RadFems (who do exist too) there are tons of RadMRAs out there as well. I've been told more times than I care to remember, in TYT's comment section alone, that women are privileged over men in all areas of life and women have no real issues and face no discrimination or dangers.....SERIOUSLY. I think it's because, unfortunately, a shit-ton of TYT commenters and subscribers are of the "Neckbeard/Fedora" Reddit demographic. Many commenters share the cross-section symptoms of that demographic: Rabid gamer (gaming is practically their Religion), under 35, middle class white male, college-educated or some post-high school education but currently failed to launch (or relatively underachieved), avid Neo-Atheist and hates particularly Christianity and especially Islam with a burning passion, Right-Libertarian leanings.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ollehkacb - No, I mean some people literally say it's partly in the victim because they shouldn't have been flirty, shouldn't have drank too much, shouldn't had gone out alone, etc. That's not advocating caution when you say it's the victims fault. If someone got robbed but left their door unlocked, yeah that was unwise, but it's still 100% the burglar's fault. No one forced him to rob, just like unwise rape victims don't make their rapists rape them. Also, the clothing thing is a myth. There's no correlation between skimpy clothing and rape. Rape victims tend to gravitate towards people who look or seem weak, unaware of their surroundings, unsure, have low self-esteem or seem vulnerable to be conned or tricked. People with low self-esteem tend to dress down and cover up. They know this from interviewing actual incarcerated rapists and serial rapists and asking what they look for in victims.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Raymond B - According to the 1995 APA task force, education plays far more of a part in IQ than genes. Genes are thingy to only about for around 25% of IQ variation. Hence why IQ can siginifactly improve in an individual based on adoption or better education. Also, in Medieval Times most Africa was more technologically advanced than Europe and more globally economically relevant than Europe. While Europe was in its "Dark Ages", Africa had dominant civilizations such as the Mali/Songhai Empire, Abyssinia (one of the Byzantine Empire's biggest trading partners) and the Swahili city-states. After the Yuan Dynasty fell, most of East Asia was not globally relevant for another 350 years. You seem to have little grasp of world history. You're taking the current geopolitical situation and assuming it was always that way. 2,500-5,000 years ago Northeast Africa and the Near East were the most dominant regions. 2,500-1,500 years ago it was North Africa, Mediterranean Europe and South Asia. 1,500-500 years ago the Middle East, East Asia and West and East Africa was dominant. From 500 years ago to 50 years ago it was Europe and the West, now it's largely East Asia and India. When Rome and Greece were dominant they describes Western Europeans as "barbarians" and "savages" while they described North and Horn African Civilizations as "metropolises". By 500 years ago both Mediterranean Europe and Northeast Africa had declined.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The Southern Strategy and dog-whistle racism of the GOP is only part of why black voters don't tend to vote GOP. Aside from that, and the fact the GOP often openly supports policies that often disproportionately harms poor minorities, the GOP's general philosophy itself is alien to the spirit/mindset of much of the Black Community. The modern GOP's worldview is a mindset of rugged individualism, capitalist materialism, expansionist/hawkish foreign policy, traditionalism and nationalism. African-American culture, being influenced by West African culture, tends to be heavy on communalism and the idea of social support for the needy, and thus tends to eschew hyper-individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. White conservatives have a social mindset influenced by Puritan-era "Protestant work ethic" (don't worry about anyone outside of yourself and your immediate family) and Herbert Spencer-style Liberalism. African-Americans also tend to be less gung-ho about the flag-waving mindset (obviously given our country's very checkered history and present towards us) and tend to not favor foreign wars. Often because, due to our experiences, African-Americans can easily sympathize with poor people in the (almost always) 3rd world countries we want to attack. African-Americans tend to be pretty critical of the US's govt when it comes to nation-building and tend to feel tax money is better spent helping struggling Americans at home rather than giving it to the already-successful or spending it on wars in poor countries.
The Reagan Republican "Let businesses do whatever they want and it'll all work out in the end" and "Every man is an island unless his family or charity wants to help him" mindset doesn't jibe with the communalist black Protestant outlook of most black voters. Though black voters often tend to share similar social views with white Evangelicals (though less so with young black voters). Black voters tend to be economically and politically progressive but religiously conservative and socially conservative (but a Civil Rights Era Protestant communitarian-style social conservatism, not a "rugged individualist Bootstraps Philosophy" kind).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Look guys, I'm a black Bernie supporter (Bernie 2020!) and I think you guys should listen more often to us nonwhite Progressives and nonwhite Bernie supporters. I really hate to go there, but this has to be said (many of us feel this way since Charlottesville): I suspect some white Progressives are overly tolerant and indulgent of the alt-Right (not ALL Trump voters, just his remaining supporters and the active alt-Right) because they're fellow white non-Muslims. A lot of white people, including white Progressives (Kyle and Jimmy Dore included, sorry), probably because the alt-Right are mostly fellow preppy or "normal all-American"-looking white guys, see them and go "Yeah, they're fucking awful, but C'MON!! Th-th-th-th-they're not truly evil! They're just economically anxious and scared!! If only they could hear the Good News and Word of Bernie Sanders/Progressivism/Social Democracy they'd sober up and become good people and stop their racism. Come on! See! A few former Neo-Nazis even de-converted! We can help these lost souls. They just need jobs." Although though I think this bias in these white Progressives is unconscious, not intentional or malicious, just an unconscious Tribalism. Welp, you see just how the alt-Right returns the favor of Progressives "taking the high road" and trying to heal and "understand" them. They just shit in your face and laugh as you cough, then take out a knife to try to stab you while you're down rolling on the ground in a coughing fit. Just like the Nazis of Old did to Neville Chamberlain and Americans who wanted to stay out of the War. Take it from us nonwhite Progressives who have dealt with white supremacy our whole lives: THEY. WILL. NOT. CHANGE. AND. WILL. NOT. STOP. THEY. ARE. LITERAL. FASCISTS. AND. NAZIS. They see this as a "Racial Holy War" for the "Survival of the White Race and Western Civilization". They view Progressives and Socialists as even more of an enemy than they view Establishment Democrats, as they view us Lefties as "Commies". Which is to a Nazi as a Satanist is to a Fundamentalist Christian or Fundamentalist Muslim. Treat and view the alt-Right the same as you would someone who has become a radical Islamist who has pledged allegiance to ISIS. Work from the assumption they are a lost cause. View them as a ticking time bomb you're now simply in damage control mode to prevent them from killing anyone, just like any ISIS sympathizer. Just like with ISIS, the goal now is to prevent more people from joining the alt-Right, not wasting time on successfully de-converting maybe 5-10% at best of current alt-Righters or ISIS members. The alt-Right are not fellow anti-Establishment brothers-in-arms who are just wrong-headed and just waiting for the Good Messiah Bernie Sanders to convert them to Progressivism. They're a lost cause just like most German adults who signed up to join the Wehrmacht under Hitler. Treat them as such. They are enemies. I'm sorry, some of your fellow white neighbors and family members have declared themselves your enemy. It's a tragedy, but that's what it's come to. Just like you view Centrist Democrats as the enemy, that goes double for the alt-Right. Centrists want you immobilized and powerless but still want you alive to lend your unquestioning vote in election years. The alt-Right wants you DEAD. They view you white Progressives as "race traitor cucks" who must be liquidated for the Good of the White Race and Western Civilization. Just go to YouTube videos of Charlottesville and read the alt-Right comments in a comment section. Thst tells you all you need to know. Christopher Cantwell's attitude is not an outlier among the alt-Right, it's the norm. He said "We will fucking KILL these people (Progressives/Leftists) if we have to!" White Progressives, Leftists and Bernie supporters, that means *YOU*. Like I said, most of the alt-Right are as lost as people who have pledged allegiance to ISIS. They're even copying ISIS tactics now and are trying to recreate their terror attacks from the 90s, like the recent foiled plot to bomb another federal building. Sorry, but we can't save everyone. I know many of us bleeding heart Lefties would love it if was like Bernie is a reincarnation of Jesus Christ who can heal every bigot's heart with the Gospel of Progressivism, but that's not how it is. You can't simply cure all bigots by loving and understanding them. To use Christian terminology, some people are just "of a reprobate mind", meaning they no longer even care if they're evil, or they're SO deluded they somehow STILL believe "We Nazis and Confederate are the good guys!". Let's always be there for any former Trump supporters or former Trump voters who want to make good or make amends, but don't waste your time trying to heal and "understand" people who willfully chose to side with one of the apexes of human evil. Don't reach out to them unless they express honest, heartfelt desire to leave to you first. Otherwise, just write them off as a terrorist sympathizer and don't bother trying to be kind and civil.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Also, at that time the Irish were not seen as white people. As hard as that can be for many modern Americans to wrap their minds around, in the 1600s through the mid 1900s the Irish were not seen as white people in the US. Initially only white Americans of Anglo descent were viewed as "white". Benjamin Franklin even described Germans as "swarthy" in his personal diaries. By the 1800s the definition of "white" stretched to include Germans by defining white as "Anglo-Saxon". But Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish, Spaniards, Portuguese, Polish, Hungarians, Russians, Ukrainians, and Ashkenazi Jews were not viewed as "white" in the US until WWII and the 1950s afterwards.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
A radical misogynist hate group that contains members who regularly do shit like promote rape of women, domestic violence, throwing acid in women's faces, murdering women, committing terrorist attacks because you're mad you can't get laid, promoting pedophilia, taking women's rights away, admiring Sharia law because of how it limits women's rights, castrating sexually active men, doxing women who turn them down, etc. Of course, their members regularly applaud this stuff and applaud men who actually go out and do it, or at least don't condemn men who talk about it sympathetically.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
Scott Williams - Atheism through oppression is exactly the same as religion through oppression. Atheism didn't lead State Atheist regimes to be any better or brighter than State Theist/Theocractic regimes. Atheism didn't prevent Soviets from believing in nonsense like Lysenkoism, Antisemitism, Russian supremacy, or made-up illnesses like "Sluggish Schizophrenia". That made-up mental illness was a convenient justification they used to imprison, kill or involuntarily commit anyone who disagreed with or spoke out against the regime, or just anyone someone personally didn't like. The Soviet government concluded that Religion, Spirituality or religious, spiritual or mystical belief is a "mental illness" called "Sluggish Schizophrenia", therefore anyone who is openly religious or spiritual is a certifiable nutcase who needs to be involuntarily committed. Even though I'm not a religious man, that's why I cringe when I see Neo-Atheists on the Internet claiming all religious or supernatural belief is a mental illness (something no certified medical or psychiatric institution would agree with, some atheists apparently just declared themselves psychiatric experts on their own on the Internet). If you view anyone who disagrees with you as "crazy" just for believing something different than you it's a very short trip to thinking they need to be stopped for their own good and "the greater good". If you view someone a "crazy" it's easy to be okay with dragging them off and locking them up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
tharpoon - "society in general has a negative view of males"
I think you're WAAAY over-generalizing. The average person does not think men are bad (or good) or think women are good (or bad). I can list as many negative social stereotypes about women as you list about men. Like stereotypes of women being bitchy, over-emotional, irrational, untrustworthy, backstabbing, vengeful, entitled, unqualified, ungrateful, etc. That doesn't mean society overall views women negatively because popular negative stereotypes do exist.
"but its still seen as bad"
It depends on the situation and the individual. Most people don't see insulting or criticizing a woman as bad unless part of the motive of your criticism is because they're a woman. Of course there are some people that will applaud misogyny but I think they tend to be a minority (I think/hope). Likewise there are people who will view criticism as bad if you criticize a man partly because he's a man, though there are people who will applaud misandry too.
It all depends on the people and situation. I will say people tend to have more tolerance for people being rude to men, including other men. I think it has little to do with feminism and more to do with the fact that people expect men to be emotionally tougher than women and less liable to cry or fall apart. It's another social stereotype that's existed since ancient (and likely prehistoric) times. That particular double standard doesn't have much to do with feminism because even though it's unfair to men it's actually an expectation that assumes women are more psychologically fragile than men. It was created during times when women had little power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** - Except getting a Driver ID is only a "simple errand" IF YOU'VE ALREADY PASSED THE DRIVING TEST AND HAVE A CAR. I hate to break it to you but not everyone lives in a suburb and drive a vehicle. Millions of Americans, a lot of elderly people included, cannot afford a vehicle or cannot drive one (some elderly people are medically unfit to drive). If you've never had a driver ID you would need to:
1) Spend several hundred dollars (and several weeks) on a Driving Course, which you have to pass.
2) Then spend several hundred more dollars taking Driving Lessons from a driving instructor.
3) Then pass a Written Exam at the DMV.
4) Then pass a Driving Exam at the DMV.
All this takes time and money. On top of all this:
5) If you're not going to be driving WTF would be the point of going through all this? Just to have a license you'll only use once every 2-4 years to vote and not really use for anything else?
"Democrats take a very paternalistic view of this and yes, it is quite condescending to black people. They are basically assuming that if ANY demographic in the country can't be bothered to get a proper ID card"
Complete bullshit. Has nothing to do with paternalism and everything to do with verifiable fact. It's a FACT that poor minorities, particularly poor minorities in urban areas, are more likely to not own a vehicle and thus not have need for a driver's license.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/
It is funny to watch conservatives suddenly pretend to care about minorities, though. The people the GOP claims are a bunch of lazy people who "want free stuff" (a frequent claim they make) or criminals destroying the country.
"And TYT is making this about race, when it is actually about socio-economic status"
The two issues often overlap. They're not always separate issues.
"More white people live in rural, trailer-park type poverty, while more black people live in urban, inner-city type poverty."
I don't know about that but I do know that poor whites are more likely to drive and have govt-issue licenses than poor minorities. More poor whites own a car per capita than poor blacks and Hispanics.
"You go out of your way to make it sound like getting an ID is such a difficult or unreasonable inconvenience"
IT IS difficult and unreasonable for millions of people, and it's unnecessary. None of this should be necessary exercise your constitutional rights. Aside from that it's unnecessary because:
1) Vote fraud is not a big problem. There have been less than 50 cases since 1990. In the process of trying to stop the dozen or so cases that occur in an election you prevent millions of lawful voters from voting. That's like dropping a 2,000-lb bunker-buster JDAM bomb on your house in order to kill 3 ants.
2) It's not needed to catch voter fraud:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/11/13236464-new-database-of-us-voter-fraud-finds-no-evidence-that-photo-id-laws-are-needed?lite
3) If this is really about catching fraud then why would you only accept CERTAIN forms of ID? Why not do like Canada and have people sign an affidavit swearing they are who they claim they are?
That's because it's not about catching fraud. it's about lowering the number of Democratic voters at the polls. As parts of the GOP have admitted:
https://www.google.com/#q=gop+voter+id+minorities
It's no coincidence the main people pushing for this also are behind things like gerrymandering "blue" districts, sending robocalls to heavily Democratic and minority communities to give them incorrect voting dates, trying to stop early voting in heavily Democratic areas, etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** - "So you really mean to tell me that naturalized American citizens are legally unable (or forbidden) to acquire a photo ID and/or driver's license??"
YES! How the hell would an elderly person who can't drive get a photo ID?
"I don't even need to click the link"
Refusing to look at facts and evidence doesn't make them go away. Thanks for forfeiting the argument. If you have to ignore reality and facts that shows what you're saying is incorrect.
"it is a biased, BS article"
So prove it. Prove that it's incorrect. Prove the documented facts are "BS".
"Any American citizen -- no not illegal immigrants, legal citizens/immigrants -- can get an official ID if they want to"
No some can't:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/
"Social Security cards don't have pictures on them"
And? Social Security cards are harder to fake than photo ID cards. Photo ID cards can be forged. So, again, why do is photo ID necessary for voting and how would it stop voter fraud? How would photo ID prevent voter fraud better than Social Security cards.
"And you have dodged my assertion that poor, rural whites (colloquially known as "trailer-trash") are at a even bigger disadvantage"
No I didn't. I directly addressed it and said your assertion is simply WRONG:
"Again, according to whom? It's more difficult for poor minorities on average than poor trailer park whites:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/" --A86
Can you read? You never addressed my rebuttal to your comment about poor whites.
"As I already stated... the is a socio-economic issue"
Partially, yes. It's mostly an issue of them wanting to lower the number of Democratic voters.
"and not racial"
False. It's partly racial:
https://www.google.com/#q=voter+ID+laws+minorities
Voter ID advocates have supported other policies that specifically prevent minorities from voting. That's because minorities tend to vote Democratic.
"You probably would presume I am a Republican, but I actually hate the GOP... I am a proud independent that wants to see a more fair parliamentary system implemented"
Then stop pushing for things that keeps millions of Americans from being able to legally vote.
if you just absolutely insist that we need more Voter ID laws then why not have a system like Canada where you'll accept any form of ID, photo or not, and affidavits swearing you are who you claim to be. Canada does this and they don't have a voter fraud problem.
The fact you cannot rationally or factually support your argument signals to me you have ulterior motives. Anyone on the up and up would not have to ignore facts or rely on hypotheses that contradict reality.
Since Voter Fraud is already nearly nonexistent what's the need for additional laws? We already have sufficient laws to catch fraud.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Skyler Thomas - So many inaccuracies and bullshit.
"emphasize or accept the existence of racial dissimilarities in IQ, temperament, cognitive ability, environmental and psychological stimuli and crime"
No such thing as racial temperament and WTF are "environmental and psychological stimuli"? Did they prove blacks and whites react differently psychologically?
To date there is no evidence that IQ racial. For one thing there are no genetic races among humans. 90% of genetic differences in humans are within continents. Secondly, the genetic aspects of DNA occur with family heritability. Not ethnic heritability. Not to mention IQ averages for different groups change drastically over time. In the 1940s the white American IQ average would be in the mid-80s on a modern IQ test. You're taking a few correlations and jumping to the unsupported conclusion that the correlation is a causation. You're assuming their IQ is what it is BECAUSE they're black/white/whatever and not considering any number of other factors.
Crime is related to unemployment and poverty rates. You'll find high crime in low-income white areas with high unemployment and low crime in middle-class black areas with low unemployment. Care to guess why?
"It is perfectly okay for us to say different breeds of dog vary in characteristics"
Dog breeds were artificially created by humans engaging in eugenics and inbreeding programs to breed certain features in dogs. Dogs didn't evolve naturally to pull sleds.
"then logically human-beings -- who were separated for more than 200,000 years"
Also complete horseshit.
1) The majority of non-Africans descend from populations who split off from Northeast Africans 40,000-80,000 years ago. Not 200,000.
2) No group of humans on Earth has had a private evolution in isolation. Humans have constantly moved about the planet, intermixed and interbred with surrounding populations and re-migrated to and from areas.
3) Genetic changes happen primarily at a local level. Not a continental level. Allele and SNP changes happen clinally, not as large enclaves. The vast majority of human differences at a genetic level would be within local populations, not between continents. And that's exactly how human genetic differences exist in real life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#Fixation_index
A French man and a Russian man will both be genetically more similar to a random Ethiopian man than either is to each other. An East African will be more physically similar overall to Middle Easterner (head shape, cranium size, limb ratio) than they will to a West African.
http://www.brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/INTEL2.htm
Not only do you know nothing about Biology and Genetics you also know nothing about History and Anthropology. It's always funny to watch racialists pretend to understand science. It's almost cute. Like watching an 8 year old pretend to understand Quantum Mechanics.
2
-
Skyler Thomas - "Well that must mean they're incorrect"
Not necessarily, but that makes them more likely to be incorrect. Scientific consensus is very important. Not only that, but the scientific consensus that disagrees with them consistently has much more empirical evidence to back up its views that contradict theirs.
So, people like Jensen, Rushton, etc. are equivalent to global warming-deniers among scientists.
"conclude and report racial dissimilarities rather than sweaping them under the rug and suggesting more socialism"
What in the living fuck are you talking about? What scientific organizations are suggesting "socialism" and what does socialism have to do with genetics?
"conclude and report racial dissimilarities"
Straw Man. No scientists are claiming that there are no differences between human groups. The scientific consensus is that these groups mostly don't correspond to what people like Jensen, Rushton et. al would call a "race". There are few traits shared among all "white people" or "black people" other than skin color.
"Just recently there was an article in the Scientific American discussing whether to ban all study into differences in genetics and behavior between different human groups"
What was this article? Link it.
"as all the results were showing very large differences in IQ, temperament, etc"
Link this article.
"Undoubedtly the same sort of people resonsible for the human genome project that you Antis use as your foreground for perpetuating multiculturalism and mongrelization"
Typical. When you can't dispute the science "Race Realists" have to spin off into fairytale land with wild, nonsensical tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
If "race" is so real then why is science able to consistently debunk the majority of racialist claims? Is the data just being made up? And what does the science have to do with "multiculturalism"?
"mongerlization"
You're showing you know nothing about science. All human groups are "mongerlized". No such thing as a "pure" human population.
"That claim, of course, has been an increasingly common response to the hereditarian argument about IQ since at least the publication of The Bell Curve, and goes back as far as Franz Boas"
The non-reality of race is based on far more than the fact IQ mostly seems to be non-genetic. A fact that was proven years ago:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf
http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci850/odocs/apa_01.htm
"The Bell Curve"
1) I didn't realize "The Bell Curve" was unquestionable. The "Bell Curve" is a single theory that contains many errors which have been explained and refuted to hell and back over the past 20 years.
2) And theories like Murray and Herrnstein's go back before "The Bell Curve". Some of them date back to the 1930s with Charles Spearman.
3) Franz Boas was not a psychologist. His theories have little to do with IQ.
4) "Hereditarian" does not mean "racial" and "genetic" does not mean "immutable".
"And, I am sorry to say, some scientists have contributed to this false belief"
Except it's not a "false belief". It's a theory mostly consistently demonstrated by existing empirical data and evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_humans)
"And what those "scientitsts" don't say, of course, is that there is only a fraction of a per cent difference between the genome for White people and that for chimpanzees"
You don't know what you're talking about. There's a 2-3% difference between the genome of humans and chimps. Much more than a fraction of 1 per cent.
"But that tiny fraction of the mammalian genome that specifies whether the hair and skin and bone and other tissues will become a White person or a rat or a Negro"
Actually, there is a larger fraction of difference between a white person and a "Negro" than there is between a white person and another white person. Your argument is a non-starter because you assume white people have more in common genetically to other white people than they do to black people. They don't.
"I believe that Blacks are "dumb", that the innate abilities involved in building and maintaining a civilization. That is, I believe that Whites are, on average, smarter and more creative than Blacks"
As demonstrated Ad Nauseum earlier your belief is wrong. I don't care about beliefs, I care about facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_africa
"(and virtually all other sub-species)"
There are no extant Human subspecies.
"Any government official or biology teacher, who contradicts this dogma will be hounded by his more orthodox colleagues"
Criticism is not "hounding". Academia and science is a place to express facts, not personal opinions. Opinions can be criticized scientifically, they're not sacrosanct.
"So who's crazy: I or all of those folks in the government, the schools, and the media?"
So far the scientific evidence appears that it's just you. You have little evidence to back up your beliefs. When you fail to back up your beliefs you resort to baseless conspiracy theories. That's a sign of an unsound mind.
"Geographical location and migration have nothing to do with race or biological traits"
False. Migration of people of differing genomes is what causes biological traits. Human genes and alleles change over time by tiny changes and errors in recombination and formation of traits and proteins. This occurs in local populations and changes clinally. Not at large continental group levels. Learn Science.
"But that's preciesely what race is; shared genes."
No it isn't. By that definition every individual family is a separate "race". You don't even know what "Race" means. Pathetic.
A "race" is a self-homogeneous, morphologically distinct group with a private, distinct evolution and a distinctive genome. This doesn't exist at a continental level in humans. All Europeans don't belong to a particular morphology or genome. Ditto with Africans and Asians (who are even more genetically and morphologically diverse than Europeans). The only thing continental groups tend to share is certain phenotypical features like skin color or certain hair textures.
"Environmental adaption, created seperate sub-species (Races), seperate gene-pools which have been preserved overtime"
Complete hogwash. See Haplogroups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroups
"According to Tang and Zhivotovksi, as it turns out, that when we actually measure, humans mostly fall about 6 neat statistical groups which just happen to corelate to 99.86 per cent what we've always called race"
Citation needed.
"An education can help someone reach his or her mental IQ capability, not surpass it. Black IQ can never reach that of Whites"
False. The black American IQ has already caught up with the average of some Eastern European countries. I presume you view Eastern Europeans as "white people". The IQ of black native-born citizens of Western European countries is higher than the average of some Eastern European ("white") countries.
"Modern science overwhelmingly supports "racism". "
False:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
"It is an article of passionate faith among 'politically correct' biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence"
It does indeed have some correlation with intelligence. However:
1) The correlation is relatively small, different for different demographics, and not demonstrated at a level larger than family-level. Brain size doesn't explain the majority of IQ differences.
2) So-called "races" don't share a brain size. For example: the brain size of the average black American is closer to the brain size of the average white American than either is to the average East African:
http://www.brown.uk.com/brownlibrary/INTEL2.htm
It appears to be an article of faith, however, among so-called "Race Realists" that any difference between two people or populations must ultimately be genetic and immutable, and that any difference automatically equals "Race exists and caused it!"
2
-
Skyler Thomas - 1) I'm not African. Your sophomoric insults reveal your true agenda and bigotry.
2) ahem
"Craig Venter?"
Venter does not claim there is a genetic "white race" or "black race":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14568-watson-vs-venter-the-loser-is-racebased-medicine.html#.Uye8x61dUm8
""Race-based medicine doesn't have any real basis in science," he told New Scientist. "You can look at somebody's skin colour, but it doesn't necessarily tell you much about the rest of their genome or how they'll respond to drugs or which drugs they'll respond to." --Craig Venter
"Henry Harpending"
Ah, you found 1 academic who does think it exists. You can also find 1 academic who thinks aliens secretly control the US government. I said CONSENSUS, can you read? You found 1 academic who shares similar views to you. I can list thousands who claim they're full of shit:
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2012/03/01/harpending-tilting-against-race/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
"According to a paper entitled "Towards A Comprehensive Structural Variation Map of An Individual, Human Genome" by A.W. Pang and J.R. McDonald, racial similarity is down at 98.4%, compared to male and female similarity at 99.7 to 99.9%."
We've already been through this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
"Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes",and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Terrance Van Liew - I said Capitalism, not Democracy. Also, I'm not arguing in favor of Anomie. I'm saying that rules don't inherently needs rulers and rules and organization doesn't automatically mean "central planning". You can have a non-capitalist system of distribution without central planning. See Parecon, Market Socialism, Gift Economy, Peer-to-Peer Economy, etc. Socialism is designed to overcome the central "contradictions" of Capitalism that eventually cause Capitalism to become self-destructive. Namely, Capitalism is a system that is about two types of people (Buyers and Sellers) trying to con the other. Sellers try to make the maximum amount of money possible by paying other people to produce for you for asking little money as possible, then charge Buyers for the products as much as humanly possible and give the workers as little compensation as you can; Buyers are trying to put in as little labor as possible in exchange for as much salary/income as possible, then buy for as low as price as feasible. That, and Capitalism inherently creates rulers because it's about a small number of people buying up public land, causing the landless/propertyless majority to have to work for the small owning class in exchange for less than the full value of what they produce (if they were paid the full value, no profit would be made). Since it's based on Competition, the end goal of all owners is to WIN by eliminating competition. Eventually, competing businesses are run out of business or absorbed until the dominant business becomes a Monopoly, and the economy becomes dominated by monopolies which pay as little as possible (this concentrating wealth and letting it stagnate). That's "winning" in the business world, but such a situation cause a Depression and social order falls apart. That's the self-destructive cycle Socialism was tailored to fix.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
MasterC2121 - "This creates the apathetic environment in the African American community that we see today. Where the government is your daddy and the idea of individual responsibility is frowned upon."
Do tell how you know what the average African-American thinks and how you ascertained the average black person frowns upon the idea of personal responsibility? Especially given popular "black leaders" like Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Michael Eric Dyson, Juliane Malveaux, etc. harp on about taking personal responsibility quite frequently. Ever watch the Million Man March? Or listen to any of the State of the Black Union Addresses? Probably not.
"As for your red state hypothesis, it is complete rubbish wen we look at the data"
False. It was easily proven years ago and remains just as true today:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/
The vast majority of states that receive more in federal funds than they give back are Red States. The majority of white people on welfare vote Republican and live in poor parts of the South and Midwest:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-47-percent-no-income-tax-map-red-republican-states-2012-9
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/romneys-47-percent-line-is-a-common-gop
"so looking at only a single election is meaningless"
Uh, this has nothing to do with single elections. The South has been a Republican stronghold since the late 70s-mid 80s and has been a net drain on federal funds since the mid-60s. That Mississippi, for example, is a heavily Republican state wasn't determined by one election. It's been that way for DECADES and for decades has been a net drain on fed funds.
"When we look at the top red welfare states"
1) Who determined they were the "top" ones?
2) We're talking about averages. Isolating a few outliers does not erase the AVERAGE. The average state that take more in federal funds is a strongly Republican state with majority Republican representatives and voters.
"we see that they overwhelming elect democrat representatives"
Source?
"Red states like"
1) They've had Republican Representatives. Only Senators count now? What about their State Senators and State Representatives/Delegates?
2) Those are not the only red states on the list.
"As for things like affirmative action it actually discriminates in its effort to help minorities"
Now I agree with you there. Which is why it needs to be reformed, but not done away with. However, AA mostly discriminates in favor of WHITE WOMEN. Not minorities. Perhaps the biggest irony of AA is that the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are still white (women).
Getting rid of it wholesale rather than reforming it won't help anyone and will end up harming minorities. As flawed as AA is it's currently a law that does help reduce Hiring Discrimination to a degree. Though enforcing EEOC laws better would probably have more positive effect in reducing Hiring Discrimination and racial pay gaps than AA as it currently exists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cerebhouse1 - Really, dude? Every strand of Feminist are hypocrites, but MRAs are pure, unhypocritical and stand for no more or less than men's rights and equality? That's complete horseshit. There are tons of MRAs who complain and cry foul in any and every video that deals with female rape victims, automatically assume any guy accused of rape is innocent and accuse the female accuser of being a lying whore, claim there's no problem with sexism in the workplace (like how conservatives claim institutional racism doesn't exist), act like guys who knowingly have unprotected sex are victims when they pay child support, claim women suffer no problem or discrimination in general, etc. RadMRAs are every bit as despicable and annoying as RadFems and you sound like the former claiming every strand of Feminism is bad but MRAs are nothing but honorable heroes. RadMRAs are why almost every organization that helps men in real life (like the "Good Men Foundation") don't associate with the online MRM. Tons of Internet MRAs are more than content to whine, piss and moan about any unfairness related to men, real or perceived, but don't actually do shit for men. They don't put up money for men's shelters, male rape victims, male child molestation victims of female molesters, organize protest marches for change in the family court system, introduce bills to Congress to help men, etc.
RadFems and RadMRAs are both shit, but I can say at least RadFems put their money where their mouth is instead of do nothing but whine online and not help perceived victims in the real world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Batman _ - He said "looks reasonably Muslim". There is no way to look "reasonably Muslim" other than be Arab (which is racial profiling) or wear a Middle-Eastern-looking headdress or hijab (which is religious profiling). With whites he only suggested very specific whites, but said anyone who looks Muslim, which equates to anyone who looks Arabic. Not to mention he's trusting TSA agents to be able to tell the difference between Indians, Turks, Persians, Arabs, Hispanics, SE Asians, Sikhs and Hindus. TSA agents are morons for the most part.
He's also suggesting something that is inefficient, unconstitutional, and authoritarian. Fuck what his goal is. The ends do not justify the means. Bush and tons of other horrible leaders (Stalin, Hitler) had what they believed were good goals too, doesn't justify what they did one bit.
Give up trying to defend this shit. You can't. It's undemocratic, paranoid, bigoted and just plain inefficient. It's like trying to defend the Patriot Act. Or Citizens United.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
sirellyn - "Just look at rent controls, gas price controls, heck even food price controls?"
You haven't demonstrated that rent and gas price controls are "out of whack". You haven't shown how they're ALWAYS (your own words) harmful, too low or causing a shortage.
"In all those cases insane shortages developed along with extensive black markets"
We have little price controls on meds and yet a great percentage of Americans cannot afford the medications at current market price. The prices that sellers decide can sometimes itself price many potential consumers out of the market.
A moderate price control has little effect on supply or on incentives:
http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w11114.html
It's only when the price control is set TOO HIGH it becomes problematic. It's not like having any price control whatsoever automatically causes Soviet economic recession-style bread lines.
"The only reason the free market "doesn't exist" is because it's been legislated out"
1) Much like "communism" the "free market" has never existed anywhere on a large-scale. To date it remains a utopian ideology.
2) The reason legislation exists that isn't "free market" is largely because voters called for these regulations. At times there was a "free market" closer to a national scale it lowered quality of goods and quality of life for many people and had many other pernicious effects.
3) The market naturally turns itself "un-free" because when some firms and companies win they seek to maintain their advantage. When you get ahead in a foot race would you hold back some so your competitors still have a chance to catch up? No. When companies get an advantage they attempt to corner a market and become monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, etc. and use Price Making to control and expand their share. Their motive is to eternally expand profit margins and minimize costs. If this means cheating customers and workers and distorting the market and putting up barriers to competitors, so be it.
"A free market exists just as a clean street does"
A "free market" is basically just a street with no rules or boundaries. Whether or not it will stay clean depends on the actors and conditions. Naturally, most such streets would not say clean.
See Point #3 above.
"The pharma market has been invaded many times from other countries making cheaper versions of medication"
Ironically, businesses (which you praise so highly), are the ones who call for these legislators to chase them out. A couple of years ago Pres. Obama refused to lift the block on allowing foreign pharmaceuticals to be sold in the US market. It was at the behest of Big Pharma (Big Business), not some "socialist" agenda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michelle - 1) Bernie didn't say most of that, but that doesn't mean he lost the debate. Ted Cruz never did answer directcquestiins, he just talked around the question and threw out a bunch of figures many of which have been debunked by fact-checkers. One audience member even said she felt Ted Cruz did not answer her question. Bernie could have done a better job, but he did point out the central problem that Cruz has no answers on how to cover all citizens, control costs or successful examples of his type of system. Bernie pointed to any number of industrialized countries, he pointed out that all the world's best healthcare systems are like Bernie's, not Cruz's. Yes, Cruz was a prettier speaker and made more of a flourishy show throwing out figures, but he was short on facts and Bernie pointed that out. Bernie could point to successful examples of socialized medicine. A prettier show is not the same as winning.
2) If actually said we could cut our military spending by 50%. That alone would be over $500 billion. If we had single-payer, we could actually do away with Medicare and Medicaid, which would free up an additional $450 billion. Single-payer would also allow more cost control which would drop how much needs to be spent on healthcare in the first place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
People have been saying that since the 1600s, lol.
My prediction: Christianity will eventually fracture into more factions among fundamentalist, conservative, moderate and liberal lines. Eventually the fundamentalist and most conservative branches will continue to decline in number the same way the GOP is now. They'll chase people away as they grow more extreme, like a dying last gasp. Many de-converts will become irreligious, secular, atheist, spiritual but not religious, or join other religions. As time progresses the moderate and liberal wings will grow louder, they'll adapt and continue to makes ties and inroads with non-believers, secularists and other religions. They'll continue to undergo an "enlightenment" and secularization process like Judaism did a couple centuries ago. The moderate and liberal factions will attract some new followers - some spiritual but not religious people, some former secularists and agnostic theists or deists. Christianity will survive by morphing and some of its theology and ideology changing. Fundies will go the way some "nastika" traditions in Hinduism did - disappearing or becoming a tiny somewhat irrelevant minority. Christianity's numbers will fall to numbers similar to the number of Buddhists. Most churches will become more like the Unitarian Universalist church, or other ecumenical, open-minded sects like Quakers.
That is, if they wish to endure. Christianity has reached a crossroad - it's reached the "Evolve or Die" point most ideas and groups eventually reach.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** - "Israel does tend to give fair warnings to evacuate a populated area if they are going to bomb it."
And often they confine the population in such a way that escape is very difficult or impossible, or they bomb outside the area they announced.
"Hamas do conceal weapons in schools, hospitals etc. If Hamas insists on using civilians as human shields"
That's false. This was debunked by UN investigation:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israelgaza-conflict-the-myth-of-hamass-human-shield-9619810.html
"Hamas' charter actually states that they are committed to the murder of every living Jewish person"
Where? It says it will not accept a Jewish state, it says nothing about murdering every Jewish person. The Likud charter also says it will never accept a Palestinian state and will use any means to prevent one:
3) The Ottomans used religion to justify what they did, but it was more akin to the US government use of Manifest Destiny. It wasn't really a theocracy or religious extremism comparable to ISIS or al-Qaeda. It would be like comparing the US government in the 1800s to ISIS.
"Suicide bombing etc is not the INEVITABLE consequence of feeling anger and revulsion at western foreign policy. There is a human agency at work, a brain, a mind."
I agree. And human minds often, sadly, have a tendency to turn to extremism when they feel hopeless or feel they are in a dire or desperate situation. Not unlike how so many Europeans turned to Fascism in the 1920s to 1940s. Or the revival of Neofascism now in Europe with ongoing recession. Often backed with Christian extremism.
"What gives them the justification to do this? Islam"
The problem is that that really isn't saying much. What gives the US justification for what it does in the Middle East? Money (it expects to profit by controlling things in the region). By your logic that means Money is inherently bad. Because Islam can be used as justification does not mean that's all it can be used for. It can be used for good and bad. Just like Money Or Politics. Or Economics. Or military equipment (which be used to kill terrorists or civilians).
"And their interpretation is every bit as plausible as the interpretation of those who say Islam is 'peaceful'"
Uh, that's a personal opinion. Unless you're intimately familiar with the religion and have read all of the Koran and the Hadith I wouldn't make such proclamations. Yes, many people latch on to these interpretations, but the human mind will latch onto anything to justify what it already wants to do. Regardless if it's reasonable or not. People have literally used pumpkins as an excuse to commit violence (like the 2014 Pumpkinfest Riot). Or sports. Most Islamists tend to be people who already have an identity crisis or are poor, disaffected or going nowhere in life and latch onto the religion to give them an identity and an excuse to take out their frustration at having nothing going for them. Much like white kids who join the Neo-Nazis.
Islam does indeed need reform, but people can and will take anything to make them feel what they're doing is somehow objectively justified by something outside of themselves. People do with it Buddhism too.
2
-
***** - 1) Hamas no longer views all of its charter as relevant:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/world/middleeast/05Meshal-transcript.html
That includes Article 7. The Likud Party charter calls for the Palestinians to be "concentrated" and "exterminated". That could be interpreted as an explicit call for genocide.
3) I never said it wasn't religious. I said it's not religious extremist violence. Yes, Muslims have gone to war with the Zoroastrians at times in the past, but so have Christians gone to war with Muslims and Pagans. Zoroastrians still exist in the Middle East
"Again, this was based principally on theology."
Says whom? Most scholars say their wars were based on land and money (just like most European wars) with Islam used as a cozy justification to get the average soldier to sign up. You need to learn more about Middle Eastern history before making such proclamations that fly in the face of Middle Eastern historical and anthropological scholarship.
4) That's not a misquote, he literally said that. That's not a justifiable quote since "motherlode of bad ideas" implies it's the biggest source of bad ideas ever, that's not quantifiable. Harris tries to squirm out of his stupid statements by forever claiming he was "misunderstood" or "misquoted" (even when directly quoted in context) when he's shown to be in error. It's very tiresome and intellectually dishonest.
Anyways,
"All dogmas are bad but religion - epsecially a religion which purports to be the final, perfect and, as such unalterable word of God - is the very worst of all."
a) That's not what all religions or religious sects claim or believe. That tends to be religious fundamentalism.
b) How is that any worse than basing something on your political philosophy (which usually claim to be based on axiomatic "Laws of Nature")? Or in the name of Science (which claims to be objective and empirically proven)? Or based on military intelligence (which you assume to be accurate and proven)? They're all invoking absoluteness and objectivity.
"as it renders you immune to the dicatates of reason."
All forms of being an ideologue do. Religion is just one type. There are secular ideologues who are every bit as certain as religious ideologues (like Bolshevists, Nazis, some Libertarians, "scientific racists", Neocons, etc.).
4) That's not true. Especially among Shia Islam. There are all sorts of religious scholars, institutions of higher criticism (especially among Islamic scholarship in the West). That's what mullahs, imams, caliphs, etc. are for.
"the fact is, the canon of Islamic literature does prescribe death for apostates, gays, adulterers and non-believers"
As does the Old Testament. However, in both the Old Testament and the Koran there are prescriptions under what conditions this is to be done. It's not a blanket order that anyone and everyone can do at will. The Koran (or it might have been the Hadith) claims only a mullah or caliph can issue the death penalty for people. Not just any old nutbar on the street. Similar for the Old Testament. I won't argue that's moral, but it's not saying everyone can do this at will, however.
"It does enjoin its followers to wage Jihad and to institute the Caliphate."
This is even more clear in the Koran to only be done under certain conditions. The Koran claims that Muslims should only fight against non-Muslims if non-Muslims attack the Muslim community first. The war has to be declared by a religious clergy member (caliph or mullah) and is to be fought until the non-Muslims surrender. The Koran claims once the non-Muslims surrender, the Muslims should also stop and leave the non-Muslims alone. The Koran says that if non-Muslims aren't attacking Muslims to leave them in peace. It encourages Muslims to convert non-Muslims through proselytizing under normal conditions, and go away if they're not receptive to Islam.
Now of course various Muslim leaders throughout history have abused these conditions (and willfully interpreted actions by non-Muslims as "making war" to justify a war the Muslim leader already wanted). But every religion is guilty of this and so are secular governments (Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc.).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No offense, but you're saying I shouldn't trust Wikipedia, but should trust some random idiot on YouTube? No, I'll trust professionals who actually know what they're talking about (GirlWritesWhat is the dreadful woman who spews such maudlin hyperbole as "Men cannot be free anywhere in society, not even in the bathroom", and she also defended domestic violence against women). The sources cited in the Wiki article are legitimate government, private and independent studies that confirm, on average, women are still paid less and some if it can't be accounted for by non-discriminatory factors (the factors you cited). It's most apparent in staring salaries. MRAs and FemRAs like GirlWritesWhat are just as bad as the "radfems" they decry, they both read like a Communist Party propaganda screed and engage in hyperbole, generalization, exaggeration and half-truths. Two sides of the same coin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hard Left Turn - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Harrison, Theodore Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower and JFK also addressed poverty and wealth inequality and attempted to remedy the problem to an extent. Just not to the same extent as FDR and LBJ. FDR, LBJ, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln and George Washington are arguably the Presidents who did the most to address and help reduce the problem of economic, social and political inequality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Jim Carter - I don't really care if the poll is true or not, because I don't care about other people's sexuality (as long as there are women out there straight enough to date me, lol). However, I'm skeptical of this poll because it's just an Internet poll. Not a rigorous scientific study done over years or decades with strict controls, control groups, peer review, repeated testing, follow-up, etc. It's about as scientific as a TYT comment section. Since it's an Internet poll there's also no way to rule out how many people could have trolled the poll, created multiple accounts or used more than one IP address and voted more than once, or how many people claimed to be not fully straight because they're SJWs who want to be Special Snowflakes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** - The "3 racial groups" (some scientists back in the day posited it was actually 4 or 5) is a classification system that was discredited in the 1920s and 30s. It was based on facial features and cranial structure, which is a fairly poor indicator of genetics. Even back in its heyday the groups were not "racial" in the sense modern so-called "Race Realists" mean. For instance, Ethiopians, Somalis, Berbers, Tuaregs, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Pakistanis and Northern Indians were all classified as "Caucasoid" due to their cranial shape and facial features (and the origins and family groupings of their languages). Most modern "Race Realists" and white nationalists would flip out if told them that Somalis, Pakistanis and Indians are "white". XD
Science has moved on since 1895. You're still using classification techniques that have been outdated and refuted for nearly a hundred years. It's like still talking about "Calor", "Ether" and "Vis Viva".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think he's trying to say he doesn't single out certain religions like most New Atheists do, but yeah, Cenk is obviously more of an old-school atheist. He should stop trying to act like he's part of the "New Atheist" crowd, he really isn't. The so-called "New Atheists" we refer to are the r/atheism, Fedora-tipping crowd. The "All religions are evil and religious people are all dangerous, moronic sociopaths who need to die out. If you're a theist you can't be intelligent or rational because we all know theists don't believe in fucking science, reason and Dawkins, lol" crowd. I can tell that's not Cenk's mentality, but he seems to think he can reach out to and pander to this crowd, as some TYT videos show. But it's a lost cause IMO. I think he's finding out right now that to them he's too much of an "accomodationist". He's not radical enough for their liking. I think he assumes that because they're fellow "Nones" like him that means they're automatically allies, but this is folly. That's the same mindset some religious moderates have and why they don't cut ties to religious reactionaries. Just because someone share your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, doesn't make them your friend. Just like religious people need to start cutting off and calling out their bad apples and rotten eggs, atheists and the nonreligious should do the same in their own groups.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gynocentrism? Uh, no. It was the old partriarchal notion from the Bronze Age through the Middle Ages that women's place was in the home because women are only capable of childrearing, not manual labor or intellectual work. If you think that's "gynocentrism".....I really don't know what to say. That's like saying Jim Crow was Negrocentric. Society has become significantly less partriarchal over time thanks to the Industrial Revolution and Modernism.
Also, there is no science to women being "naturally hypergamous". Im sorry but that sounds like EvoPsych psychobabble. It has to do with social conventions engrained for centuries, they change over time, slowly. Back in the 80s the trend in the West was that women were into androgynous-looking guys (like Prince, Michael Jackson, Scott Baio, etc.) The current trend is that women are into guys with moderate beards (like Chris Hemsworth, Bradley Cooper, etc.). EvoPsych would have claimed in the 80s women are evolutionarily geared to seek androgynous guys, now in the 2010s it would claim they're evolutionarily programmed to seek out bearded men. It just takes whatever is the current social trend in the Western world of the day (it ignores how these trends can vastly differ in nonwhite countries) and tries to shoehorn it into being a genetic drive or evolutionary trend.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** - North Africans are not Persians. Aryans are Indo-Iranians. North Africans are mostly Berbers, who are an indigenous African group who are not white or black people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_North_Africa
Jack shit to do with "Aryans".
"The White race has crossed seas, harnessed rivers, carved mountains, tamed desert"
Uh, so have other people. Many people did this before the Europeans. Like the Chinese who crossed the ocean before the Europeans.
"It has been responsible for the invention of cement, the harnessing of electricity, flight, rocketry, astronomy, the telescope, space travel"
Uh, no. Thomas Edison is responsible for the lightbulb, not "the white race". Benjamin Franklin and Michael Farraday are responsible for harnessing of electricity, not "the white race". Space travel was a cooperative effort of thousands of individuals (some of whom were non-white). Not "the white race". Refrigerators in trucks which keep perishable food fresh across the country was invented by a black man (Frederick McKinley Jones). Not "the black race". The Nubians and Egyptians invented Geometry. Not "the black race". A black man (al-Jahiz) invented the original Theory of Evolution, not "the black race".
Races don't invent shit. Individuals do. Other people deserve no credit. You don't deserve or share any of the fame or credit for the inventions of white inventors any more than a random black man shares the credit for inventions by black inventors.
Your sorry attempt to take credit for other's achievements shows your low self-esteem. We deserve no credit for others' works.
2
-
***** - "known significant differences between the major races include cranial capacity, average IQ, gestation time, maturation rate, hair texture, bodily musculature"
We've already been through this before. Cranial capacity varies by region, not skin color. Ethiopians and Italians have cranial sizes more similar to each other than Ethiopians do to Nigerians or Italians to Swedes. Maasai skulls are more similar in size to Egyptians than they are to the Zulu or Egyptians are to Persians.
IQ differences are mostly WITHIN races and change over time. Black and white Americans have more similar IQ than white Americans and white people in Albania.
There's no racial difference in gestation time or maturation rate, or body musculature. All humans have the same muscles, maturation time and gestation time. The only legit differences you've pointed out are skin color (which is a pretty insignificant difference), hair texture and sometimes average height (height can be heavily environmentally-influenced).
"They even have different nutritional requirements"
No they don't. Blacks, whites and Asians all need the same nutrition and food groups in equal amounts. People from some regions are just more prone to different genetic conditions which have congregated in their gene pools. Which is a regional gene pool issue, not a "racial feature". By your "logic" every family is a different "race" since all families on Earth have their own gene pool.
Again you've failed and your only response is to repeat your already-debunked nonsense? You truly are done. THIS is why scientists and most intelligent people laugh at you and your ilk. When your ridiculous ideas are trounced your only response is to repeat yourself. Like children when they lose an argument, thinking repeating what they said enough times will make it magically come true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
madhammy09 - Most Buddhists revere the Buddha as a god-like figure. Their reverence goes beyond what a secular person feels about a teacher or important philosopher. Many/most Buddhists commonly pray to Buddha, invoke Buddha or other Bodhisattvas for luck or guidance. People generally don't do that with Nietzsche, Locke or Kant. A casual look and you see Buddhist idols, Guan Yin and Avolokitesvara idols, traditional Buddhist prayer chants and rituals, stories of gods, saints and bodhisattvas, etc. That "It's not a religion, it's a philosophy" hook is a selling line some Buddhists use to peddle it to curious but ignorant Westerners. Or it's a mindset among non-religious hipsters who dabble in the philosophical parts of the faith but reject the mystical, theological and cosmological stuff they don't like or that doesn't jibe with their non-religious, materialist view of the world (Anatman, Rebirth, Karma, Maya, Skandhas, Upadana, Tathagatagarbha, Sunyata, Nibbana, Arhats, other realms, etc.).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ToTheConquered - I never said you said all business people weren't racist either.
"are in a great position to understand that racism is indeed a lie"
And I totally agree to a large extent. However, I mostly agree with that notion when people's education is in science or things like sociology, anthropology, history, etc. Business people tend to be educated in business, which doesn't really do much to curtail racist notions other than maybe show all humans have equal potential to be greedy and give you an opportunity to travel the world. But traveling the world isn't quite the same either unless you're getting to be around the people, a lot of rich people tend to just hang out in rich-oriented areas abroad, which gives them limited contact with society in those countries. Also, you're mostly thinking of people in Big Business. Most business people are small business owners. You don't even have to have finished high school to own a small business and on average small business owners are only about as educated or slightly more than the general public. Big Business people tend to be more educated, but in things like Finance, Economics and Business Admin.
"you keep acting as though I should"
I never said you said all business people are non-racists. Now YOU'RE being disingenuous about what I said. However, you did say that because business people are in a position that can potentially cause a person to be less racist you just assumed that they ARE less racist on average. Because you're more educated does not automatically mean you're less racist. What I was complaining about was that you never presented any evidence business people are less racist on average. Economic data wouldn't back up your theory since, on average, black people with equal education and credentials with their white counterparts are 50% less likely to be called back or hired. Particularly if they have a "black-sounding" name or voice. Judging from the data it seems many businesspeople fall prey to the same social stereotypes and assumptions about people as the rest of society.
At best you're letting your little hurt feelings or whatever interfere with your ability to reason. At worst you're intentionally ignoring reality and data to cling to a belief you want to maintain. What psychologists call "Belief Preservation".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sperg Furgerson - The DOCTORS said minor. They are the experts who examined him and deal with traumatic injuries all the time. Not you or me. I'll trust their professional, experienced and neutral judgement over your desire-based (your desire to vindicate or justify Zimmerman) interpretation.
"he got punched 20 - 30 times, which is possible after a few hard punches"
Not really. No fucking way you could mistake one or a few punches for 20-30 punches. It's like saying "Did I say I ate 100 cookies? My mistake, I meant 10." No way you could make an error that large.
"Trayvon proceeded to get on top of him than punch him, than try to bash his head"
1) There's absolutely no evidence of this. Even John Good claimed to see TM standing up (not kneeling or sitting on top of GZ) and simply flailing his arms downward with not much significant force. Not enough for him to see or hear any hits connect, and apparently not enough to cause GZ any visible damage (I doubt it's responsible for the nose damage or the couple of minor scratches) on the back of his head.
2) TM's body completely contradicts this account since his hands have none of GZ's hair, skin, blood or DNA on them. It would be nearly physically impossible to grab someone's head and bash it against concrete 20-30 times and get none of their hair or blood on your hands and none of their skin under your nails and leave little if any blood on the concrete.
3) If this were true GZ's head would have severe trauma and profound bleeding. Slamming someone's head hard against concrete even once or twice is enough to kill. Let alone in excess of 10 by a supposedly enraged nearly-adult male. At a bare minimum GZ would have symptoms like broken bones, concussion, cerebral bruising, severe headaches, incoherence/trouble speaking, dizziness, shaking or unresponsiveness (from neurological trauma/damage), etc. Or unconsciousness, coma or death. This was confirmed by Dr. Di Maio during his testimony. By all accounts GZ was very alert, lucid and coherent when cops and neighbors arrived with no signs of any significant trauma. Dr. Rao testified GZ likely fell down and bumped his head once or twice, 3 or 4 times at max. You can't walk away needing nothing more than a bandaid if a nearly-grown male slams your head on concrete 20-30 times hard enough in an attempt to kill you. Unless you're Marv from "Sin City".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And whites, as a percentage of the population, get arrested at disproportionate rate for child molestation, DUIs (which kills as many people annually as Homicide), arson, serial killing, mass shootings, corporate crimes, weed possession, meth and heroin possession, etc. So you'd be okay with pretty much only ever calling white people "chomo", "pedophile", "firebug", "school shooter", "methhead", "dopehead", "spree killer", etc. based on the "logic" of your OP? Correct? Don't be a hypocrite, now. :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
More destructive than Fascism and Capitalism? No. Capitalism has enslaved entire continents, almost wiped out 2 whole races (Native Americans and Australian Aborigines) and is the main source of poverty and world hunger today. Fascism almost conquered the world and in just 18-20 years killed upwards of 70 million people. 25 million Eastern Europeans killed by the Nazis, 13 million Holocaust victims, 2-3 million killed in France, 1 million Britons kilked, 4 million killed in Central Europe, 3-5 million killed in North Africa, Ethiopia and Somalia, 10-15 million Chinese killed by the Japanese Fascists, 2 million Indonesians killed, 1 million Koreans and 2.5 million Filipinos. At max, the Soviets killed 12-18 million and 20 million killed during the Cultural Revolution in Red China. Not excusable, but in sheer death toll and mass destruction, Capitalism and Fascism have Bolshevism beat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because she's a DINO. Outside of political leanings she's hated because she and her husband are basically Democrat versions of Richard Nixon. Conniving, scheming, power-hungry, willing to do and say anything to get elected. Like him, there's no dirty trick they won't stoop to in order to win elections; including rigging elections, buying support from local and state-level politicians, bypassing the law to raise money, and pandering like no other. Like Nixon, they are very vengeful and keep an "Enemies List" of people who didn't support them and make sure to hurt or end their careers, have a penchant for calling inconvenient facts about their past and records 'lies" and "smears", and like Nixon they hate records (because they expose them) and try to erase them whenever possible. Like Clinton's deleted emails.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
tetsubo57 - "Organized religion has killed millions, destroyed cultures, erased histories and languages"
You know what else has? Capitalism, Monarchism, State Atheism, "exporting democracy", etc. Does that mean Politics and Economics are inherently evil?
"Not to mention from a theistic perspective shackled billions of souls to pews and prevented them from achieving spiritual enlightenment"
No argument from me here.
"Organized religions are about control. Fiscal, social and spiritual"
Generally yes. However, that doesn't mean all religion is evil/bad. Just like not all cops, businessmen and politicians are bad, despite police, politics and capitalism usually being about those same things you listed.
"Any charity connected to an organized religion is tainted by that association"
By that logic any charity connected with a corporation or any individual or entity connected with America or the American government is tainted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thutil - The problem is that religious texts are NOT science textbooks or modern history books. They're not mean to be read as straight non-fictional information texts. Much of them are obviously meant to be allegories, exaggerations, myths and just-so stories. If you actually read the texts (instead of gleaning cherry-picked quotes from EvilBible.com) the context often (though not always) makes it obvious when the text is not being literal, or totally literal. The Book of Revelations, for example, is supposed to be a person's vision of the future. To the ancients reading the text, that obviously meant to not take everything they read literally. Visions, like dreams, are meant to contain loads of symbolism. The problem isn't always the text. The problem is sometimes a lot of atheists, just like religious fundamentalists, are moderners (especially modern Westerners or non-Bedouin people) trying to read and interpret a book from a long-lost age and a foreign culture with foreign habits, thinking they can read it and understand it the way they understand modern books from their own native culture.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
HammerheadGuitar - Where have I suggested different laws or rules for different races? I haven't. Different races aren't treated the same, despite having the same rights on paper, so we need laws to enforce Civil Rights laws and actually have penalties for for violating those laws (I'm referring to law enforcement, employers, etc. discriminating, not random idiots making racist comments). While Bernie did have a gaffe the way he expressed that comment, he is correct that we are treated equally and institutional racism hasn't gone away. The government cannot legislate a change if culture or mindset, I agree with you on that, but we do not have to tolerate unequal opportunity basedon Race or unequal treatment as an outgrowth of those feelings.
Kindly, I'll listen to who I want to, thank you. I don't tell you not to vote GOP despite me thinking it's idiotic for you to do so because they don't offer a single thing that'd help a guy like you. You can if you want to, but I think voting GOP because you resent people acknowledging that institutional racism is not over and we need to do something about it is slitting your throat to spite your face. But, you do you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AsifIcarebear3 - "I've laid out"
And I've laid out in explicit detail multiple times why it doesn't. Don't fucking get it?
"Except they fucking were"
Who were these people, dumbass?
"Implying that my example is anywhere near the same realm"
You said "extreme". They're both extreme (the most remote possibility). Unless you have evidence your scenario happens more often you're making shit up. You admitted your entire damn scenario was an exercise in imagining the most remote, over-the-top and unlikely scenario.
"You seriously never heard about the fact that you should keep your cool and a level head, because it's easier to think with that?"
That has to do with rationality, not intelligence. Dummy.
"Once afuckinggain, wrong. I've said 6 times by now how an extreme example helps to puncture the black and white world view."
And once again, I've said it doesn't really since an "extreme" doesn't even necessarily occur in reality. It's little more than an exercise in mental wankery. I guess that's right up your alley. lol
"is anywhere nearly as like as a black hole just popping up in front of you out of nowhere?"
I've never heard of either scenario actually happening in real life. Possible does not mean probable.
"You're not worthy of madness"
But yet you're mad...
"The extreme example is not the only grey area, it is simply meant to demonstrate that it is there"
As is the possibility of a black hole forming on Earth. We don't consider that realistic even though it's possible.
"I'm sure you're capable of discussing quantum mechanics"
Uh, yeah. I took Physics up to the 380-level in college. Did you?
"I like that you skip over the example I gave. I actually know a girl who does all the things I mentioned"
Personal anecdotes aren't useful as empirical evidence, dumbass. I know a person who hates being human and wishes he could become another species. Neither of these extreme outliers is really useful in a universal statement about humanity.
"I won the game"
Except you lost right here:
"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extreme
"ex·treme (ĭk-strēm′)
adj.
1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field.
2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
3. Extending far beyond the norm"
Now what does "practically" mean?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practically
"prac·ti·cal·ly (prăk′tĭk-lē)
adv.
1. In a way that is practical.
2. For all practical purposes; virtually.
3. All but; nearly; almost....
.....
1. virtually; almost: it has rained practically every day.
2. in actuality rather than in theory"
Therefore, "extreme" is not "practical" (useful)."
2
-
2
-
2
-
BullittMcQueen1 - Buddhism is nontheistic in the sense that it doesn't rely on a Creator deity for salvation. However, most versions of Buddhism still view the Buddha as a divine or semi-divine figure who has transcended physical reality. There's a reason there are idols of him littered around Asia and Asian households, people don't generally have idols of secular historical figures they don't revere as gods. Many Buddhists still generally pray to the Buddha or anticipate divine guidance (in the form of realizations or signs) from Buddha. Buddhism is also full of deities, ghosts, demons, angels, other realms, etc. They just aren't omnipotent, omniscient or capable of saving souls and are ultimately in need of "Enlightenment" themselves. Buddhism also holds concepts many non-religious people (particularly atheist materialists) wouldn't accept. Like: skandhas, Maya (the view that the material universe is unreal/illusory), rebirth, Sunyata, Tathagatagarbha, Tathata, zen, arhats, bodhisattvas, Nirvana, etc. Can't really be a Buddhist if you reject most or all of these concepts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AsifIcarebear3 - Almost no sport? That's false. Women already compete equally or exceed men in Ultra-Marathons, some Swimming events, Leg Press, some Gymnastics events, Martial Arts, equestrian sports, fencing, shooting, etc. They're thinking about changing that old 1905 rule in Tennis that only allows women to go best two out of three instead of best three out of five like Men's Tennis.
"Turns out, producing more of the hormone that boost muscle growth helps tremendously in athletic achievements"
Testosterone boosts fast-twitch muscle production and upper body strength. Women still have superior (at least proportionally) lower body strength, agility, flexibility and long-distance endurance (slow-twitch muscles). Men and Women are simply gifted in differing areas. Hence why women do better in Ultra-Marathons and some swimming and gymnastics. Brute torso/arm strength-force and running in a straight line is not the end-all-be-all of sports.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jotunnheimer - Smoking pot and tagging a wall makes you a thug? Okay....what about beating up a police officer (your precious cops), beating up women, beating up bar patrons, pulling a knife on your wife, punching an old man, pulling a gun on your girlfriend, killing a teen you harassed and provoked, stalking a guy and pulling a gun on him outside his workplace, possibly molesting your cousin, etc.? Zimmerman is 1,000x the thug Trayvon could ever hope to be. If Zimmerman was black and had this same record you'd have cheered for him getting killed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I respectfully gotta disagree with you on the Michael Brown thing. The DOJ only claimed they couldn't find evidence Wilson violated Brown's civil rights. Wilson still changed his story twice, admitted to shooting at a fleeing Brown (that's already a federal crime, that's been illegal since 1985, that's what got Michael Slager in trouble) and initially admitted Brown was walking toward him with his his hands outwards. The shooting audio was caught by a guy nearby and 2 6-7 second volleys were heard. Brown only moved 20-25 feet towards Wilson during that time, which is a slow walk, not a charge (not that the cockamamie charging story ever made sense). The prosecutor admitted to suborning perjury putting a known liar on the stand (who claimed to see the "charging"). Wilson didn't write a report for 4 days, after contacting his union, and the police didn't take crime scene pictures. The BLM fo,is should be ranting and railing about how ineffective the DOJ, Holder and Lynch have been at challenging the Blue Wall. Not at Sanders. I agree with the rest of your post, though. :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
sk8bow - "so if you grow up buddhist vs christian, you will be affected by differing views and you will be a different person"
True.
"when the brain doesn't function, we are not the same"
Likely true.
"there is no afterlife, period."
Non Sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow the buildup and the rest of the facts. Because we stop being able to trace Neural Correlates (which we have scarcely tapped into so far) doesn't mean consciousness completely stops.
1) To date there is no conclusive evidence that "Consciousness" is simply an effect of Neural Correlates. There is no direct evidence or scientific explanation of how chemicals, hormones and electricity would create thoughts, emotions or qualia.
2) Currently we are unable to determine of neural correlates are a cause or effect of the "mind", or somewhere in-between:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
There are other possibilities, such as that consciousness may be an effect of the Universe itself, like electromagnetism or gravity or entropy, that interacts or overlaps with neurological activity. If so, it's possible that "consciousness" not only could potentially carry on after the death of the brain (although in a form not currently traceable by modern scientific equipment) but before the creation of an individual's brain. However, this does not mean the individual would be aware it continues after brain death, or that the person's mind would still be the same. It's possible there could be an "afterlife" that is impermanent and that the individual isn't even the same person anymore (or have the same kind of awareness) as their "mind" changes without a brain.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn - Watson was shut down because his statements didn't jibe with the psychiatric community's findings. Has nothing to do with right-wing conspiracy theories about "Marxism" (Marxism is a theory about property, not Race). He's a geneticist, not a psychiatrist. He hasn't presented any evidence of intelligence alleles showing up at different rates in different groups. If he did, it'd be a different conversation. "Race Realists" aren't taken seriously because, like you're doing, they've never shown direct evidence of the genetic component of IQ. Aside from often using shoddy methodology and throwing out data that contradicts their conclusions, they just show that racial gaps exist but don't explain how they sussed out the genetic component from the environmental component. They just assume it's mostly genetic with no direct evidence. Generics needs direct evidence, not inference from phenomena that can't be directly differentiated from environmental influences.
That's the thing - *THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WHITE ADMIXTURE IN AFRICAN-AMERICANS HAS CHANGED IN THE PAST 90 YEARS*. Tests on African-Americans has yielded no correlation between white admixture and IQ. Black Americans with more European ancestry didn't have higher IQs than black Americans white less or 0 European ancestry. The key factors seemed to be education level, family circumstances, childhood nutrition and how educated the parents are.
'Races' don't have consistent scores internationally. The African-American IQ average is much closer to the European IQ average than Africans, and Afro-Canadians have a slightly higher IQ average than African-Americans. Yes, Africa is not all black, but the North African IQ average of 86-88 isn't that much higher than the Sub-Saharan average of 78-82.
The Flynn Effect has been observed in all races in 1st World countries *but not at the same rates*. Black, Native American and Latino IQ averages in the US have increased at a faster rate than the Asian-American IQ and the Asian-American IQ has risen at a faster rate than the white American IQ. The gap has shrank between whites and all other groups. In the.1920s and 1930s when testing began, the black-white IQ gap was 20 points. It was 18 points around WWII. It shrank to 15 points by the tine The Bell Curve was published and by the early 2000s had shrunk to just 7-10 piunts. Half of what it was when IQ tests first began. The Asian-American average IQ was in the high-80s and low-90s in the 1930s. Racialists used that data to "prove" that Asians were mentally inferior to whites. Asians have now slightly surpassed whites (largely because Asian immigrants tend to be highly educated). If IQ were mostly genetic the gap shouldn't have shrank so drastically on just 90 years, especially for African-Americans who, unlike Asian-Americans, aren't recent immigrants. Nothing has really changed about the Human genome in that time.
2
-
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn - No one is preventing Watson or anyone else from this line of research. There have been Racialists in Science for centuries and continue to this day. Their "findings" keep getting refuted for being factually incorrect and using shoddy methodology. Refuting their results is not preventing them from researching. Their research simply fails to confirm their conclusions. Government donors have nothing to do with harebrained conspiracies about "Marxism". This is ALWAYS the excuse "Race Realists" cone up with when science won't confirm or debunks their ideology.
And, no, no scientific studies have confirmed any correlation between European admixture in African-Americans and IQ. Being light-skinned doesn't automatically mean you have higher European admixture. Many dark-skinned black Americans actually have more European ancestry than light-skinned black Americans. Studies by Moore (1986), Loehlin (2000), Mackintosh (2011), Nisbett (2009) and Nisbett et. al. (2012) found no support for a correlation between European admixture and IQ in black Americans. Not to mention there are no studies shoeing an increase in European admixture in African-Americans. A majority of mixed-race Americans now identify as "Multiracial" rather than "black".
Low-income whites usually are not as financially bad off as low-income blacks and low-income white children tend to still attend suburban schools or attend rural schools, both of which tend to have better funding or better teachers than average urban schools. Low-income blacks also tend to be more likely to be dependent on food assistance, therefore tend to eat a lot of cheap, not very nutritious food or eat a lot of fast food. Low-income black women are more likely to be single mothers (single-parent households lower IQ) and are less likely to breastfeed than white mothers (this also adversely affects IQ). Poor blacks tend to live in urban areas, which have heightened levels of lead (again, which damages IQ).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
BioCapsule - Love the way you broke it down. Even anarchists (the original left-wing libertarians, like anarcho-communists and Mutualist Anarchists) understand this concept, which is why they believe that hierarchical governments should be replaced with direct and/or consensus democracy. But the right-wing libertarians sneer at that comment and prefer govt to be whittled down to private institutions for sale....while failing to see how utterly dangerous that would be. Government, Law Enforcement, Judges, etc. all for sale to the highest-bidding company or individual, rich corporations or individuals becoming mini-dictatorships....it's a perfect setup for a mega-corporation that forms, from cornering the market in a world with little to no regulation, from buying and funding its own government to give itself multinational legal and political power over everyone on territory it buys. Towns could already virtually enslave segments of America during the "Guilded Age" when monopolies bought up roads, rail and land in counties and forced the population to be part of their "company towns" and pay them in company money worthless outside of the company town. They should look up the origin of the phrase "I owe my soul to the company store".
The problem is they try to see people and institutions as atomistic monads rather than holistic parts of a summed whole. No one exists as an island, unless they live like Ted Kaczynski.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wvu05 Exactly. Weak, agnostic atheism is the easiest form to defend, so some strong, gnostic atheists retreat to that definition when pressed even though they previously made a strident claim. I think it's because they realize making a positive or strident claim (like "No gods exist") would put some burden of proof on them even though it's a statement of rejection. Like if I said "Japan does not exist". Even though it's a statement of negation it's still asserting positive knowledge, so I would need to back that statement up. So they retreat to a safer, more defensible position like weak agnostic atheism to squirm out of the burden of proof. Whether they know it or not, that's a weasely tactic known as "Motte and Bailey". The first sentence of your second paragraph sums up New Atheists almost perfectly! I'm not religious myself, but I've always noticed there is huge overlap in the mentality of New Atheists and religious fundamentalists. They share the same exclusionary and hypervigilant ideological gatekeeping, obsession with perfection and lack of error or falliabilty (New Atheists can't understand why religious people would value a flawed or imperfect text), the lack of ability to wrap their minds around nuance or relativism, and the insistence on absolutism and "the one true" interpretation of everything. Everything must have "the objective, one true" way or interpretation of reading or understanding something. I think it's no coincide that a lot of New Atheists sound like they tend to come from religious fundamentalist or theologically conservative households and upbringing when they describe their background. They lost the religion but not the fundamentalist mindset or psychological framework. They also tend to not be much more knowledgeable about Christian history than religious fundamentalists either. Like being unaware that this interpretation of scripture has only been a widespread thing for about 250 years and many denominations and sects predate fundamentalism, like you said.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - It's like we're kindred spirits. I was also raised by Fundamentalist-leaning Evangelical parents (who since then have become more liberal about their Christianity). I left being a conservative around late 2002 as I saw the US starting to devolve in the fervor of Neoconservatism and jingoist nationalism after 9/11. I became a progressive Democrat by 2003 when the War in Iraq broke out. I started to see the writing on the walls of what conservatism often boils down to and what cons are willing to do to accomplish their goals. The Patriot Act and the Bush Tax Cuts was a major breaking point with me. Even when I was a conservative I was still concerned about workers, being from an African-American family who started out working poor and eventually worked up to becoming middle-class; partly due to the help my dad's veteran benefits gave which allowed him to go to college after he retired from 22 years in the Army. I saw how most conservatives don't care about workers and view bosses, owners and board executives as the true backbone of an economy rather than the rest of us. The GOP's increasing (or just less hidden) racism and xenophobia and the obvious anti-black sentiment of much of their voter base was also a huge turn-off which sent me away from them, particularly as a black man.
I became a Socialist around 2006 after I became disillusioned with liberals and progressivism when I saw how, despite not being the same as conservatives/Republicans, libs were willing to go along with the spineless corporatist Capitol Hill Democrats; and how progressivism still ultimately doesn't solve the core issues at the heart of capitalism that leads to poverty and inequality. It simply proposes bandaids to mitigate the effects to provide an appearance of fairness and keep everyone from revolting (IMO). As long as the central "contradictions" (as Marx called them) of capitalism are never solved these issues will keep arising to the point of potential conflict over and over again throughout history and progressivism only temporarily quells it. After leaving progressivism I started off as a anti-authoritarian Marxist, then drifted towards Anarchism, now I've settled at Libertarian Socialism (I eventually concluded anarchism is basically impossible until the Human race itself evolves some more, we're not far enough removed from our caveman ancestors in behavior, habits and mindset).
I'm Ignostic/Apatheist and a philosophical (and sometimes existential, depending on my mood) Nihilist. I think Libertarian Socialism is the system that allows for a maximum amount of freedom for human beings, but I have no delusions that society still needs some growing to do before this could work at a national level. I think it would be a gradual revolution over time. My general outlook is what TV Tropes calls "Anti-Nihilism". I think life may not have a purpose/point/meaning and if it does it's not obvious enough for us to realize it. If there is a higher power and we have a purpose it either doesn't want to explain it to us, is unaware of our existence or struggle. or wants us to figure it out ourselves. So, I decided that if life doesn't have an apparent purpose why not assign it one? Just like we take it upon ourselves to come up with political axioms, like the notion that Democracy is good and desirable for all people? That's part of why I like my political philosophy. It allows us to assign our own fates and control our own lives and work rather than working for bosses to make them rich in a rat race with no real goal or the ever-shifting goalpost that is infinitely increasing profits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - There are plenty. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali, Gottfried Leibniz, Hegel, C.S. Lewis, Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, etc.
"Intellectually honest" doesn't mean "I agree with them" or "They convinced me". It means they can rationally argue their case even if you disagree with their conclusion. You can find someone's argument unconvincing and it can still be intellectually honest. Christopher Hitchens and Francis Collins were friends and had mutual respect for each other's views despite neither convincing the other that their views are true.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Skyler Thomas - "(Me) Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton seem to think so"
1) They're an extreme scientific minority.
2) What's your or their evidence?
Really? Your evidence is a website called "judgybitch"? I see your personal website and I raise you actual scientific sources:
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/correlation/intelligence.pdf
The APA states that, to date, intelligence has not been shown to be fully measured by IQ and that IQ has not been shown to be primarily genetic. While environmental explanations have not sufficiently explained all aspects of IQ and IQ changes over time genetic explanations are even less appealing.
Also, I should note:
1) "Hereditary" does not mean "racial". Heritability occurs at a familial and regional level, not a continental level.
2) "Genetic" does not mean immutable. Or "racial".
Further reading:
http://www.unc.edu/~nielsen/soci850/odocs/apa_01.htm
"African-American 19 scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available."
1
-
Skyler Thomas - "That doesn't even make sense."
What the hell do you think "breeding" is? No dog developed an ability to pull a sled naturally. That trait was fostered through eugenics:
http://www.pets4homes.co.uk/pet-advice/canine-eugenics-and-breed-standards.html
Has everything to do with Science. Nothing to do with your zany "Political Correctness" tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
"And it is also genunly humorous to watch a race of people (Blacks) who, in 10,000 years of recorded history, has invented nothing. Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, or even the wheel. Nor who has even cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use, and whose shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut"
Complete horseshit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_Africa
You know nothing about African history. Because you don't know anything about Africa doesn't mean nothing happened there. Northeast Africa was the second region in the world to have iron-smelting and the third place in the world to domesticate crops. The Haya people of Tanzania were actually the first people to create carbon steel in blast furnaces at over 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Over 1,900 years before the same technology appeared in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haya_people
Africa south of the Chad region in general skipped the Bronze Age and progressed directly into the Iron Age between 1500 BCE to 500 CE.
"The African Negro with a cow-dung hairdo, a bone through his nose, and teeth filed down to sharp point"
So your assessment of black people is based on the fashion sense of a few tribes? (most Africans don't have their teeth filed or wear a hairdo shaped like "cow dung) Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? That's like saying "The Caucasian with the missing teeth, protruding belly, lazy gaze and inbred genes, represents his true essence".
Making a scientific statement based on a stereotype based on a few people is beyond idiotic.
"Thus the Negroes inability to handle the abstract concepts required in problem-solving and technological innovation make a mockery of outward appearances"
Then why do "Negroes" make up a good number of Western inventors and innovators? Why do they thrive in industrialized societies? How did they build societies of their own?
"Negro culture is not merely DIFFERENT from White culture; it is a LESS ADVANCED culture and, by practically any standard, INFERIOR"
1) There is no single "Negro culture" or "white culture".
2) Define "inferior" and "advanced". Do you mean technological? That's not a measure of personal quality and if you measure "superiority" that way that would mean during the European Dark Ages West and East Africans, North Africans, Arabs and Indians were "superior" to most Europeans.
"And this inability is genetic in nature"
What is the name of this gene "Negroes" supposedly lack and Europeans have?
"rooted in the physical structure of the Negro brain."
The structure of the "Negro" brain is almost indiscernible from the "Caucasian" brain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
wiccaantje - "There are NO influential MRA's"
Never heard of Warren Ferrell?
"but how much good does that do when the movement can't do anything?"
Can't do anything? No one is stopping the movement from doing anything. Nothing is stopping MRAs from donating money or using their expertise to set up shelters for abused and battered men, or male rape victims, or male child molestation/incest victims, etc. The fact is that many are just content to complain and bitch about women and claim women are oppressing them while not actually doing shit to help these men out they claim are victims.
As many problems as the Feminist movement has at least they put their money where their mouth is and actually get off their arses and help out women. As you can probably tell that's one of my main issues with the MRA movement - it has WAY TOO MANY members who are just jilted/bitter single "Nice Guys"/Love Shy-types and PUAs rather than actual intellectuals and social activists like Warren Ferrell who are actually about helping people rather than unloading their personal angst towards the opposite sex. Or just sitting around denying that women have any problems. Just like as many spoiled American princesses, daddy's money girls and angry women who screwed with shitty dudes the Feminist movement has it still has enough leaders and shakers who are actually trying to help women to keep it from becoming too languid.
There are actually male shelters and rape/incest/abuse networks. However, often they end up having to distance themselves from the MRA movement because of the extreme loudmouths and misogynists in the bunch. Just like some organizations distance themselves from certain more misandrist-type Feminist organizations. It would be nice if the MRM had more Warren Ferrells and less bratty college-age guys who just want to whine about being single.
Sorry to go off on a rant there. XD As someone who considers themself both a Feminist and a Masculist (MRA) I just get so tired sometimes of how these potentially relevant movements turn into a joke because of a bunch of 15-32 year olds who use the movements as personal therapy to work out their deep-seated issues they should be consulting a therapist for instead of making it the centerpiece of a social movement.
"Unfortunatly (we find it sad to) the most radical and extreme outliers of the movement seem to be making the political agenda. Whenever I say I'm an anti-feminist I need to split it up. Feminism the ideology, wich is good even if I think they shouldn't specify so much and feminism the political movement. What feminism the political movement does is nowhere near equality and then there are people going 'they are not-real-feminists', kinda like you, but concider they are making real changes in real life that influence me and my boyfriend, they seem more real then ideology feminism"
Agreed. But, I have to the MRM is in a similar funk right now as a political movement. Often I'll see MRAs invest way more energy into claiming most female rape allegations are false, or trying to argue that biological fathers should be able to opt out of child support, or accusing women of being "bad boy-loving sluts" for not feeling obligated to give sex to "nice guys", or trying to defend discrimination against females. Rarely do I see them doing things like filing class-action suits to challenge bias in family court. Or pushing for workplaces to accommodate paid Paternity Leave.
"It's not like the US is accepting of the organisation. The BBC can't outlaw the MRM but they can influence a lot of people's minds. People usually will have never heard about the MRM or think badly of it because of feminist propaganda."
To be honest, sadly, I think a lot of the negative press for both MRAs and Feminists comes from the behavior of too many in their own ranks. Not propaganda from the other side.
1
-
1
-
Dm Gray - "Flip your logic.
Men in positions of power is proof of a vast conspiracy of the patriarchy holding women down."
Straw Man Argument.
My argument is that cronyism, nepotism and discrimination exist and are still rampant in our system. Human beings what they are (Human), they are corruptible and susceptible to biases, prejudices, etc. Men have ruled society since the Bronze Age and things didn't suddenly change overnight at one point. America has traditionally been ruled by white men, and even though significant gains were made during the Civil Rights Era and Women's Rights Era, it's still an uphill battle against a systemic enclave where those related to people in old power structure, or who look more like those from power structure, generally have an easier time getting in and climbing the ladder. The same way it'd be harder for a everyday white man to climb the corporate ladder in Nigeria or China or an atheist to climb the ladder in an institution largely filled with the religious.
Humans tend to enclave with those they consider part of their "group" compared to incoming "outsiders".
"Women in positions of power is evidence of progress."
There are many women in positions of power who got there due to cronyism, nepotism, etc. However, unlike males, there is no Female power structure in the US. Just as there is no Black power structure. Or Hispanic power structure. Or Atheist power structure.
"There is also alwaysa perfectly rational reason for the "inequality" which is never sexism"
Never sexism? That's a perfectly ridiculous argument. Now you're claiming that whole demographics of the American public (politicians, businessmen, policy-makers, employers, etc.) are free from the same human failings the rest of us are susceptible to. That's like claiming there is no racism, homophobia, classism, ageism or religious discrimination among them. You're basically making them out to be Enlightened Beings above the failings of us mortals.
"the "old boys club" is about socialising"
The Old Boys Club is a WASP male heterosexual power structure socioeconomic structure. Usually based around Old Money (like the Bush Family, the First Families of the Eastern Coast, Boston Brahmins, etc.). It's a network of cronyism and nepotism dealing with wealth, money, opportunity and political legacies and dynasties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_boy_network
At least in the US. There are other "old boy networks" in other countries based around different majority or powerful demographics.
"it's why men's clubs are attacked so much, whereas women's groups are promoted heavily"
If by women's groups you mean groups like N.O.W., N.O.W. has nowhere near as much power as, say, the Chamber of Commerce. Or the Carlyle Group. Or the Bilderberg Group.
It's like comparing the NAACP to country clubs for old rich white millionaire property moguls.
Yes, the NAACP and NOW are worthy of their own criticism, but comparing them things like the Chamber of Commerce or super-PACs or the Koch Brothers is a false equivalence.
"How many working class men are part of the old boys club?"
Not many. But it tends to be easier for men (especially white males) to move up into that group than females or minorities.
"It's just not sexism or even bigotry in any way, it's simply the way the world works. Imperfect)"
Well if you feel that way, then you should stop complaining about double standards that you feel favor females. That's simply the way works, right?
"The contents of the underwear of the people in charge doesn't matter, only their accountability"
Yet here you are complaining about women's groups and women in power. Hypocritical much?
"the tiny fraction of people that are in these genuinely powerful roles should not matter"
What matters is when people's pay, opportunities and rights are being affected by those in powers. That's what Progressivism is about - equal opportunity for all. You're basically advocating everybody just shut up and accept the status quo and don't fight for equal opportunity or rights.
"a 50/50 split would reflect unfair advantages given to women""
Yet a 90/10 or 80/20 split with more men doesn't reflect unfair advantages given to men? I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense.
Alright, prove that a 50/50 split would be the result of "unfair advantages' given to women and prove more men being in charge is the natural result of meritocracy.
"You're right that there should be no barrier, but there is no barrier......Sexism exists"
You contradicted yourself. If sexism is still a widely-existing issue it's bound to cause barriers.
"These "poor unfortunate women" that "cant get promoted to CEO" are still in a social class above the majority of people."
Now we totally agree.
"Save your empathy for people that deserve it, because the rich and powerful aint it."
I'm not empathizing those people. I pointed that out to prove it's still overall a Man's World. Who run the world? 80-90% of those people are men. Thus it's still a "Man's World". If 80-90% of those people were women it'd be a "Woman's World".
1
-
Dm Gray - "You have made comments that tell me you are not unaware of the nuance"
Seriously? This was pretty damned nuanced:
"My argument is that cronyism, nepotism and discrimination exist and are still rampant in our system. Human beings what they are (Human), they are corruptible and susceptible to biases, prejudices, etc. Men have ruled society since the Bronze Age and things didn't suddenly change overnight at one point. America has traditionally been ruled by white men, and even though significant gains were made during the Civil Rights Era and Women's Rights Era, it's still an uphill battle against a systemic enclave where those related to people in old power structure, or who look more like those from power structure, generally have an easier time getting in and climbing the ladder. The same way it'd be harder for a everyday white man to climb the corporate ladder in Nigeria or China or an atheist to climb the ladder in an institution largely filled with the religious." --A86
It wasn't just some simplistic "OMG men and YT are evil devils!"
"Lack of access isn't inherently sexist.
It's unfair, sure. Just not sexism. This is not contradictory."
Never claimed it was. What I said was that sexism does exist and is still a substantial factor in the workplace and other areas of society. I also pointed out that the fact 90% of the people who run the country are men isn't due entirely to non-sexist reasons.
"If a black guy doesn't know anyone at a company, but some white guys do, the white guys will have an advantage"
Very true. However, in our society even black guys who know people often still have a harder time than white guys who know people. This has been proven time and again. Just like if you're a very pleasant, friendly and moral atheist you're likely to be perceived and trusted less than a very pleasant, friendly and moral Christian.
"If a woman uses her sexuality for personal gain (which happens) it is not sexism."
It is sexist that men often can't by using the same tactics. Well....this is largely because most people in positions of power to promote you are heterosexual men.
"A man taking advantage of an "old boys network" is all manner of unsavoury, but it is also not sexism."
It can be and sometimes is both. That's not a hard concept. It's like saying "It's not racist, just stupid". Well, something can be both racist and stupid. Sometimes the Good Ol Boy network is just unsavory, sometimes it is unsavory and involves sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
"Also, pointing out that your rhetoric about men in power is bullshit doesn't make my a hypocrite"
1) It's not bullshit because it's a simple fact the overwhelming majority of people in power are men. And in the US WASP heterosexual men for the most part. Often they give favor to people in that demographic over outsiders.
2) What I accused you of hypocrisy over was this comment:
"The contents of the underwear of the people in charge doesn't matter, only their accountability" --Dm Gray
Because you also said this:
"the "old boys club" is about socialising, it's why men's clubs are attacked so much, whereas women's groups are promoted heavily. Double standards....a 50/50 split would reflect unfair advantages given to women" --Dm Gray
Contradicts your "the contents of the people in charge doesn't matter" spiel.
I think you've WAAAY oversimplified and dumbed-down my arguments.
1
-
Dm Gray - "As you did to mine, the difference is you provided nuance, and then discarded it"
No I didn't. A nuance does not mean "sexism does not exist". It would be as silly as saying that racism does not exist. My nuance was, basically, "Yes, many disparities in society are not due to sexism or racism. But some are and sexism and racism do play a role among other factors".
I think you didn't understand what my nuance was to begin with.
"All the other stuff is secondary to you, whereas it is primary to me"
You're quite the presumptuous one, aren't you? Presuming to know what I believe? What is primary or secondary depends on the individual, IMO. For some people their bigotry against certain groups rules them or is their most pressing weakness. For others it is secondary.
"but you seem to believe in some invisible conspiracy to keep women down"
Nice Straw Man Argument.
No "invisible conspiracy". It's human nature. The same reason "White Privilege" exists (do you also refer to this as an "invisible conspiracy"?): White Males are the dominant group in the West. Groups in power often (consciously or unconsciously) usually network with other people from that group, and give favor (consciously or unconsciously) to other members of that group compared to outsiders. The ruling group are WASP heterosexual men with money. Therefore, they tend to network mostly with other WASP heterosexual men with money as opposed to minorities, women, non-Christians, atheists, gays and the poor (or people below upper middle class).
Now, explain, how is this (very much empirically-supported, I might add) view "unreasonable"? It's unreasonable to suggest that people in power largely aren't bleeding-heart social liberals who treat women and minorities exactly the same as they treat men and whites?
You appear (at least it appears to me) to be suggesting that groups in power are either magically free of the same prejudices that exist among the rest of us, or that on average these people are more enlightened than the average public and less subject to these prejudices. I disagree because I see no good evidence of this. Refer to Hiring Discrimination experiments.
1
-
Dm Gray - "White females are ythe most protected class of person there is in the west."
Disagree. Overall, white males are the most protected class of person there is in the West. The only place this changes is in divorce court and family court (and sometimes criminal court, though not out of some kind of benefit for females, but out of old sexist notions that women lack the same agency as men or that women are incapable of the same violence or evil that men are).
"But that doesn't fit into your "white privilege" world view which focuses entirely on the fact a TINY minority of white men enjoy powerful positions."
By that statement it's obvious you don't know what "White Privilege" means. Allow me to give you a Sociology crash course lesson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
White Privilege doesn't just refer to the tiny cadre of elite white men. It refers to a system which, as a whole, confers more benefits, systemic advantages and positive benefits of the doubt to white people compared to minorities. In this context "privilege" doesn't mean being wealthy.
Here are some common, everyday examples of "White Privilege" benefits:
http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
Likewise there is also (maybe arguably to a lesser extent) "Male Privilege" which affects males of all races. Overall black males have some socioeconomic privileges over black females, sometimes (more rarely) even over white females. When we think of issues dealing with the black community, we often think of black males as victims (Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Troy Davis, etc.) while we think of black females as lazy leeches who need to get their proverbial s**t together (welfare queens and "ratchets" or "hoodrats"):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glennisha-morgan/the-emasculation-of-black_b_3141651.html
A good example of black sexism being evident in a lot of Rap music.
"The president is black, therefore all black men are privileged"
That's not at all how racial or gender privilege works. A black man being President does not change how black men are often treated by society, the job world, the police or politicians in general. Just like a few of the rich being nonwhite doesn't change how the average nonwhite person is treated compared to the average white person.
"What is often described as privilege for the majority of whites amount to NOT being directly discriminated against."
THAT IS A PRIVILEGE. Not being directly discriminated against while others are is a privilege. If in a concentration camp water is generally given out scarcely, while people with blue or green shirts are usually specifically denied water at certain times of day, the people without blue or green shirts have a type of privilege compared to the blue and greenshirts.
"Not being stopped and frisked is not a privilege"
Tell that to the hundreds or thousands of black people per year who end up as police brutalities thanks to being stopped and frisked, or thrown in jail for frivolous reasons at a higher rate than white people due to it.
That's why the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Obviously it is a problem.
"so why the fuck would I be okay with all white people being responsible for a few white people holding positions of power?"
White Privilege is an assessment of the advantages, assumptions, preferences, attitudes and comforts afforded to white people on average that are not afforded to other people. It's not holding white people responsible for the actions of Sheldon Adelsons and Koch Brothers of the world. It's an assessment that if a black guy and a white guy cuss out a cop, on average the black guy will get a worse punishment, is more likely to get shot and society tends to judge him more harshly than it judge the white guy.
"Fact is, you can always cherry pick data to support a hypothesis."
Wouldn't that also be true of your own hypothesis?
"men face disproportionate disadvantages"
"It's disgusting to see, as a true egalitarian"
If you turn a blind eye to scales or scopes of discrimination and make False Equivalences you are NOT a true Egalitarian. Pretending racism is not a major problem, or that people all suffer equally disallows you from being able to adjust to or address discriminations, barriers and prejudice that affect groups disproportionately compared to others. It's what Bill Maher and some others call "Colorblind Racism":
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism
Actually, even by your own twisted logic you aren't a "true egalitarian" since you said this:
"White females are ythe most protected class of person there is in the west." --Dm Gray
According to you if you contend one group has advantages over another you're holding the members accountable for the actions of a powerful few, and that's a form of racism or discrimination.
If you can say "white females are the most protected class of person there is in the West", then you should be able to understand the logic why saying "white men are the most privileged class of person there is in the West" is not a form of racism. Obviously you yourself do not even believe all groups suffer equally or face the same amount of hurdles and limitations.
1
-
1
-
Dm Gray - "What I'm saying is that there are disadvantaged white people (quite a lot of them) and they should not be dismissed or marginalised because "white privilege"
And I agree 100%. But I don't feel that claiming poor non-Hispanic whites are usually not quite as bad off as poor blacks and poor Hispanics is marginalizing or dismissing their disadvantages or suffering. Just like I don't think saying that a poor black man with no kids working at Home Depot isn't quite as bad off as a single black lesbian mom with 3 kids on welfare is dismissive of the guy.
"It boils down to how much weight you give "not being harassed by the police as much"
Well, for the black community it has very significant weight given that around 1 in 5 black men will end up in the prison system at some point in their life (usually for something minor like fighting, or something that shouldn't even be a felony, like drug possession), and that's a major contributor to black unemployment rates (an arrest records hurts job opportunities), unavailable black fathers, black poverty rates, black ineligibility to vote and black AIDS/HIV rates. It also contributes to lots of cases of police brutality and false arrests.
"White skin doesn't guarantee you a job, or even being shortlisted."
Very true, but in general it gives you a bit of a boost over minority (particular black and Hispanic) competition.
"It doesn't guarantee that the police will not harass you"
Agreed, but it makes it less likely overall.
We're talking about degrees with White Privilege. Not guarantees. White Privilege does not mean "White people have no real problems or hardships".
"should not require placing a burden of guilt or privilege on EVERY white person."
If you feel any pressure of guilt that's your own conscience reacting to the situation. No one is trying to make you feel that way. If you feel any guilt it's because you realize something's wrong and you feel bad because you know it's not right or you feel powerless to stop it.
White Privilege is not about a burden of guilt. It's an acknowledge that if you're a white person you don't face the same barriers and hardships other people face in this country. If you get pulled over rarely will ever be because you're white. If you have a hard time getting a job it's usually not because you're white. For minorities, sometimes those hardships are partly because of those things (or more rarely entirely because of, like black people driving nice cars being stopped).
"White people not being imprisoned as often for bullshit reasons"
A privilege. A "privilege" means an advantage not afforded to others:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege
sometimes unearned. If white people are not being imprisoned as often for bullshit because of their skin color that's an advantage (privilege).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - "Thanks for the link. As I thought, it includes SS benefits."
Where does it say that? SS benefits are for the elderly. There are SSI benefits for the disabled, but that's different from SS. These deal with govt benefits for the POOR.
"Most, certainly not all of SS benefits are paid for via taxes"
What do you think pays for welfare? It's paid for by taxes. It isn't direct debited.
"I wouldn't consider that welfare since I see it go out of my check"
It's the same concept. Your FICA taxes are not put in a lockbox under your name and held for 40 years, your FICA taxes pays for the SS for people who are currently retired and no longer earning income. Likewise, when you retire your SS will be paid by young and middle-aged people who are still working. It's not paid out of a vault with your name on where they stored your FICA payments all those years.
Likewise, welfare programs are paid for by federal and state income taxes. Most people on welfare (around 70%) are still working themselves, and have to pay taxes while working. So most people on welfare are also paying into the system they're taking from. Even the ones who aren't working will have to pay taxes when they do start working (unless you think people on welfare are unemployed for their entire lives).
"Actually that is a Ponzi scheme"
A Ponzi scheme is a pyramid/multi-level marketing scheme where people are told they can get rich if they invest in a particular product or company as more members join and invest. Who is told that welfare will make them wealthy? And who gets rich as more people get on welfare?
"I could invest my money much better than the government could"
1) Welfare is not a money-making investment. It's an investment in labor to make sure they aren't homeless until they get back on their feet. It's not a profit scheme like venture capitalism or investing in the stock market. It's a social expenditure, like cleaning up garbage and pollution, or helping the homeless.
2) The average American is thousands of dollars in credit debt and tens of millions of Americans lost money in the Housing Bubble. It certainly doesn't appear most Americans invest money better than the govt.
"Welfare is something that you have not worked for"
1) You don't directly work for SS either. It's paid for by people who are still working. The first generation of SS recipients didn't pay into it since they didn't pay FICA before retiring.
2) Most people on welfare are employed.
3) Even if they're not currently employed they will be eventually, which then they will have to pay back into the system when they pay taxes. It's extremely rare for someone on welfare to never work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - "if I chose not to pay taxes, they will arrest me"
Because you're already using public land and services. Not paying taxes would be like sitting in a store eating a candy bar and then refusing to pay the clerk. Just by sitting on American land you're already using some public resources and you're being protected by American public services like the police, firefighters, military, etc. EMTs are obligated to help you if you fall out and the police can't opt to let you get killed. Firefighters also can't refuse to put out your house.
"Government workers as a whole have it much better than private sector employees when you factor in benefits and retirement."
That's actually a popular myth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303160.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/dont-buy-the-myth-that-government-workers-are-overpaid/61444/
"Eh, I wouldn't say we are better off because of the New Deal. We became a better nation oddly enough because of the war."
1) The New Deal had already been working for years before WWII started. The New Deal started paying off in 1935.
2) Trying to cop out and attribute the benefits to the war is ironic because WWII was yet another example of HUGE INCREASES IN GOVT SPENDING. During WWII govt spending increased EVEN MORE and FDR hiked the top federal marginal income tax rate to nearly 100% for a few years. WWII involved even higher taxes and more government expenditures than the New Deal. Lol
3) New Deal programs continued to create a stable middle-class and increase wages and productivity for decades after WWII ended. It lasted up until the Reagan Era.
"Women went to work and were liberated, we produced more"
Largely became of New Deal work programs, starting years before WWII. And because of Feminism and the Women's Lib movement after the War.
"Giving out money freely never progresses a society"
The New Deal was not giving out money freely. The govt expected to recoup that money (which they did) as income rose and citizens paid more in tax revenue. Increased tax revenues, private production and exports paid back most of the New Deal over the following decade.
"When my Mama became sick, it was not a question what would happen. I would take care of her. I would not be able to live with myself if she went to a Nursing Home. That is one area where I think countries like China have it right. In my opinion, you should take care of your parents. That is just my opinion though. I do understand that it is not possible in all cases."
I agree entirely. But you have to realize that's a drain on the finances and productivity of working people. Having a system where retired people can be more independent, and not have to rely on handouts from the younger generations, raises worker productivity and can increase quality of life for the elderly.
1
-
1
-
***** - Actually, some of the New Deal did stop after the Great Depression and WWII ended. Some of the programs continued.
"While I will say that we could cut spending in Defense, Defense is the PRIMARY responsibility of the Federal Government"
The govt doesn't have a primary responsibility other than to uphold the law. All other functions are secondary.
"Social Security, Food Stamps,etc is not the primary responsibility of the Federal Government"
True, but neither are a bunch of other programs and services it performs. Like NASA, business subsidies, tax breaks, the CIA, etc.
"if the EBT system goes down for a couple of hours you have thugs rioting in Walmart for free crap"
I don't believe it's that bad. EBT has been cut several times over the past 20 years, and sometimes gone down, and there was no mass chaos. But yes, there are waaay too many slugs and leeches who scam the system or try to utilize the system when technically they should not even be eligible. Like able-bodied men who are not eligible for welfare but leech off their girlfriend's welfare checks.
"Now where are we with the security of Social Security?"
We can thank our Congress (and Executive Branch) for the future issues with SS thanks to them using the FICA revenue as a slush fund to fund expensive overseas misadventures, bailouts, etc.
"Paying taxes on welfare benefits does not mean you are paying taxes"
Yes you are if you are employed, which most people on welfare are. Once the unemployed ones become employed they have to start paying the federal income tax.
"That means that someone gave you the money that you are spending and they are paying the taxes"
True, but the same can be said about a loan or subsidy. A loan money isn't really money you've earned, it's money someone gives you in the expectation you'll pay it back eventually. That's similar to how welfare programs work.
"Beyond that, it only pays in the private sector if you have an advanced degree. Otherwise, go public!!!!"
I agree, but this is largely because the public sector has largely stayed unionized and kept their benefits while the private sector allowed itself to become de-unionized and deregulated. Unsurprisingly private employers over the years have done away with more and more benefits in the private sector.
"I appreciate the civil debate. It is very nice"
No prob! Nice to have a civil debate with you too! Nice to be able to have a pleasant conversation (even if you don't always agree) on YouTube instead of typical flame war. XD
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Terrance Van Liew - You haven't demonstrated this is what Marxism even believes in. Your argument is circular, hence why.its a non-starter. You're drawing a conclusion based on an unproven claim. I agree that Bolshevism is Totalitarian buy not all Marxism is Bolshevism. I'm not even a Marxist, BTW. I'm a Libertarian Socialist. But, as to the video, even authoritarian Marxism has little to nothing to do with SJW-ism. Marxism is a philosophy about Property and Class, not Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation. In fact, the Soviets, Red Chinese and North Koreans (even though North Korea is really an Absolute Monarchy with Stalinist trappings, not a real Socialist society) actually hated Gays and Transgendered people and frowned upon cohabitation without marriage. They also outlawed Prostitution and didn't like the Arts and hated Hippies. They didn't like multiculturalism either even though they were anti-racist (in rhetoric) and tolerated a multiracial society. They usually forced everyone to be the sane culture as the dominant ethnicity in the country. Like Soviet Russification. Authoritarian Marxism is actually socially pretty Conservative, very little to do with SJWs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
moyga - "So you don't think the term evil has a strong connotation of, or association with, supernatural beliefs?"
If we're speaking in the context of religious circles, yes. If we're speaking in the context of secular intellectual or scientific circles, not really. Psychologists usually don't mean the same thing when they talk about "evil" that Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps would be talking about.
"but perhaps you were lucky in where you grew up, the majority of people in the world do have a lot of supernatural beliefs, I'd say the way of thinking I was talking about is extremely common all over the world"
My family is actually pretty religious. My parents are more religiously moderate (though they went through a Fundy phase a few years ago). Growing up most peers outside of the home who used terms like "evil" weren't particularly religious. Kids often aren't. lol I've also had teachers and college professors use the term with no indication of a religious subtext. Including a college professor who I know for a fact is an atheist and a Marxist.
But I definitely agree there are many people out there who by "evil" believe "evilness" is something external. Like a Devil figure. There are many religious people, however, who don't. And it goes to say most secular and non-religious people don't believe evil is external.
"people who choose to be horrible people out of nothingness in the way libertarians believe people do"
I don't think that's what Libertarians believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
Most Libertarians believe people choose to be evil because they've made a decision it's what they want to do. Not that their evilness doesn't have a motive or influences. They just believe people can freely choose to rise above those motives and influences and choose not to. Similar to how you can hear a conversation next to you but block it out by not listening to it.
"is a far less common view of pure villainy because people generally tend to view individuals who are more obviously determined to do bad things as less morally responsible for their actions and therefore less 'evil'."
1) That's a form of Determinism. The less you believe someone is in control of their actions the more of a Determinist you are. A complete Libertarian would believe everyone is 100% responsible for all their actions.
2) To be honest I haven't really heard of many people who have that view of evil. Most people who condemn people for being "evil" condemn them because they believe the person made a conscious decision to be evil, so they view it as a moral failing rather than a psychological weakness.
"You can see this by the fact that we generally treat and think about criminals who have mental illnesses very differently to those who don't."
Well that's different when you introduce mental illness into the equation. With mental illness we generally believe that the person is not in their right mind because of something partly beyond their control (whatever is wrong with their brain chemistry or neural wiring), thus may not truly be "evil" so much as they are delusional, confused or just "insane". With criminals who are not mentally ill most people believe they're making a conscious decision to do bad things when they could have chosen not to.
Actually, the belief that mentally ill people can't help themselves is more in the vein of determinism than libertarianism. XD
"Whether determinism is true doesn't really matter"
If determinism makes a positive claim, it does matter. If determinism isn't making a positive claim, then you are correct that it doesn't.
"because it is a view which is positing that something exists which has never been observed or proven"
Are you referring to "Free Will"? Even though "Free Will" has not been "proven" it has arguably been observed. Likewise, Determinism also posits a theory (that people do not have choice and are a slave to conditions) that has not been proven:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
To date there isn't a scientific consensus on either idea.
1
-
moyga - Actually there is more than one Libertarian conception of "Free Will":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)#Overview
"We have never observed this kind of free will"
We've never conclusively observed any of the 4 main positions (Libertarianism, Determinism, Hard Indeterminism and Compatibilism). It's a matter of what you think the data we have so indicates will likely turn out to be true.
"we necessarily perform actions based on our mental characteristics (like what we believe, desire, find rational and compelling and so on)"
Sure, but we can also choose to act against these. Sometimes I choose to do things that are irrational or serve no purpose because I feel like it or it feels right/fun/whatever at the time.
"That means that we at some point, at some level, had to have started with mental characteristics we did not choose"
Agreed. Personally I fall somewhere between Compatibilism and Hard Indeterminism. However, I'm sure a Libertarian could argue that early in our life development we can unconsciously take on certain attributes that we carry with us. They'd probably point to the fact that aspects of our mental characteristics can change over time.
"most people tend to view individuals who they perceive as being more determined to do bad things as less morally responsible and less evil"
I've never really seen such people. Most people condemn serial killers as totally responsible for their own behavior unless they were mentally insane. Most people who try to argue that the killers aren't responsible for their behavior get shouted down as making excuses for them. Take a look at YouTube comment sections on videos of serial killers.
"Thus, most peoples idea of the worst kind of person, or a 'pure villain' is someone who was as undetermined as possible"
Are you saying they view the worst kind of villain as someone who freely chose to be evil for no good or rational reason? If so then I'd probably largely agree that's what a lot of people think. I don't really see how it jibed with your earlier stipulation though. They view people who chose to bad things as being more morally responsible while they feel that people who are forced into doing bad things against their will (like, say, at gun-point) as being less morally responsible.
"even if you could prove determinism was false it wouldn't prove libertarianism, not even close."
If you proved Determinism false the only other option would be Hard Indeterminism since only 2 views are seen as coherent if Determinism is false:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/DeterminismXFreeWill.svg
1
-
moyga - Regarding the first part of your post I see what you meant now.
"You would still be making that choice based on your mental characteristics."
Is spontaneity a mental characteristic? Not so sure. What I'm referring to is making a decision to do things that are out-of-character for me, things I wouldn't normally do, things that don't feel right (or normally wouldn't), or things I wouldn't regularly agree with.
"I think you'll find that the idea of being able to make choices that aren't determined by anything outside of your control doesn't actually make sense"
I agree that things outside of one's control certainly impact or influence our decisions. But determine? Don't really agree with that. If that were so then it would be nonsensical to ask or try to get people to change (since their choices are already pre-determined) or to hold people accountable for their actions. Trying to get anyone to change their mind would be fruitless since nothing can change it without changing their physical brain or other factors.
"that compatibilists define free will in a different way to the classic definition I've been referring to that most libertarians hold"
I'm aware, since I find Compatibilism to be more realistic than Libertarianism.
"they simply call themselves compatibilists because they contend that we can reconceptualise free will in a useful and rational way even if determinism is true"
True. Though they also often tend to disagree with the classical definition of determinism from the Enlightenment Age and Age of Classical Mechanics (the "Man-Machine" concept) as well.
"I feel like you're not understanding what I am trying to say on this specific point because your responses are just agreeing with what I'm saying"
Perhaps so. I think something about your or my wording or phrasing may have caused a miscommunication somewhere.
"Earlier, you stated that most people view a pure villain as someone who is entirely determined to do bad things (referring to Calvinism) did you not? or did I misread that?"
I referenced Calvinism a while back as an example of a determinist worldview (though a religious one). I was saying from my experience many people seem to view the worst kind of villain as someone who has Libertarian-style free will and uses it to senselessly choose to be evil. However, a lot of religious people also seem to view the worst kind of villain as something is pure evil and is incapable of changing (like some Christian Fundamentalists assume about "the Devil").....
....Hmm....thinking about it that way I guess public opinions might be more varied than I initially thought about.
"As I have said, proving indeterminism would not prove that the libertarian conception of free will exists"
True, but if Determinism is false then Libertarianism and Hard Indeterminism seem like the logical only 2 options left since the other 2 options (Compatibilism and Determinism) rely on Determinism being true.
"Even more academic sources like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy are a bit behind the ball right now because the area is moving quite quickly"
The area moves very quickly, but overall there's still no real consensus on the issue. Though Libertarianism seems to have the least "followers" I guess you could say. lol Determinism used to be the undisputed majority opinion during the Enlightenment Era, but experienced a decline in popularity with the rise of Einsteinian "New Physics" and Quantum Mechanics.
1
-
moyga - Oh, I've heard of that position before. I don't know if I'd say it's the prevailing scientific theory (maybe it used to be, it doesn't necessarily appear to be now) but is a more uncomplicated (in a sense) form of Determinism.
There are arguments against it of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience#Arguments_against_supervenience-based_formulations_of_physicalism
I would say that I partially agree with it. Meaning I agree with some of it but disagree with other parts of it.
This part I'm skeptical about:
"Every thought you have corresponds to some physical process and every time your psychology is altered there is a physical change in your brain."
While I agree with this (at least most of the time, there are occasions of thoughts not necessarily showing a traceable physical change) it's a Chicken and Egg question to me. Does the physical change cause the thought? Or does the thought cause the thought change? It also become a question of how does one induce a physical change if you assume the former?
"Just because you are doing something you wouldn't normally do doesn't mean you aren't acting based on your mental characteristics"
While that can be true I'd require empirical evidence to accept that as the explanation.
"its because your mental characteristics were unusual at that time, or your 'input' was. (your circumstances, experience etc.)"
I can think of times I've done random, out-of-character things at times when nothing seemed to be unusual.
"I know that sounds like a cop out,"
Oh, not at all, friend. I don't view it as a cop-out because:
1) This is a very complex issue/topic. It's a mixture of science and philosophy. That's very tricky.
2) The professionals themselves haven't fully proven any particular view yet. I don't think we will tonight here either. XD
3) I realize I cannot prove my own leanings (Compatibilism and Hard Indeterminism). I can just explain why I feel they're the most likely candidates to be true.
"Because that is not what determinism entails"
If by "determined" you mean that there is some physical change that is the cause of a person wanting to do something or choosing to do something, I do believe that happens at times. I don't know if I believe that is always the cause of thoughts, choices or decisions though. It appears that sometimes decisions, thoughts or choices can possibly be independent of traceable physical changes in the body, or at least maybe cause the change rather than the change causing the decision or change of mind.
"If you are always able to do what you want to do out of the options available in any given situation, do you lack any kind of 'free will' that you would care about?"
No. Though it would be a different definition of "free will" than some people's definitions. However, I believe it may be possible for a person to change the options available for themselves. At least at times.
"Even if we can't predict things at the quantum level in principle, it still wouldn't prove indeterminism"
True. Incalculability isn't truly indeterminism. However, Quantum Mechanics has shown some things that appear to potentially be "true indeterminism" (I guess that would be the best term for things that truly aren't deterministic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
George Ghee - Most definitely. The sequels weren't perfect movies, and they kind of felt like they lacked a bit of the epicness of the 1st movie (but that's probably because the concepts in the first one were so new and fresh it's difficult for anything to match the first-time "Wow" factor of seeing it for the first time), but they were still very good IMO. But yeah, if you don't know much about Existential Philosophy, or Philosophy in general, and don't know much about Religion other than the mainstream "Jesus died and rose again....so believe in him and you'll go to Heaven. M'kay?" dumbed-down version of Christian theology, much of the movie will probably go over your head. Which, honestly, is the main reason why a lot of people complained about it. Most Americans honestly don't know much about these subjects.
A lot of the philosophy and symbolism in The Matrix series was heavily influenced by Mystic Christianity, Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Platonism, atheism, Nihilism (in the Nietzschean sense) and Schopenhauer philosophy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
olbear303 - 1) Many of these states only accept a Driver ID.
2) "I can pick up a state issued ID during my lunch hour"
I don't know about you but your situation does not represent EVERYONE ELSE'S situation:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html
"Driver’s licenses are not the only accepted forms of identification, but minorities may face extra challenges in securing other legally valid IDs. Passports, military IDs, and other government-issued photo ID are generally accepted, and some states accept student ID cards from state universities. Texas accepts concealed-weapons licenses, but New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice points out that African-Americans are also less likely to have these concealed-gun permits. For voters who need to secure a valid ID, tracking down the necessary documents—such as a birth certificate and social security card—can take time and money, and the Brennan Center additionally reports that many voting centers are far away from minority voters and are rarely open. Minorities also move from state to state more frequently, which makes meeting varying requirements for documentation more difficult, and Hispanics often use different naming customs, which can make for additional confusion at the DMV or voting booth. Additionally, the Brennan Center suggests that minority voters are more likely to be carded at the polls.
Of course, minority voters aren’t the only group likely to be disenfranchised. Seniors, for example, are also less likely to drive. Academic studies suggest that voter ID laws do probably reduce turnout, both among Democrats and Republicans, but not by more than about 2 percent."
Try doing a little research before opening your yap. It's the adult thing to do.
Not to mention there is no evidence most of these ID laws stop fraud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
disinfect777 - You mean Christianity is a part of Theism. Christianity did not invent Theism. Also, there are types of theism and atheism. There's Agnostic Theism, Gnostic Theism, Deism, Pantheism, etc. There's also Implicit Atheism, Explicit Atheism, and under the latter falls Agnostic Atheism, Gnostic Atheism, Weak Atheism, Strong Atheism, Antitheism, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrxicantGame - All the evidence except the stuff Zimmerman fanboys conveniently ignore for their own convenience. Like voice analysts agreeing the scream was likely NOT from Zimmerman, Zimmerman himself saying the voice didn't sound like him, the near-impossibility of Zimmerman screaming loud enough for neighbors to hear if Trayvon was smothering his mouth and nose like he claims, Zimmerman's story changing several times (initially claiming Trayvon walked up to his window and spoke to him while in the vehicle, telling a friend Trayvon snuck up and hit him from behind, not punching him in the nose), the physical unlikelihood of Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman somehow getting his gun out of his rear waistband while laying on his back with a 150-lb guy on top of him, witnesses who placed Zimmerman on top, Zimmerman's "minor, insignificant injuries that contradict his account" (Dr. Rao's words, not mine), the lack of Zimmerman's blood, hair, skin or DNA on Trayvon's hands or nails, lack of fingerprints on gun, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He told the cop he had a gun because cops often search black people's cars and bodies after pulling us over. When black people DON'T tell cops we have a gun, cops freak out and shoot us assuming we were hiding something. The cop told him to get his insurance and ID. He had only pulled out insurance and needed to take out his ID. He told the cop he has a gun to PUT THE COP AT EASE BY NOT HIDING ANYTHING AND BEING ON THE LEVEL WITH HIM. The cop freaked out even though Philando was only trying to comply with his order to get his ID since he failed to get it the first time when he retrieved his insurance. Your post is an example of the problem. Rationally, what reason did Castile have to shoot the cop in the first place? Rationally, if he wanted to shoot the cop, why would he give away the element of surprise and let him know he was armed? If he wanted to kill the cop, he would have just pulled a gun, not ALERTED him first. Rationally, why would Castile shoot the cop WHILE ANOTHER COP IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE? The other cop could have shot Castile right after or right before he even shot Yanez if Castile, for whatever mystifying reason, wanted to kill Yanez for no reason. Your post is an example of the problem because some people are so prejudiced and primed to assume black men are dangerous that you aren't even being rational or even examining WHY would the black man become violent in a casual situation. The other cop and most Americans can see what Yanez did wrong. Your post is based entirely on you being subconsciously fearful and on-edge and ready to shoot at the drop of a hat. Yanez emptied an entire clip and could have hit the girlfriend, the kid or the cop on the other side. Anyone that damn scared and fearful of black people, or just motorists in general, does not need to be a cop. You'd be equivalent to a soldier who's so scared shitless that he'd empty his whole M-16 and spray every bystander and even his own fellow soldiers in a village if he was overseas and heard a twig snap unexpectedly. You're just a liability and a hazard being that fearful while armed. Don't be a cop if you're as paranoid, jumpy and fearful as yourself or Yanez.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dj Ruccy - It pains me to say this as a non-white person (I'm African-American), but I have to say that even though Western countries are still technically patriarchies, they're patriarchies to a significantly lesser extent than India and most non-white countries. I hate to say it, but, People of Color: we've got some serious work to do when it comes to achieving an Egalitarian society.
In our defense, however, European societies aren't just inherently more egalitarian. It's because of the Industrial Revolution, the Enlightenment (spurred on by Europeans being influenced by nonwhite societies, lol), the influence of Socialism and Social Democracy, and probably to a degree due to global immigration (giving Europeans various different perspectives reflecting on Western society). I think these factors are what helped women become more equal in the West.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
enacra101 - "How are you going to tell me about people that are literally my own family"
1) Your family does not represent all African immigrants.
2) I didn't tell you about your family.
3) My statements are based on documented Census data. Just like I can say most Irish immigrants used to be indentured servants (in the 1600s to early 1800s) or people fleeing the Great Potato Famine (in the late 1800s and early 1900s). That's documented by govt data.
"To be fair though, explain why first generation Americans such as myself o African Immigrants tend to also do better in the US than AA's?"
Same reason you also tend to do disproportionately better than white Americans - better education. It opens doors.
"Even in the place I last worked I would always work extremely hard but the AA's that were there would come in late, blast music, smoke weed on the job and slap box in the parking lot after work, same opportunity, different result."
Those people don't represent all or the average black person. I could go on about my experiences with lazy, ignorant and self-destructive white meth heads sitting around on welfare in trailer parks in some areas I've lived in before. Those people don't necessarily represent most or the average white American.
"I've lived in Africa, education and being productive is the common mindset"
I'll take your word for it but the data shows that the average African is much less educated on average than the average African-American (most Africans don't have beyond a 7th to 9th grade education) and black American worker productivity is much higher than in any African country. American productivity in general is higher than most other countries in the world.
Is it because African-Americans are better? No. America is a wealthier country with much more resources than the average African country and better technology.
"the issues you see coming from there are from a lack of resources (they have plenty, but are often exploited and ripped off from them), political corruption, religion is a HUGE perpetrator of the issues"
Not unlike African-Americans here. XD Those are some of the hugest factors causing our problems as well. Aside from too many single-parent households, absent dads, teen moms, gangs, high unemployment and institutional discrimination/mass incarceration. Africa also continues to be plagued by being exploited by former colonial powers and industrialized countries treating Africa as a cheap labor pool and place to strip mine and dump resources for the benefit of themselves rather than for the benefit of the Africans they use to do the work for them (Ex: De Beers).
"I simply don't see what's stopping you guys from taking advantage of the opportunities you do have"
Part of the issue is that many immigrants come here already having college degrees from home. Many African-Americans are born to unwed single mothers who live in areas with crappy schools. Not even mentioning the rising costs of higher education here in the States and the rising unavailability of Pell Grants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Batman _ - It really depends on which group of religious people you're talking about. If you're referring to religious conservatives and especially religious fundamentalists (sometimes even some religious moderates) I definitely agree with you 110%. There is absolutely no reason why you should fear for your safety for criticizing an idea you don't agree with and religious people have no right to threaten harm or attempt to harm people for disagreeing or criticizing them (or even making fun of them, being teased is not an excuse to kill). But, there are also tons of religious moderates and religious liberals who handle criticism, skepticism and dialogue quite well and are able to carry on a mature and thoughtful conversation with nonbelievers or people from different faiths. I've seen it many times (though admittedly not nearly often enough). There are even schools and academic groups of religious people dedicated to analyzing, criticizing and being skeptical of their own religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism#Islam
While Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are all soft-spoken and outwardly affable people (Hitchens, despite being the most caustic and acerbic-tongued of the three, I always found him to be the most endearing, sentimental and open-minded), their mindsets can be rigid, uncompromising, lacking self-insight, lacking knowledge of relevant topics related to religion and religious history, and at times dangerous. All 3 of them have been apologists for war crimes, unnecessary wars, authoritarianism (Harris defended torture, extra-judicial imprisonment and racial profiling of Arabs). Just because they're not personally violent themselves doesn't mean their words are any less despicable. That's exactly why Harris in this case is being taken to task by so many people. He's not a violent man himself, but he's a public apologist for violence and horrible things. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, etc. aren't personally violent either. That doesn't make their ideas any less despicable and sickening or their defenses of atrocities, authoritarianism, violation of human rights and malicious ideas any less contemptible. There are atheists much worse than the New Atheist authors and celebs (like Stalin, Mao, etc.) just like there are theists much worse than Born Again televangelists and pastors. Doesn't make the former okay, though.
1
-
1
-
***** - Sorry if I came across as sounding a little flippant, I think it's because I was a in rush earlier and didn't get to put all my thoughts together in as long-winded a fashion as I was able to just now. So I sounded relatively terse. I'm very aware many if not most atheists aren't like these people. Several of my friends are atheists in real life, so I know people who aren't like that. My position is that atheists like that are just plentiful online but largely absent in real life (at least in the Western world) while religious fundamentalists are relatively underrepresented online but overly abundant and dangerous in the real offline world. Lol
*I speak about atheists in third person because I don't consider myself one. I don't consider myself a theist either, though. I identify as Ignostic, similar to Noam Chomsky. Which I don't see my views as fitting neatly into either theism or atheism. I think Apatheist best describes my religious position other than Ignostic. If pressed, my personal view is that if a "God" does "exist", He/She/It is probably so far beyond human comprehension that trying to define it is kind of a wasted exercise (like a single cell trying to comprehend a human body) and confining it to things like existence or nonexistence is probably a mistake. Sort of like some things in Quantum Mechanics like Time, Heat, strings, the difference between the 4 fundamental forces or the difference between potential and kinetic energy (in Quantum Mechanics these things break down after a certain point and whether they're "real", or if they "exist" or are separate becomes something of a pointless question, kind of like Schrodinger's cat). I guess that attitude/mindset could be called "Transtheism".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "free market", just like end-stage communism, doesn't not currently exist and never has on a national scale. It's an ideal that has not been achieved. Also, what you said is false. Plenty of things are created by the government or government projects. Aside from the Internet, cell phones, nuclear energy, a lot of flight technology, NASA, public roads, etc. the government also creates legal tender, police, firefighters, military, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sirellyn - "I don't have to produce a ton of articles"
Well, that's okay, because I can produce economics articles which empirically show that price controls can sometimes be helpful:
http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w11114.html
"The free market exists just like "pollution free" does"
Incorrect. A "free market" just means a market where there is little or fairly little government regulation of certain things and certain conditions among sellers and buyers. It doesn't mean a market lacking corruption. A market akin to being free of pollution would be a "Perfect Market". You're confusing a Perfect Market and a Free Market.
"Free Markets" don't exist naturally. The government has to exist to create the conditions for them. Hence why it's not comparable to being free of pollution as being pollution-free does not occur naturally either with human activity.
"You see it everywhere in fact"
Of course it does exist, just not at a national level. Communism also exists, just not at a national level. It exists at some local levels, just like free markets.
"There just happens to be LESS than any other mean"
This is an article of Faith. Not a fact or definition of "free market". NOTHING in the definition of a Free Market says it would have less corruption, fraud, violence, etc. than other systems. It's just a hope among proponents that it would. Just like nothing in the definition of socialism or communism says it would have less of these things either.
"I'd say the long term effectiveness is what wins out. Otherwise the hunters would have out survived the farmers."
Of course. However, there isn't a magical force that naturally forces Humans to recognize the long-term effectiveness and stop their harmful short-term activity before it's too late. If there is no government regulation or intervention to start transitioning society, consumers, the infrastructure system and our economic system towards Alternative/Renewable Energy the "Free Market" is not going to naturally push people in that direction before it's too late. If left to their own devices companies will continue to use fossil fuels and natural gas until it's no longer economically feasible to drill for these things and it takes more money and energy per gallon of gas to drill for it than you pull out of the ground. Then maybe there will be an interest in Alternatives. By that point it's too late and our gas-powered infrastructure and economy are left without power while companies finally get around to R&D on what other energy can be used.
Had it been left to the "Free Market" much of the space program never would have occurred. There was no mass lineup of companies volunteering to build rockets, spacecraft or manned spaceships. Spaceflight was (and to a lesser degree still is) a very risky activity with very high liabilities, very high cost (it costs a lot to build a rocket and spacecraft or have R&D for the new technology necessary) and it can take years or decades before it becomes profitable. It took a massive government program to pioneer this activity and build reliable and tested infrastructure before companies finally decided to dip their toe into that market in the 1980s and 90s. In a "Free Market" most firms won't invest in such a thing because there is no solid guarantee of profit and any profit could be long-term rather than short-term. It's the same reason why there's so little investment in "Cold Fusion" technology (even from the government).
"Capitalism supports businesses, but business does not nessecerily support capitalism."
And supporting businesses can sometimes come at the cost of consumers and society. Businesses will support whatever they feel benefits them the most. Sometimes things other than the "Free Market" would benefit them much more. Sometimes the "Free Market" can benefit businesses but not benefit others.
"If you think that makes business evil"
Businesses are amoral profit-machines. They're not necessarily "evil" but they're not "good" either. Being amoral sometimes you can do things that are good because it benefits you in some way. Like research into cancer cures. However, being amoral means sometimes you will do things that are bad because it benefits you. Look at things done by Halliburton and Monsanto. Some of what they do does fit most definitions of "Evil" - a callous disregard for the rights, plights and lives/welfare of others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joseph F - "Can you honestly say that you have no beliefs or opinions that upset other people?"
Of course I do. I'm a Libertarian Socialist. I'm sure I'd piss off plenty of people since the majority of Americans are Liberals or Conservatives. Or they'd at least find some of my views disagreeable. I'd probably piss off Conservatives and right-wing types more often but I'd upset Liberal/Progressive types often enough that I'd be a minority on some political issues. Probably sometimes a maligned minority since some Americans believe Socialists/Socialism is "evil". Depending on the company openly declaring oneself to be a Socialist is almost like openly declaring to be a pedophile or a Satanist. I know what it's like to be against the majority of the public on an issue. Hell, I've probably upset you now just letting you know what I am, lol.
"Do you want to be forced to choose between telling the truth about what you believe and keeping your job?"
I air my opinions about the world all the time, like I am now here on Google+/YouTube. I wouldn't necessarily declare all of my views in an interview with a popular magazine if I'm not self-employed because I recognize what the backlash might be. I realize that even now it's possible my current employer could somehow catch wind of what I'm admitting to you online. I'm fully prepared to deal with the consequences of my actions should that happen. The minute I posted "I am a Libertarian Socialist" I knew there is a chance of my employer ever finds out it could possibly lead to me getting fired. I'm prepared to accept that. That's a capitalist society for you.
"Shouldn't you be able to tell or share a joke that you think is funny without getting fired for it?"
Yeah, but I wouldn't post it on my wall or anyone else's wall on Facebook or Twitter. I'd send it by PM. If I say something publicly on social media that I know could be controversial I'm prepared to deal with the consequences, which could include my employer looking up my name on social media, seeing my comment and firing me. Employers do that nowadays.
"You don't recall Al Sharpton demanding that Imus be taken off the air"
I mean with Rush specifically. A lot of conservative demanded Martin Bashir be taken off the air for his comments about Sarah Palin. Was that wrong of them?
"A bunch of people went out of their way to get this woman in trouble with her boss and sat gleefully at their computers awaiting for her plane to land so she could realize that she'd been fired"
Yeah, it's pathetic on their part, but:
1) Her comment was insensitive. "Joke" or not. I didn't really see how it was a "joke" to be honest and it didn't make any sense. You can't get AIDS if you're white?
2) She didn't just HAVE to post it publicly on Twitter. She could have sent a PM to friends she wanted to see it.
Whether or not the people complaining were assholes (that's your opinion, they may have been genuinely offended), she did something irresponsible and suffered the same consequences as anyone else. Thousands of people have been fired for making irresponsible comments on social media.
"However, that doesn't change the fact that their assholes for doing it"
Depends. If Al Sharpton said "Sarah Palin should be raped in public" and then claimed it was a joke, are the people who insist MSNBC fire him "assholes"? I'd argue "No" since his comment was out-of-hand. Some people felt the same way about this lady's comment.
"Anyone who wants speech that they disagree with to be silenced"
They aren't asking for her to be silenced, they're asking for her to be fired. She can continue to make all the African AIDS jokes she wants on Twitter. Nothing's stopping her. She just can't stay at that job while doing so.
Fired =/= Silenced
Asking for her to be "silenced" would be asking for her to be jailed. You're engaging in HUGE exaggeration and melodramatics by comparing being fired to a dictatorship silencing critics.
"They're going around creating consequences"
Who? Employers and sponsors? Employers and sponsors have had the right to get people fired for saying things they don't like since....well, since forever. Nobody makes the employer do anything, the employer is who ultimately decides if you stay or go. If you don't like what's going on your complaint should be with the employer. The employer can just keep the person on and ignore backlash, just like A&E appears to be doing. Most employers just will not do so because they value Profit above your sense of making a public statement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MykTheOccultist - "Wounds like that are consistent with repeatedly getting smashed against a hard surface"
No they aren't. Dr. Di Maio even said that if that happened to you you'd have effects like stunning, concussion, unresponsiveness, dizziness, shaking, unconsciousness, loss of lucidity, etc. Yet according to reports GZ was wide awake, fully alert, coherent and lucid when police and neighbors showed up and was seen pacing around TM's body. Doesn't sound like someone who just got slammed near 30 times. Dr. Rao testified that GZ's wounds were "minor" and "inconsistent" with his testimony (her words, not mine). She said his wounds were more consistent with being punched in the nose, then slipping and bumping his head on the sidewalk once or twice.
I've gotten more serious injuries than GZ did just playing sandlot football with other kids in my neighborhood when I was in middle school.
There's no way in hell you'd walk away from having your head slammed on concrete by an enraged 17 year old male 20-30 times with only a couple of minor scrapes requiring no hospitalization unless you're Marv from "Sin City". It's hilarious how GZ defenders pretend GZ was the softest pussy in the world, despite having taken MMA lessons 3 days a week for over a year leading up to the incident, yet also had the durability of Marv from Sin City and could get up from having his head slammed on concrete 20-30 times without so much as a bad headache.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll try to avoid generalizing, because not all MRAs are alike, just like not all Feminists are alike. However, there is a large segment of MRAs (the Anti-Feminist strand, not all MRAs are anti-feminist) who refuse to believe or accept that there is a gender gap problem in the first place, or think nothing should be done about it because they think it's 100% justified and all women's fault. The MRAs like that are about as useful in the fight for wage equality as modern Republicans are when it comes to combating Institutional Racism, Hiring Discrimination and the racial wage gap. Modern Republicans, for the most part, won't even fucking acknowledge that racism is a problem, or that it exists as a problem beyond a few bad random individuals. They dismiss it as a myth that minorities and liberals are all just in on a huge conspiracy making it up; or maintain that the only racism that's a problem is so-called "Reverse Racism" (but never explain why the whites who make up the majority of political and economic leaders would go along with such a masochistic and self-destructive plot). Likewise, some MRAs just dismiss the gender pay gap as a myth that women in general and evil "Feminazis" in academia and the government are just conspiring to make up to punish men (but never explain why the men that make up the majority of government officials and academia would be in on such a masochistic plot); or that any gap that does exist is totally legit. You can't combat a problem if you deny there is a problem in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm black and I liked country music growing up (well, I am a Southerner and I was born in 1986, Country was a bit different in the 80s and 90s), but I lost interest in the early 2000s. I think that's EXACTLY what caused me to lose interest. It became the semi-official music of the Republican Party and the music of racist nationalists and xenophobes. It used to be the most left-wing genre of music out there next to Soul and original Rap music. It had Woodie Guthrie, Burl Ives, Pete Seeger, Johnny Cash, etc. Now, just like Rap, it got co-opted by Corporate America. The story of Country is like "What's Wrong With Kansas". Went from a hotbed of left-wing and labor populism to the center of far-right regressivism. I remember after 9/11 a lot of kids, particularly the white kids, in my high school became fairly openly racist. Especially towards Arab kids (some used to torment Arab kids during gym class and have everyone pummel them with dodgeballs). A lot of these asshole racist kids took a sudden open liking to Country music. That's part of what turned me off to that genre, especially as Toby Keith's ultranationalist "Shocking Y'all" blew up on the Country charts and became a Country icon. Sickening.
1
-
@b- dubz - At the risk of sounding sterotypical (a reference to a name dropped in the video) I like Immortal Technique. XD I also like Canibus, Aesop Rock, Prefuse 73, Kendrick Lamar, Lupe Fiasco, pre-
"My Dark Twisted Fantasy/808s and Hearbreak" Kanye West, Lady Antebellum (guilty pleasure), Bliss n Esso, Nas (though he's not new), etc. That kind of vein. I even like pre-2006/2007 stuff from mainstream rappers like Jay-Z, 50 Cent, Ja Rule (I ain't ashamed, lol), Ludacris, Eminem, etc. Of course the old school is the consistent best overall, IMO. Didn't have to go non-mainstream so often to find good stuff. A lot of the Muslim and Arab kids at my high school seemed to be immigrants (based on their noticeable accents), that's probably why they were so passive and easily scared, bullied and cowed. If those racist kids tried that shit on Arab-Americans up in Philly or Dearborn it'd go a lot different for those racist assholes. Lol I felt really bad for them. I always remembered thinking that's probablynthe kind of stuff that makes some Muslim kids grow up to want to join terrorist groups. Stuff like that it probably what drives some kids to ISIS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Groth1175 - It does, at least in the US. Study after study has shown if you have a "black-sounding name/voice" you're 50% more likely to get hired. That's not up for debate. It's scientific fact. Science isn't refuted by unprovable personal anecdotes. That's not your personal fault and the fact that white privilege exists doesn't make you a bad guy, but it is what it is. You're indeed correct about all the horrible backgrounds some white people come out of, but that doesn't make White Privikege nonexistent. Chances are they'd still have a better chance at success than poor black kids from an abusive home, or black kids who live in Detroit and have crackheads for parents. Why? Out of all their problems, those white people's race will almost never be a factor in them getting hired, or getting a loan, or surviving an encounter with a cop, or getting into a school. Black kids in similar situations will have the same barriers as those white kids, plus race added on top of it.
Also, there's no such thing as "Cultural Marxism". That's an old Neo-Nazi tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Marxism is an economic philosophy about Property, not Race. It's like the Teabagger conspiracy theory about Saul Alinsky. White Privilege a term for a trend noticed by American economists in the 70s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - What are you talking about? Atlanta is one of the wealthiest cities in the South and has had a huge middle-class boom for the past 20 years; Chicago is one of the US's main economic hub cities. Chicago's main problem is crime and economic inequality. Baltimore's last mayor was white (Martin O'Malley). Baltimore has actually improved since Stephanie Rawlings-Blake became the mayor. I should know, I've been a Maryland resident since 1994 and I live only 18 miles from Baltimore (and I used to work there for years). Pick better examples for worst majority-black cities. Like Buffalo, NY.
Likewise, I could ask if Europeans built all those magnificent civilizations like Rome, Greece and the British Empire why can't they run Arizona, Eastern Kentucky, Inland Empire, the Rustbelt, Charleston, WV, etc.? Or Albania? Or Moldova? Or Chechnya? Or Ukraine? Or the Bible Belt? Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the Union and it's run almost exclusively by white Republicans. See? I can also cherry-pick in order to suit a racialist agenda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
deltaxcd - "typically yes, objectively no,"
In what ways are developing countries objectively better off?
"I bet you can find someone who thinks that this claims is false."
Thinking is not objectivity. That's subjectivity. Their opinion is not objective.
"You area may flourish for few decades and turn into ghost town later"
Exactly. That's why "opportunity" does not necessarily offset loss. And every loss does not have a significant opportunity. When you die there is no opportunity for the dead person.
"Actually we can produce pretty much everything ourselves"
The most you could do for yourself is live like the Unabomber in the woods. Even he still had to rely on others for some things. He still had to go to town and buy things built by society. Or rely on others to deliver things (like mail).
"most of people are just work drones, and can be replaced easily"
That goes for owners as well. Also, there is no point to changing labor if the resources aren't there.
"and move to another area with all their capital"
1) That costs a lot of money.
2) That doesn't work if there is no other ready area waiting.
"where US business is getting transferred. and Chinese work drones take jobs from US work drones"
Prices haven't dropped and quality has arguably suffered due to outsourcing. So, I wouldn't say it's an even trade. Again, "opportunity" is not synonymous with "hope" or "good".
"Definitely not"
Haha. I'm sure the French and Russian monarchs said the same thing before the French and Russian Revolutions.
"They do not even have any willpower to save themselves"
They lack resources, not willpower. You can't survive on will alone. Will won't allow you to live for 50 days without food or water, will it? No.
The rich and owners don't have any more willpower than anyone else. Just resources. Willpower won't protect you from a revolt. You can't will the attackers away.
"and there is nothing to take"
Money, Food, Supplies, Water, etc....
"If you want me to produce less CO2 please provide men alternative energy source"
That's the problem: The industries largely DO NOT WANT TO PRODUCE LESS CO2. As long as it makes them money they don't care. They've actively tried to crush and stifle investment in alternative energy. It's not that no one is offering alternative energy - they don't want it because it could potentially cause some businesses to go out of business.
"I will not do that in my own effort against my interest so that you can maintain your lifestyle."
And likewise we won't go against our own interests (jobs, life, income, etc.) so you can maintain your lifestyle (profit margins). Ultimately the minority loses.
"and my interest is to speed up global warming not to stop it"
Which ultimately harms your interests as well (you think you won't lose out?). You're cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Not very smart at all.
"I do not see difference between farming and gardening"
Farming produces for others. Gardening produces for yourself.
"and what can prevent you from installing solar panels?"
Zoning. Barriers to entry to the market. Monopolies. Tax issues. etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blueuclabag - Yes, there are some people who make excuses for people who knowingly make false rape allegations. But how many people do that other than hardcore Tumblr-type Feminists? No one really. Tens of millions of people blame or partly blame rape victims for their rape or argue it's not really rape if the victim didn't scream, fight, tell someone, whatever. At least if the rape wasn't caught in camera (even then many would still blame the victim). Especially in third world countries (,where they even have corrective rape or kill or shame rape victims). Also, there is no "Feminist-dominated society" on Earth except for small matriarchal tribes. Feminists don't rule anything outside of Gender Studies classrooms. Most politicians, judges, law enforcement, bankers, employers and bureaucrats are men. Unless you're claiming these men are mostly or all Feminazis, which would be patent horseshit. Many if not the majority are Republicans. Yes, there are gender disparities in the Justice system, but they have fairly little to do with Feminism since these disparities date back centuries. Unless judges in the 1700s and 1800s who believed women were too mild-natured or simple-minded to be responsible for crimes (a traditionalist mindset that still effects our courts to this day) were raving Feminazis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
blueuclabag - For the record, though I disagree with her on some things (and agree with her on others) in her article, Christina Hoff Sommer never said the gap is nonexistent:
"Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has @2512127to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.
*Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. "*You're wasting my time, kid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestman400 - "All the gospels were originally written in Greek and In the original Greek, the word used each time is Genea or Genean. Which, translated, means an age. By usage, in each case, it means the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation, a space of 30 - 33 years."
Mmm...there's quite a bit of disagreement on what the exact usage of "genea" is here:
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue100b.htm
Even this Biblical Greek linguistics site gives differing definitions:
https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/genea
*"Definition:
pr. birth; hence, progeny; a generation of mankind, Mt. 11:16; 23:36, et al.; a generation, a step in a genealogy, Mt. 1:17; a generation, an interval of time, an age; in NT course of life, in respect of its events, interests, or character, Lk. 16:8; Acts 13:36"*
1
-
Honestman400 - "As I've said many times, the only way the bible makes any sense at all is by imaginative interpretation. you are using that now"
How? Most of what I said is basic linguistics and Hebrew history. Do point out where I added in "imaginative interpretation". Go ahead.
"genea (ghen-eh-ah)' Noun - Feminine form; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons) :--age, generation, nation, time"
ahem I already cited a source on the various meanings that word has in Greek:
https://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary/genea
*"Definition:
pr. birth; hence, progeny; a generation of mankind, Mt. 11:16; 23:36, et al.; a generation, a step in a genealogy, Mt. 1:17; a generation, an interval of time, an age; in NT course of life, in respect of its events, interests, or character, Lk. 16:8; Acts 13:36"*
Mind citing your source?
"as for your casual dismissal of Matthew 16:28."
Do point where I dismissed Matthew 16:28, please. Quote me. One of the sources I cited directly referenced that verse:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/Bible_NT/Matthew/matthew_16-28.html
Obviously you didn't read my entire posts.
It deals with the Greek original Matthew 16:28.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestman400 - "My quote came from a book"
What page? I cited that book in my second-to-last link and it appears to disagree with you. Could you give me the page number to help resolve this?
"You do know what a book is, don't you?"
Of course, smart-ass. Now, the next question is: What makes that source better than any of the sources I referenced?
"the one definition out of the pile which can, with a lot of imaginative interpretation seem to fit what you want to believe"
ANY definition you pick requires "imaginative interpretation" if you want to put it that way. Yours included since there are weaknesses with your interpretation - since translating "genea" strictly as referring to 30 years or so would cause some other verses in the New Testament to make less sense translated that way into English.
"what you want to believe"
Since I'm not religious I have no stake in this argument. It's not about what I want to believe, it's about linguistic facts. You do know what facts are, correct?
I have no stake in simpering Christian Biblical apologetics, or to help buttress your anti-Christian agenda either (which seems to be your goal).
"even though other writings in the New testament make if plain that the disciples and Paul make it perfectly clear that they expected Jesus to come back in their lifetime."
Not really. There are verses in the New Testament implying Jesus' return could be in the future. See Matthew 24:36, Matthew 24:44, 2 Timothy, 1 John, etc.
You yourself hinted at that earlier when you said this:
"However, when they realised that he wasn't coming, that's when all the many and varied "predictions" of the "imminent" second coming started to appear" --Honestman400
Yes, some of the Apostles certainly did appear to believe Jesus would return in their lifetime. Others did not seem to. The Apostles varied in opinion on some matters, they weren't a hive-mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to the FBI in 2002 blacks victimized whites 614,176 times that year. Whites victimized blacks 135,931 times that same year.* That makes white-on-black crimes around 1/4 of interracial crimes.
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48, and calculations by the author.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Man, fuck America. Americans are the ones who voted for this shit (by either voting for Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats or sitting out elections and letting Teapublicans get in office). Fuck this nation. These fucking idiots voted in Republicans who will block the very things they voted in favor of (Minimum Wage raises and legal weed) and who will gut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, etc. Fuck 'em. I hope the GOP cuts their parents' Medicare and SS off, I hope the GOP raises the college loan interest rates of every Millenial idiot who voted for them and I hope they cut Obamacare and food stamps for blue collar conservatives who voted for them. I hope they raise taxes and cut subsidies and credits for middle class Republicans and cut EITC for poor Republican voters. No one that stupid deserves to get a goddamn thing good. This country deserves every bit of pain it's going through and has in store. The American people themselves are the problem. They're ignorant, bigoted, uninformed, violent, stupid and dangerous. Let 'me crash and burn. Maybe they'll wake up when they start missing meals or when they're moving in with their parents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What diversity caused the conflict in China, North Korea, Chile, Spain, Italy, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Ukraine, Georgia, etc.? Meanwhile many multi-ethnic countries are among the world's most peaceful. Think next time instead of regurgi-puking white nationalist bullshit.
1
-
1
-
Those places aren't peaceful but Canada, Latin America, the UK, France, Germany, South Africa (mostly), Australia, New Zealand, India, Egypt, the US (mostly), most of Central Asia, etc. have no active ethnic conflicts. Your explanation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xzamilloh - "Who cares"
You responded. Apparently you and the people who thumbed up your comment care.
"If there was a "rational-minded" philosophy concerning a god, where is it?"
Your ignorance of Philosophy is not my problem. Why not look up Spinoza's God, or Einstein's "God", or Giordano Bruno's God, or Paul Tillich's "God"? Or other outlooks like Ignosticism or Transtheism. Hell, even philosophy like Thomas Aquinas or Maimonides' conceptions of "God". Not agreeing with them does not make them "irrational".
"Who cares if you can rationally define a god?"
It matters a great fucking deal since one cannot say one is a "theist" or "atheist" or anything else unless they can rationally define a "god" first. How can you believe or not believe in what you can't even say?
"I can rationally define an invisible green monkey that lives in my poop"
Is there any other way to define such a thing? That is not at all ambiguous. "God" is a far, far more vague and ambiguous term and concept. It's the same problem with Russell's Teapot analogy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot#Objections
"but they aren't the ones riding platforms of "family values" while kissing married staffers or toe-tapping for dingaling at bathroom airports"
Ooookay....I never argued they were and I don't disagree with you there. You're arguing against something I never argued for.
"Yay, you're a progressive Christian.."
No I'm not. I'm not even religious. This is what happens when you ASS-U-ME.
"and when you modernize religion, you strip it of its dogma and make it secular nonsense that doesn't require appeals to superstition"
1) Liberal/Progressive Christians are nothing new. They've been around as long as Christianity has existed. Right-wing Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are far newer overall (a movement only around 200 or so years old). Arguably the theoretical founder (Jesus) himself was a super-progressive, borderline communist.
2) Dogma? Christianity never had a unified dogma (other than Jesus being important). Thousands of different sects and denominations. Some of what we call "modernization" is actually just Christian views that have always existed becoming more popular or mainstream. Not to mention religions usually change over time.
3) Even if the part I quoted is correct, is this a bad thing? I think it's a GOOD THING that religion has evolved among some people. I wish it happened to more religious people.
"face it, religion and gods are on the decline"
Depends. It's on the decline in some places and on the rise in others. That really doesn't have anything to do with my post though. It looks like you just devolved into an anti-religion rant only tangentially related to what I said.
Was that therapeutic for you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think because left-wingers on average tend to have much higher levels of empathy, tolerance and openness to disagreement or difference than right-wingers, a lot of Progressives/Liberals are TOO understanding of their enemies who are actively trying to harm them. Some of them default to apologizing because they have a tendency to err on the side of maybe they're misunderstanding the other side and they need to be tolerant of the other side's beliefs or claims. Or they get an image in their head that the people attacking them are poor creatures suffering from some emotional disturbance and they just need our patience, love, empathy and understanding. Or they acquiesce to letting injustices against themselves go in the name of being the bigger adult. There is a season for that stuff, but that's not something you need to ALWAYS do. Not every asshole is just a poor schmuck who was abused as a kid and just needs a hug. Not everyone who opposes you has a point and you just need to be understanding of them. And even if your enemy is an adult who had unfortunate life experiences or lacks education, that doesn't mean YOU need to be the one to pet them. This isn't Dr. Phil, this is the real world. Some people are just fucking assholes or hard-asses out to destroy you and no amount of empathy and petting in the world will make them stop or leave you alone or make them a better person. Some people are lost causes (like hardcore racists, serial killers, etc.) and even if they aren't a lost cause it's not your burden to let them beat on you in the hopes it'll make them feel bad and eventually stop. STAND UP FOR YOUR FUCKING SELF! This is when Lefties need to be more like Righties in the sense of putting your empathy away, growing a pair and drawing a clear line in the sand and not letting them step over it like Gandalf vs the Balrog.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
supbrotv - "They are free to own property,they are free to earn their own money, they dont pay taxes"
1) The vast majority of people in those societies don't own any property. Only a small percentage of society does, usually even less than in capitalist societies. In Communist states workers often have a small degree of democratic control over their factories. So, in both societies there is very limited property ownership. The societies with maximum property ownership tend to be the libertarian socialist societies or early democratic socialist ones (like the Soviet Union in its first 5 years where companies were owned jointly by workers before the State took over everything).
2) People earn their own money in Communist systems as well. They're just paid from a difference source.
3) Don't pay taxes? Monarchist societies DEFINITELY have taxes. Where did you hear otherwise? Unlike Western capitalist societies they don't get anything back for their taxes. We at least get social services and infrastructure. They have dirt roads and dirty well water.
"they can go anywhere"
Not at all. You have to get permission to go outside of the country and you're not allowed to travel in areas the govt says is off-limits.
"have equal rights for both men and women"
.....On what planet? These countries are religious fundamentalist states. Women cannot own property without male permission, cannot get divorced, cannot drive, cannot pursue rape charges, can't go anywhere without a male, cannot testify against men in court, etc. Do you live on the same Earth as us? Just checking....
"have night clubs, malls"
For tourists. The vast majority of the citizens don't go. North Korea, China, Cuba, etc. have malls and night clubs as well. Most people can't go there (except for maybe China and to a lesser degree Cuba).
1
-
1
-
supbrotv - So far you haven't listed the ways in which they're "far better". 90% of the freedoms that are lacked in Communist states are lacked in monarchies as well. Many of the freedoms you claimed they have wasn't even accurate.
"Then i pointed out the benefits they have OVER a communist state"
"then you just started making stuff up about the middle east!"
1) Most modern monarchies are in the Middle East. There aren't many outside of that region, which is why the Middle East was my focus. Likewise, your main focus has been North Korea even though it's not the only "Communist" state.
2) I didn't make anything up. Everything I said is accurate and can be confirmed easily.
"they are free to live where they want,they are free to buy what they want"
People do that in Communist countries as well.
"are free to use the internet,they are free to watch movies"
People do that in Communist states as well. You think there is no Internet in China or Cuba and no movies? China is one of the world's biggest movie pirating countries and has a huge movie industry. Even during Mao's time. -__-
"they are free to talk to each other they are free to party"
People don't talk to each other and party in Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc.? If you think so you're sorely mistaken. XD
"And they cant kill their neighbours for blasphemy,killing have been illegal since the 1940s"
What country is this? Killing for blasphemy is VERY legal in Saudi Arabia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Saudi_Arabia
It's also legal to kill or imprison people for blasphemy in Yemen, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, UAE and Kuwait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hozehd - That's false:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html
"In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. Their continued use, then, is in social situations where people think they have some meaning"
An Ethiopian skull looks, on average, more like an Italian skull than a Kenyan skull. A Thai skull looks more like an Indonesian skull than a Chinese skull.
The people supporting the Craniofacial theory even had to invent convoluted categories such as "True Negro" or "Super Negro" to account for why Africans had several different head shapes. They were forced into trying to argue some Africans are more or less "truly black" than others.
"Just because classification gets a little fuzzy around the edges"
It's not an edge. It's fuzzy all-around. There is no singular head shape most Europeans, Asians or Africans share. African-Americans (who are primarily of West African descent) don't represent all people of the African continent. Nor are East Asian-Americans representative of all people on the Asian continent.
1
-
1
-
hozehd - That's far more than fuzzy around the edges, that's lacking a real group to begin with. Your response indicates to me you probably didn't even read the scientific articles I linked.
"PC too even acknowledge what is blatantly obvious"
What's "blatantly obvious"? Because a group of people share a skin color does not mean they're closely related. It's like arguing that it's "blatantly obvious" that the Sun revolves around the Earth because it moves in the sky.
"that the vast majority of peoples on earth can be pretty clearly grouped this way"
Based on what? There is no cranium type the majority of Africans, Europeans or Asians share. Here, I'll quote some of the meat of the matter for you:
"I would suggest that there are very few who, of their own experience, have actually perceived at first hand the nature of human variation. What we know of the characteristics of the various regions of the world we have largely gained vicariously and in misleadingly spotty fashion. Pictures and the television camera tell us that the people of Oslo in Norway, Cairo in Egypt, and Nairobi in Kenya look very different. And when we actually meet natives of those separate places, which can indeed happen, we can see representations of those differences at first hand.
But if one were to walk up beside the Nile from Cairo, across the Tropic of Cancer to Khartoum in the Sudan and on to Nairobi, there would be no visible boundary between one people and another. The same thing would be true if one were to walk north from Cairo, through the Caucasus, and on up into Russia, eventually swinging west across the northern end of the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia. The people at any adjacent stops along the way look like one another more than they look like anyone else since, after all, they are related to one another. As a rule, the boy marries the girl next door throughout the whole world, but next door goes on without stop from one region to another.
We realize that in the extremes of our transit—Moscow to Nairobi, perhaps—there is a major but gradual change in skin color from what we euphemistically call white to black, and that this is related to the latitudinal difference in the intensity of the ultraviolet component of sunlight. What we do not see, however, is the myriad other traits that are distributed in a fashion quite unrelated to the intensity of ultraviolet radiation. Where skin color is concerned, all the northern populations of the Old World are lighter than the long-term inhabitants near the equator. Although Europeans and Chinese are obviously different, in skin color they are closer to each other than either is to equatorial Africans. But if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese."
Has nothing to do with Political Correctness, everything to do with Scientific Accuracy. You criticize science yet you're too lazy to even read what scientists are saying.
"but people who claim that that claim that there is no genetic or biologic reality to race"
Or course there are genetic and biological differences between different populations of humans. However, none of these are analogous to a "Race". If you want to treat these groups as "races" there would be over 300 human "races" as there are over 300 major population clines. They would also not be strongly be based on skin color or facial features. For instance, if you want to consider these biological or genetic groups "races", Frenchmen and Cameroonians would be the same "race", or sub-races of each other, since they both belong to Haplogroup R1b. Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalis, Arabs, Berbers, Spaniards, Greeks and Italians would be the same "race". Italians would be a distinct race from neighboring Swiss people, closer to Egyptians and Somalis would be a distinct race from Kenyans, etc.
"are bat shit crazy cultists."
So the scientific consensus is a batshit crazy cult?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
"Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, some of which have essentialist implications. While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."
1
-
1
-
1
-
hozehd - Yes, I've seen that. Witherspoon et al had a rebuttal to Edwards (and Lewontin):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_fallacy#Response_to_Edwards
"Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes"
"and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
1
-
1
-
hozehd - "It's just that it borders on not being a rebuttal at all since he agrees with Edwards findings"
You appear not have to have read it thoroughly for understanding since they said Edwards' findings do not prove that Race exists and don't truly conflict with or discredit Lewontin's findings. Again:
"Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes..."
"...and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
Both Lewontin and Edwards' findings are simultaneously true and both are compatible with Race not be a taxomically sound classification with modern Homo sapiens sapiens. Which is the scientific consensus.
1
-
hozehd - "Its not the scientific consensus"
Yes it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
"Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.
While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#U.S._anthropology
"The "Statement on 'Race'" (1998) composed by a select committee of anthropologists and issued by the executive board of the American Anthropological Association as a statement they "believe [...] represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists""
"its liberal theology"
If you're now reduced to relying on paranoid conspiracy theories then your argument is out of gas. It's the scientific consensus for the same reason the Law of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory and Anthropogenic Climate Change are all scientific consensus - that's the conclusion the majority of the evidence leads to and those are the theories that are most compatible with all observed data and evidence. These theories are consensus because that's what the empirical data shows.
"Wackos like Lewontin"
1) Ad Hominem is the last resort of a desperate person.
2) What makes him a "whacko"? He is correct (as is Edwards).
1
-
hozehd - "Edwards destroys that idea"
No he doesn't. Edwards' observations are completely compatible with Lewontin's observations and are completely compatible with Race not being a biological reality or valid taxonomical category with modern Homo sapiens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards
"Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
"The view that while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist this does not lend biological validity to racial groups was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin."
1
-
hozehd - "Several does not a consensus make"
True, but that's not where it spoke on the consensus. The consensus was in the quote here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
"Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.
While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."
"There is obviously still debate in the scientific community in places"
The debate in the scientific community is mostly over how solidly ethno-geographic self-identification matches up with genetics and Haplogroup typing and how predictive ethnicity or regional population grouping can be for medical purposes. Not over whether the old 19th century races actually exist after all or not. That kind of flew out the window with the discovery of DNA. XD
Don't hold you breath for scientists to make some discovery that makes them say "Oh, you know what? Those guys back in the 1700s and 1800s were actually pretty accurate. Our modern technology just got us all confused. Our bad. The guys in the 19th century were right after all." Unless the definition of "Race" is changed YET AGAIN to be synonymous with "Haplogroup". Which would make the word "race" meaningless since that would mean there would be well over 300 human "races" with members who phenotypically don't even look similar (like Chadic-speaking West Africans and Western Europeans, who both belong to the R1b Y-DNA Haplogroup).
"where it hasn't been outlawed as hate speech"
Where would that be? Racialists like Jensen and Rushton hadn't been outlawed and still spoke freely within the scientific community.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
hozehd - So, I'll ask again. This pretty much sums up the current scientific consensus:
The consensus was in the quote here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)
"Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.
While some researchers sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive or simplistic way, and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."
Who has disproved this to be the case? Your only response was:
"There is obviously still debate in the scientific community in places" --hozehd
To which I said:
"The debate in the scientific community is mostly over how solidly ethno-geographic self-identification matches up with genetics and Haplogroup typing and how predictive ethnicity or regional population grouping can be for medical purposes. Not over whether the old 19th century races actually exist after all or not. That kind of flew out the window with the discovery of DNA. XD
Don't hold you breath for scientists to make some discovery that makes them say "Oh, you know what? Those guys back in the 1700s and 1800s were actually pretty accurate. Our modern technology just got us all confused. Our bad. The guys in the 19th century were right after all." Unless the definition of "Race" is changed YET AGAIN to be synonymous with "Haplogroup". Which would make the word "race" meaningless since that would mean there would be well over 300 human "races" with members who phenotypically don't even look similar (like Chadic-speaking West Africans and Western Europeans, who both belong to the R1b Y-DNA Haplogroup)." --A86
You never responded.
1
-
1
-
hozehd - "Having 1 racial group isn't helpful at all, its just giving up in the name of political correctness"
Part of the problem is people like yourself often seem to not even fully understand the scientific position you're criticizing. Race not existing does not mean no genetic groups or populations exist within Humans either. I doubt you'll find many scientists deny that Middle Eastern populations often share similar genes, clines and genetic maladies, for example.
I think you have this strawman that most scientists are arguing that Humans are all genetically identical with no genetic grouping structure. That's not what they're saying.
"Liberal egalitarians came out of the wood work to cherry pick data"
And again with the tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. That's the same bullshit conservatives pitch to explain away why Evolution and Anthropogenic Climate Change are the scientific consensus. They almost always invoke some mythical librul cabal that arose out of the mists (they can never pinpoint at what point they arose, how they gained so much power and why their opponents are unable to debunk them).
The scientific consensus that race doesn't exist biologically is able to back its data with overwhelming empirical data. You had no sufficient response to Witherspoon's response to Edwards, showing that Edwards' discoveries didn't truly conflict with Lewontin's discoveries and that Edwards' discoveries failed to prove that "race" existed either. After that point your only response to Witherspoon and Lewontin's data was:
"Its not the scientific consensus its liberal theology. Wackos like Lewontin have done their best to further their social agenda with bad science." --hozedh
There is no "liberal egalitarian PC mafia" suppressing data. Race Realists aren't taken seriously because when rebutted their only response, most of the time, is to simply go "Nope! You're wrong, I'm still right. You're just being PC. I'm done talking. Fuck you." like you did.
"cherry pick data and try to get rid of classifications"
Yet you've been unable to show they're "cherry-picking" data or how they're suppressing anything.
The data that "race realists" think confirm their views is usually completely compatible with the discoveries of their detractors and often further debunks the idea of "race" existing (like the fact that genetic factors of intelligence would vary most widely within continents, not between them).
"but its workable"
Politically? Yeah. Genetically? No. Genes often don't correspond to the "3 Race" Theory. Ethiopians may have "Caucasoid" craniofacial features but genetically they're closest to "Negroid" Sudanese people.
BTW, there was also the "4 Race Theory" which attempted to make up for the shortcomings of the "3 Race Theory" (people from the Pacific usually don't neatly fit into any of the 3 categories). It was even modified to include categories like "Super Negro" and "True Negro" when African peoples didn't neatly fit into their "Negroid" categories and categories like "Alpinoid" when they discovered contradictions from their "Caucasoid" theory.
"You've barely responded to anything"
I've quoted lengthy sections of scientific papers verbatim. In contrast you've quoted only 2 scientific sources (Edwards & Bejan and Jones). Both of which I responded to at length with various scientific data.
1
-
1
-
1
-
hozehd - Morton was mentioned in the link but not in our conversation. Not everything in the link was relevant to our conversation.
"proves my position"
Mind pointing out where it "proved" your position? The fact that cranium sizes vary by region is completely compatible with the scientific consensus that race does not exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry#Race_and_brain_size
There is no universal African or Asian head shape or size. The Maasai have a brain size more similar to Egyptians than Egyptians have to Europeans and African-Americans have a brain size more similar to white Americans than they do to Maasai people or Egyptians.
"In other words, our social political leanings make us uncomfortable with the term"
Again, this is you putting words in their mouth as they never said anything that implied such a thing.
Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen and Rushton actually used their findings to suggest changes in policy regarding Affirmative Action, education spending, testing, etc.
What political or social recommendations has the APA made? None. As per usual conservatives project. Conservative "Race Realists" try to use "race science" to prove political views or push a social agenda and assume their opponents are just liberals who have the same intention (psychological projection).
Stereotyping should be avoided because it's unscientific and runs contrary to the scientific method. Witherspoon explained, empirically, why stereotyping gets in the way of objectivity:
"A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HalfTangible - An embryo or fetus is not a baby. Jesus never spoke about abortion (though abortion happens naturally with miscarriages, which God allows).
"he valued hard work and ALL people"
Who is eschewing hard work? The average working person works far harder than your average CEO for far, far less. Also, remember what Jesus said about rich people. Especially those who chase money or have a love of money.
"actually said that the poor will never go away"
While true, he also said to give freely to them and preached about dividing up money and spreading the wealth around the community (gasp!) Don't recall any teachings about "personal choice".
"And Jesus would never have told us we couldn't defend ourselves"
Neither do liberals. Jesus spoke about standing by your words, faith and views and being willing to lay down your life for them. The Constitution speaks about self-defense, not Jesus. The closest he ever comes to mentioning self-defense is arguably the Luke 22:36 passage.
"Conservatives do not like bankers, Republicans do"
Aren't most Republicans conservatives?
"There's a reason the Tea party has gained a following"
The Tea Party opposes regulating the banks, raising taxes on bankers and often opposes the govt prosecuting them for their crimes....
"spends all of it's time stealing from others"
As opposed to conservatives who have no problem with the Rich spending all of their time stealing from others to make themselves richer? Even stealing from us by bribing the government to give them our tax dollars?
BTW, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar". So, Jesus wouldn't want you trying to get out of paying your taxes. You're not living up to your Savior's teachings.
"to enslave the poor "
In what way?
"instead of, ya know, /actually helping them"
So if the government provides services or temporary assistance to the poor, it's "enslaving them". But if charity does the same it's "helping them"? How does that make any fucking sense at all? How is helping them maintain a roof over their heads, feed their kids, have medical care and put food on the table "enslaving" them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Untrue. Quakers, most Buddhists NDEs Jains, Baha'is, Sufis, etc. generally aren't calling for bigotry. "Religion" is an incredibly broad subject. Saying "Religion demands bigotry" is like saying "Science demands unethical experiments" and using the Tuskegee Experiment as proof. Religion is as broad a topic as Math, Science, Politics, Art, Music, Literature, Economics, Philosophy, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sperg Furgerson - "there's no need to just randomly assault him"
Defending yourself is not random assault. Assault is when you attack a person who is not bothering you and doesn't pose any kind of threat. Continually pursuing someone who doesn't want to be bothered and is obviously trying to get away from you is bothering someone (Harassment). It would only become assault if you told the person you're harassing that you're now done and will leave them alone, and attempt to leave and that person attacks anyway after having been told this.
Anyways, so your advice to your kid if some random stranger followed them for 7 minutes in an unmarked car after dark, then got out on foot to pursue him/her when they ran away would be to "See what the man wants. Stick around and talk to him."? I doubt it. I think any reasonable person realizes that's not normal behavior. A person who is not up to anything would have announced themselves to you, not try to stalk you from a distance under cover of darkness for several minutes, then chase you without identifying themselves to you. Would your advice to your children be for them to run home?
1) What if the man catches up to your kid? What then? He can't defend himself? It's possible GZ may have caught up to TM (if Rachel Jeantel heard what she claims).
2) When a stranger is trying to follow your kid home, professional advice is tell your kid to NOT go home. If they go home then the stranger knows where they (and you) live. In Stranger Danger we teach kids when a strange adult won't stop following them they should run, scream, call the police, hide and/or go to a neighbor's house.
"looking over all the evidence"
The jurors in the OJ Simpson trial looked over all the evidence too. I'm sure you don't agree with their conclusion. This trial was similar. Half the jurors felt (and still believe) GZ is guilty. They felt they couldn't convict him the way the jury instructions were explained to them (Judge Nelson allowed SYG instructions to be read to them despite GZ not using SYG as a defense). I think the trial needs to be reviewed, several points of it seem legally shifty. Like what I just mentioned. In the OJ Simpson case, similarly, jurors felt they couldn't convict him despite feeling he was guilty because the prosecution messed up by attempting to plant evidence against a guilty man and thus introducing reasonable doubt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MaxwellBennett - "The IQ gap between Whites and Blacks has remained"
False. Originally the black-white IQ gap was estimated to be 18-20 points when it was first discovered in the 1930s and 40s. By the 1970s and 80s, the time the data from "The Bell Curve" was culled, it had decreased to 15 points. By the 2000s it has decreased to 7-10 points:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_iq.pdf
The current white average is 100 (always is) and the current black average is widely estimated to be between 90-93. Even racialists like Jensen and Rushton admitted the black average had at least increased to 87-88.
"The discussion of race is only allowed to follow the liberal narrative"
You're freely voicing your disagreement right now. No one's stopping you. No one stops Jared Taylor, J. Philippe Ruston, Richard Lyn, Arthur Jensen, Murray, Herrnstein, Kanazawa, etc. either. You and your ilk (the people named above) getting your asses empirically handed to you is not silencing you. Debunking you is not censorship.
James Flynn, Richard Nisbett, Stephen J. Gould, C. Loring Brace, Jelte Wicherts, Dickens, C. Loring Brace, Dolan, Tim Wise, etc. aren't censoring anyone.
"which is blame whites for everything"
Such as what? Who says the average white person is oppressing the average black person and that the black community has no faults or problems? In contrast I've yet to see many white conservatives admit to the white community having problems.
"and never hold blacks responsible for their behaviour"
Yep. We never hear rants about how black people are supposedly out of control or hear social and political leaders talk about change for the black community. Never mind the Million Man March, State of the Black Union Addresses, NAACP rallies, etc....
"exists because blacks commit more crimes"
1) Most criminals in the US are not black. 70% of arrested persons in the US are white. Whites are simply much more likely to get off than blacks because they're more likely to have connections or be able to afford good lawyers. Blacks are more likely to take plea bargains or not have good lawyers. 70% of arrested persons are white but only 30-32% of inmates are white.
2) Your claim is only true for some crimes. There are more black robbers per capita (still don't make up the majority of robbers) but there are more white marijuana users per capita. Blacks still get locked up for marijuana possession more ANYWAY.
I've yet to see you address the fact blacks use drugs at the same rate as whites yet get locked up more for it thanks to the War on Drugs. You gonna stop dodging?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exactly. I have no problems with "Classical" atheist authors like Sagan, Russell, Asimov, Marx, Schopenauer, Nietschze, Voltaire, d'Holbach, Popper, etc. These guys were very philosophically literate/knowledgeable and critiqued Religion and Theism from a place of understanding, as Reza Aslan put it. They were often religious scholars and accomplished in many fields of philosophy, anthropology, history, etc. They could make their criticisms highly specific and tended to avoid over-generalizing, self-righteous moralizing, Strawman arguments, sophomoric snark and juvenile trolling/proseltyzing/demagoguery. While a couple of the Neo-Atheist authors have some philosophical background (Dennett and to a lesser extent Sam Harris) for the most part most of them are just scientists or academians in fields completely unrelated to Religion, Anthropology, History, Psychology, Philosophy, etc. and have no real education in those fields, and it shows. They think because they're experts in science or literature that they're automatically experts on whatever subject they open their mouths about. It'd be like hearing a Medical Doctor wax poetic about German Expressionism and claiming his medical expertise gives him special Art insight, or listening to Elton John pretend to be an Engineering expert because he's a musical genius. A lot of Neo-Atheists are Scientismists (believers in Scientism) who believe any intellectual pursuits outside of Physical Sciences are worthless anyway and don't bother to familiarize themselves with it, despite the fact those fields are critical to Religion analysis, not so much Physical Sciences. I think Neo-Atheism is to the intellectual Atheism of old like Prosperity and Born-Again megachurches are to intellectual Christianity and Theism of old like Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Whitehead, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, Paul Tillich, Maimonides, Kalam, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nova Ky - This sounded like a manifesto-type rant but had a few pints sandwiched between melodrama, generalizations and some inaccuracies. Women only get paid more in a few industries. On average women tend to get paid 4-10% less for the same jobs, even working the same hours and having the same education level. I'm not at all fond of 3rd wave Feminists (never heard of 4th wave), but I haven't seen any demand equal wages for less work. Their demand is "equal pay for equal work" (this is actually from 2nd wavers). Women get paid lower starting salaries on average, even in jobs with non-negotiable salaries, and tend to get penalized for motherhood while men tend to get promoted for fatherhood. That's the main Feminist contention. As for bomb threats, Feminist conferences get bomb threats all the time as well (look at Anita Sarkeesian, though I think she's insufferable). Plenty of forums and figures in the Manosphere every bit as radical as any RadFem. As for Rape, Feminists were some of the main ones pushing for changing the legal definition of "Rape" to take out gender (you can see Ms. Magazine congratulating the FBI in 2012 for including men as victims of Rape). MRAs, like Feminists, are full of bullshit and hypocrisy as well. Like claiming 50% of rape allegations are false, that women almost always get custody, don't complain about the ungodly amount of money that goes into Men's College Sports and male-dominated STEM fields, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chocolateking1 - There's a notable difference in how Bill treats Christians, Jews and Muslims. Bill almost never criticizes Jews or Judaism, and when he does it's very light. He's an open Zionist and supports Netanyahu, a Zionist murderer and war criminal as bad as any Islamist leader. Bill criticizes Christians, but never claims Jesus was a bad guy or that Christianity is inherently evil. He purports to kinda like Jesus. Bill thinks Muhammad was a psycho (though Muhammad is honestly no worse than Moses or Joshua, he never calls them psychos) and thinks Islam is a special evil worse or inherently more evil than other religions. He consigned Sam Harris' "motherlode of bad ideas" sentiment, imolying Islam is the worst thing ever ("mother lode of bad ideas"). Bill also supports racial/ethnic profiling of anyone who seems/"looks" Arab or Muslim or Middle Eastern-y. He fears Muslims will somehow bring America to its knees. He expressed fear at the fact "Muhammad" was the most common baby name in the UK in 2013. That's beyond criticism, that's straight phobia. Bill has never expressed fear at Christians or Jews reproducing faster than other people, or supported profiling Christians or Jews. Or Hindus (despite the Hindutva movement). Or Buddhists (despite Buddhist violence). He's a soft Neocon. Not as bad as Sam Harris, Pat Condell, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or the late Hitchens, but still one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Kevin Kirkham - 1) This is due to old patriarchal traditions. As patriarchal society is coming to an end in the 20th and 21st century, in 1st world countries (not so much 3rd world ones), there are fewer women holding to this mentality.There are still a lot of women who do (too many) but many who don't.
2a) Then men are part of the problem. If a man feels useless if a woman earns more than him, then he's just compounding the problem and urging women to be hypergamous in the first place. A man like that sounds like a loser or very, very insecure. I don't feel worthless if a woman is more educated than me or earns more than I do. Women need men for things other than money. Goddamn! They need things like companionship, intimacy, etc.
2b) So what's your solution? Make sure women get paid less, attend college less or stay at home?
3) False rape allegations only make up 8% of all rape allegations and the vast, vast majority of men are never accused of rape. There are nearly 160,000,000 males in the US, there are only around 8,000 rape reports per year. I've never been accused of rape in college. Then again, I never did something stupid like screwing around with passed-out drunk chicks at parties to put myself in such a predicament. I've slept with more than one woman in life, never been accused of Rape once. Not even close.
4) I agree that I hate it when people want to be taken care of, but your complaint in #2 encourages women to do exactly that. You bemoan women being more educated than men or making more money than men, saying it renders men worthless. So, what do you expect? You want women to stop earning more and stop being more educated or stop competing with men for jobs, that means they'll be stay-at-home moms. You want to complain about Independent women in the workplace and college, but then you complain about women being financially dependent upon a husband/boyfriend. Make up your mind! Should women be Independent or Dependent? If you want women to not be Independent, then get used to supporting them as Betty Homemakers. If you want to live like Ward Cleaver then pay for a household on one income like Ward Cleaver.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AsifIcarebear3 - "And for the umpteenth time, if even one single incident is avoided, I'll be happy."
Good for you. But unlike you I'm concerned about utility.
"Wrong"
Right.
"I did, in fact, through various conversations"
What part about "original" do you not get, mongo?
"I've spelled it out in minute detail why the extreme example is a very effective tool"
Except it isn't, dumbass. It's an exercise in remote possibilities. Remote possibilities are not effective because they're just that - remote. It's as useful as pondering what's the highest number a mind can conceive of besides Infinity.
"calm your tits"
Why? Your bitch ass scared now?
"I never claimed it's impossible to lower your risk of rape"
Nor did I. Can you read? Thus, your examples were worth less than shit.
"why the extreme example is useful"
And I've explained, in excruciating detail, why mental exercises about remote possibilities does little earthly good. Because it's just that - remote and extreme. It does no good other than testing limits of reason, which has little to do with utility.
"where they don't think that a girl could ever increase her risk of rape"
And it's technically possible that a black hole could form in front your face one day. Now what the fuck good does that knowledge do? How is it "extremely useful", you dumb shit?
"The extreme example is used to show the extreme idiots that their extreme black/white world view is wrong."
GOOD JOB. YOU JUST CONFIRMED WHAT I'D BEEN SAYING - THAT IT'S NOT GOOD FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN REMOTE EXTREME POSSIBILITIES AND HAS NO USEFULNESS TO THE AVERAGE PERSON.
Good job, dunce!
"As I've said time and time again, if even 1 single rape can be avoided, why is what I'm promoting bad again?"
I never said it was "bad". Just not useful. At worst it can give some people the impression that it is useful for most or many situations. That's it's biggest problem. People generally expect advice to be commonly useful.
"Says the guy who quite literally added nothing whatsoever to the discussion"
Except I pointed out the fact that:
1) Your analogy is worthless.
2) Discussing why rapists feel the need to rape or feel they can get away with it is much more useful.
In just those 2 sentences I did more earthly good than you did. Now fuck outta here.
"My answer: yes. Feminazis: no. Feminazis are wrong, I intend to show them why."
Good job, fedora-wearing neckbeard. You exposed an extreme minority position as being as useless as your advice. XD
1
-
AsifIcarebear3 - "Aaaw, you didn't get it anyway"
Except I did, dumbass.
"The extreme example illustrates why the black and white world view is mistaken"
1) Except no one was arguing for a black and white world, dumbshit.
2) An extreme example doesn't even prove the world isn't black and white, actually. There is a very remote possibility the Sun could suddenly explode or a black hole form on Earth randomly. Do those remote possibilities invalidate statements like "The Sun wouldn't blow up" or "Black holes wouldn't form on a planet"? No. Because the chances of that happening are like 0.00000000000000000001%. Chances that small hardly need recognition in common parlance.
"If you don't calm you tits, you'll also lose your cool, and then we enter a whole other level of stupid"
That makes no fucking sense. You don't enter intelligence levels based on mood. Good job ironically displaying your (already-apparent) retardation even more.
"Nor did I."
Never said you did, dumbass. Read.
"Your insipid and asinine examples"
Which is precisely what "extreme examples" are. They add nothing to the conversation.
"Look here, asshole"
Aww. Don't be so mad at me! XD
"3) these people must be shown that there are grey areas."
An extreme example is not really a gray area. For things to be gray they usually have to be realistic. An extreme example is not realistic.
There is a chance a person could randomly turn into a can of gasoline. That's useless information because it's unrealistic (though remotely possible, quantum mechanically-speaking).
"There are more than enough people who think the world is black and white on this issue"
And your example really does nothing to dispel that. What are the chance of an extreme example happening? Not very good. Congrats!
"And I repeat: if even 1 rape is avoided, it is useful."
That's if. You haven't proven your if to be a reality, dumbass.
You're doing an Endzone dance at the 99-yard line.
1
-
1
-
AsifIcarebear3 - "Oh fucking jesus tittylicious christ. Firstly: extreme advice can be used practically"
ahem
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practical
"prac·ti·cal (prăk′tĭ-kəl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand.
2. Manifested in or involving practice: practical applications of calculus.
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work; practicing.
4. Capable of or suitable to being used or put into effect; useful:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extreme
"ex·treme (ĭk-strēm′)
adj.
1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field.
2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
3. Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See Synonyms at excessive.
4. Of the greatest severity; drastic: took extreme measures to conserve fuel.....
........
1. being of a high or of the highest degree or intensity: extreme cold; extreme difficulty.
2. exceeding what is usual or reasonable; immoderate: extreme behaviour."
Thanks for shooting your own point in the foot, dumbass.
"An extreme advice could be: "never, ever sign something without reading it"
That's a black & white mentality. What you just said we should seek to avoid......
Jesus H, man. Jesus H. You defeat your points better than I do. XD
"I was referring to my advice on how people should take reasonable precautions to avoid being the victim of a crime."
"Extreme" and "Reasonable" don't really go together. Get it now, mongo?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MexicantGame - Theres as much evidence against Zimmerman as OJ. For Zimmerman they have Zimmerman admitting to Harassment, they have him misleading the police about his whereabouts, they have him changing his story several times (some media even tried to blame his changing story on head trauma), you have 3 witnesses placing him on top at various times, admitting he took his gun out of the glovebox, voice analysts agreeing the screaming is not from Zimmerman, Zimmerman himself admitting the voice doesn't sound like him, Rachel Jeantel hearing Zimmerman shove Trayvon, no one actually seeing any head slamming or pummeling of Zimmerman (John Good said he didn't see actual contact), the physical impossibility of Zimmerman being able to scream if Trayvon was smothering his mouth and nose like he claims, doctors testifying his injuries were minor and didn't match his testimony, having none of the effects Dr. DI Maio listed from head slamming, Dr. Di Maio admitting Trayvon could have been standing and backing away when shot, no hair, skin, blood, saliva or DNA evidence of Trayvon grabbing Zimmerman's head or gun, the hoodie drawstring facing Zimmerman's free hand being pulled fully taut indicating Zimmerman might have tried to prevent Trayvon from leaving, Zimmerman admitting he had no intention of letting Trayvon get away, etc. Like all Zimmerman DICK-LICKERS you vickers simply ignore any and every piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. His story was not "proven" any more than OJ's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Azraelseraphim - Uh, no, that's not what "herbivore" men are. In Japan, "herbivore men" refers to what we in the US call "Incels" and Fedora/Neckbeard types. Basically Weeaboos, Otakus, Fedoras, Bronies, Gamer addicts, etc. Those types of guys. In Japan they're also called "Hikkikomori" (basically "Shut-In") because they completely wall themselves off in their room or house/apartment and withdraw from society and obsess on a particular geeky, fantasy-based hobby. Like the stereotype of WoW and Minecraft players. Similar to what we in America call "Basement-Dwellers". You seem eager to cast American/Western social conservative criticism of "Metrosexual" men and Independent Women onto this problem (the type of people who believe we'd all be fine if men went back to being like Ralph Kramden or Ari Gold or guys from "Mad Men" and women went back to being Betty Homemaker and June Cleaver), but that's not it. In Japan, "metro" men are often seen as highly attractive and desirable. That's why a good number of male celebs and pop idols in Japan are effeminate "pretty boys".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sk8bow - "so if a person had an accident, smashed their skull and the person's behavior changes, thus changing the person's life for the worse,.....
does that mean the person deserved it or that god works in mysterious ways?"
I'd say it's Cause and Effect. Not really a matter of a person "deserving it" or not.
"shitty things happen to good people and good things happen to evil people and visa versa. that's nature."
Agreed.
"if anything, we should be more concerned about how we take care of this earth, our real caretaker."
You'l get no arguments from me. I'm in total agreement so far.
"to me, believing in god is cop out so you have a reason to ignore the problems we have now"
Certainly for some people it is. For many it isn't. People believe in a deity for a variety of reasons. For some it's about comfort. For some it's a consequence of their existential worldview. For some it's simply a result of their belief that to them the Universe appears to be designed by an intelligence. Sort of like for some atheism is simply a result of believing the Universe doesn't appear to be meaningfully designed.
It's entirely possible to believe in a "god" and not ignore problems we have now. Like MLK, Gandhi, etc. I'd argue that Jesus, the figures Christians claim to follow, seemed overall far more concerned with life in this world than in the next (he didn't speak much about the afterlife at all).
"let go of your guilt"
What guilt?
"let go of your old ways, and don't think about god."
You sure do presume a lot about people. Who said I was a Christian or a theist?
"learn how to live right"
Who says I'm not doing that already? Sorry, but that last part kind of reminds me of the presumptuous attitude that a lot of religious Evangelicals have. That people are not "living right" unless they follow their particular religion, religious figure, deity or worldview.
1
-
***** - "I'll concede that you made valid points the moment you have evidence to support your claims"
1) I'm not really making a claim other than denying that consciousness has been proven to be synonymous to neural correlates, which is a claim YOU made but didn't back up.
I'm not proposing I can explain exactly what consciousness is. Only that science has no current consensus. Certainly not across disciplines. I've already proven that there isn't a strong consensus. I'm not trying to prove any particular theories alternative to yours true.
2) There is evidence of other theories, they were mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Mind.E2.80.93body_problem
The evidence is not conclusive, however.
"When you find evidence of a consciousness without a brain"
I already pointed out some claimed incidents:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/19/health.mentalhealth
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98447
"Philosophy is great when it comes to discussing matters of morality, laws or artistic achievements, but it has nothing to do with what is right and wrong, scientifically."
Agreed. Though occasionally it does get it right in the latter area without being able to empirically prove it first. Like the philosophical notion among Indians and Greeks of the Atom, which later turned out to be scientifically true (or partially true, atoms are not indivisible like Greeks and some Indians assumed).
"Things like fear, anger, love, happiness, these are all processes of the brain"
Certainly they're correlated with brain activity. To date no scientist has been able to prove they come entirely from the brain, or been able to artificially create thoughts in humans or create anger out of nothing.
"You can give people chemicals or social therapy to induce or suppress these feelings."
Inducing and suppressing are not creating or destroying.
"Memories are held in the brain, and physical damage to the brain can erase or change memories.
Our senses of touch, smell, sight, sound and taste are all processes linked directly to the brain. Damaging the brain can alter, instill or remove these sensations and our recollection of these sensations."
In total agreement. This doesn't prove they're simply a product of chemicals and electricity in the brain. Again, no one is arguing (at least I'm not) that these things are 100% independent from the physical brain. You're arguing against an argument I'm not making.
"Every single aspect of who you are can be directly associated to physical processes of your organ known as the brain."
Now that's false. Many aspects of the human personality and human consciousness have never been associated to any specific process(es) of the brain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
No one has ever been able to change someone's mind for their favorite color to be red instead of blue. Or been able to medically alter a person's personality to a specific other personality. Or been able to make someone stop liking pizza (except maybe by way of psychological trauma). Or been able to explain what causes a person to like Rock but hate Rap.
"When you die, you will not have a brain, and thus your memories will be gone, your ability to feel, touch, smell, taste and see will be gone."
Certainly your physical senses are gone and the cells that store memory are gone. Does that mean all of consciousness stops? No, it doesn't prove that since we don't know exactly how consciousness starts to begin with or exactly where it comes from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - That's a half-truth. There are some leftists like that, however, the majority of modern leftists do not like Lenin or Mao (especially Mao). Most leftists in the West typically like Trotsky, sometimes Che (who is only about as authoritarian as some US Presidents in the 19th century), Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels, Pyotr Kropotkin, etc. over Mao, Stalin and Lenin.
Leftist love of Mao and Stalin these days is about as common as leftist love of Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il, not that common.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leroy Harold - Well, Clinton did defend her Iraq War vote by saying the War was "a good business opportunity" and thought the same about Libya. You seem like a good man and I believe you have good intentions, but I believe you're projecting your own good, benign nature or intentions onto Hillary. I think she's more devious and cynical than you seem to believe she is. In 2006 she even sided with Republicans and supported bombing Iran. She was opposed to the Iran Nuclear Deal, the only reason it got passed was because Obama replaced her with John Kerry as SoS. Had Obama kept her, we might never have gotten the deal. Her record shows a consistent hawkish and militaristic bent with her. She even said on tape we should have rigged Palestine's Election. This is standard Neocon thinking: an obsession with regime change and deposing Assad, support of war against Iran, a desire for boots on the ground in Syria, a desire to escalate NATO and saber-rattle with Russia and China (she threatened military action against China for their South China Sea military buildup). She even cackled heartlessly on camera about Gaddafi being sodomized and murdered. I'm sorry, but Hillary is not a John Kerry. I think she's a Joe Lieberman type of Democrat. I don't trust Putin further than I could throw him and I want him out of power in Russia, but he's a vital partner against ISIS for the time being and I'd rather do diplomacy to stop his expansion rather than escalate militarily as a first response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - Actually, it's a rejection. Unless you're talking about Implicit Atheism. Explicit Atheists of all stripes have a concept of a "god" and reject it as something real. Not believing something is still a rejection, and thus still a position.
Agnostic Apatheism would be closer to a complete lack of a position.
"Just like you can be attracted to males/ females/ both/ animals/ kids/ certain objects and what not, you can belief in all different kinds of gods"
True, but being attracted to kids and animals is not the same as being straight or gay. What I was referring to is that people can also be Bisexual, Pansexual, Asexual, etc. Not just Heterosexual or Homosexual. Likewise they can be more than just Theist or Atheist.
"But, just like you either are attracted to something, or you are not attracted to anything at all, you either believe in any kind of deity or you do not"
That's false. Maybe you find this hard to believe, having a position, but not everyone has made a decision to accept or reject the existence of deities. Just like not everyone has an opinion that a movie is a good or bad movie, not everyone has decided to accept or reject deities. Yeah. Not everyone has chosen a "side".
"Agnosticism (which includes ignosticism and apatheism) is a totally different matter"
Ignosticism and Apatheism are not considered varieties of Agnosticism. I don't know of any philosopher or theologian who classifies them that way. Agnosticism considers "god" a valid word. Ignosticism does not. Apatheism doesn't care about the conversation at all. Agnosticism cares enough to take a position.
"Beliefing that debating about god is useless, because there is not universal definition and believing that gods supposedly existence is irrelevant, doesn't say anything about whether or not you belief that there is a god"
If they don't even think the word "god" is a clear and valid word how would they have a position on it? Ignostics basically view the question "Do you believe in God?" like asking someone "Do you believe in Blahbogligablenochip?" They're like "What? Explain what that's supposed to even mean." You have to know what something is first before you can intelligibly accept or reject it.
"You are born an atheist"
That's Implicit Atheism. That's different from Explicit Atheism. Babies are atheist in the same sense that babies are also apolitical and asexual. An adult atheist and a baby are both atheist in a significantly difference sense. Just like a celibate adult who doesn't masturbate either and a baby are both asexual for different reasons.
"It doesn't matter if there is a clear definition for god or not. If you belief in a god you have a definition"
You contradicted yourself in the span of 2 sentences. By definition that DOES make it matter whether or not you have a clear definition of "God" since you can't reject or accept something until you know what it is first. If you have a belief in a god you'll have a definition. If you lack a belief in a god you'll have a definition unless you're an Implicit Atheist. If you've heard of gods but view the word as nonsensical or undefined you won't have or lack a belief. Just like I couldn't tell you if I do or don't believe in "Iihqopaiore". I have no clue what that is. For all I know it could be something I already believe in (once you define it), but right now it's just garble.
"you must first acknowledge its existence. And thus both would be theistic"
True, but with that analogy I wasn't strictly speaking about Ignostics. Some people know what Napoleon Dynamite is and have seen it, but have no opinion on it (like Apatheists). Or have no opinion because they haven't watched it (like Ignostics).
1
-
***** - "Still in both cases you are an atheist"
True. However, some people are neither an Implicit or Explicit Atheist but don't claim to be a Theist either.
"Well, Wikipedia does"
I'm sorry but it doesn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
"Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism, while others have considered it to be distinct."
"In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical. Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful. Given the meaninglessness of theistic claims, Ayer opined that there was "no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science",as theism alone does not entail any propositions which the scientific method can falsify."
"What is important is that none of the three take any position in regards to believe in the existence of a deity."
Well, none of the 3 take a "Yes" or "No" position. Their positions on the "Do you believe in a God?" question are:
Agnostic: That's a good question, but I'm not sure.
*Agnostic Atheist: Probably not, but I don't know. I lack a belief but I could be wrong.
*Agnostic Theist: Probably, but I don't know. I lack a disbelief in God/I believe in a God but I could be wrong.
*Neutral Agnostic: I can't say either way. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Apatheist: I don't really care one way or the other.
Ignostic: What do you mean?
"You can believe that something exists but is irrelevant"
That would be Apatheism. An apatheist can believe a god exists but that it's irrelevant. An ignostic doesn't even know what you mean by "god" to know if one exists or not.
"If you say one can not be an ignosticist and a theist, then every ignosticist is an atheist, for you say they can not believe in any deity"
To be an atheist you have to reject the concept that a deity exists. Ignostics haven't done that.
Just like if you ask me "Do you like goodness?" and I answer "What do you mean?" That doesn't mean "No". I simply don't know what you're talking about. If you explain it sufficient I might very well find I already believe in it. Same with Ignostics and "God".
"doesn't mean that you are excluded from believing or not believing in what this word describes"
You are until that word is defined first. Just like you can't call me an "a-goodist" (someone who doesn't believe in "goodness") just because I didn't know what you meant when you asked me if I believe in goodness.
A person has to understand something, or have an idea of what you're talking about, before they can be classified as a believer or disbeliever.
"Once you explain the meaning of the word you may can give an answer, but that doesn't change your belief"
True, but that "belief" could still be "I don't know". Not everyone has an opinion on the issue. I'm not sure why you find it a difficult concept that not everyone has an opinion on "god's" existence or lack thereof.
"Then everybody who does not like it is an atheist"
Napoleon is a very specific, unambiguous thing (a historic person). Not a vague concept (God).
It would be more akin to asking people if they believe in "awesomeness" - yet another vague concept that has differing definitions from person to person.
"Still, they must either be theists or atheist"
Only if they say "Yes" or "No". If their answer is "No comment" or "I don't know" that doesn't count as theist or atheist. Otherwise you're just now attempting to redefine the words "theist" and "atheist" to shoehorn things into them.
1
-
***** - I just quoted where it disagreed with you, man. Did you read my post? Well, at least, there are many who don't view it as a form of Agnosticism.
"If you answer "Yes", you obviously are a theist. If you do answer anything else (as long as you understand the question), you are an atheist."
Untrue. An atheist rejects gods or has no concept of them. Those other positions are not a rejection. It's like saying if your answer to "Do you like pepperoni pizza?" is anything other than "Yes" then you don't like it.
Now you're trying to redefine the word "atheism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism"
None of these other positions are a rejection of the concept of deities or a position that there are none.
I think what you're going for here is "non-theism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-theism
Atheism does not mean "anything that isn't theism". That's what the word "non-theist" means. Non-theism includes Ignosticism, Apatheism, Deism, etc. Atheism does not. So, yes, an Ignostic is a Non-Theist but not an Atheist specifically. At least until you define "God" for them. Then they might express an Atheistic or a Theistic opinion.
There's also Pantheism, which some theologians and philosophers consider a separate position from theism, deism and atheism since Pantheism includes all of these. There are theistic, deistic and atheistic (naturalistic pantheism) varieties of pantheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
and spin-offs of theistic pantheism such as Panentheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
Then there's the issue of "Transtheism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheistic
"If you haven't made up your mind, you DO NOT believe in the existence of god."
False. That's like saying because I don't have an opinion on Hawaiian pizza that I do not like it. You have to have made up your mind in order to not believe. Unless you've just never heard (like an Implicit Atheist).
"And then he would be a theistic apatheist."
Correct. If he disbelieves he's an atheistic apatheist. If he hasn't made up his mind he's neutral. Not a atheist or an atheist.
"doesn't mean that they are neither atheist nor theist."
If they can't be classified then, by definition, they can't be either a theist or an atheist. The same way you can't claim something living an unknown is an animal. It would have to be known about to some degree to be an animal.
"It is either dead or it is not"
Dead and Alive are dualistic states. Opinions are not.
You can not have an opinion on something. You can't not be alive or dead. You can kinda like something. You can't be kinda pregnant.
"You either do believe in something that other people define as god, or you don't.
If you believe in something"
By that definition almost everyone is a "theist", including most atheists. In some definitions the physical universe can be seen as "God". By that definition most atheists would actually be "theists".
"but you still either belief or lack the belief in something that fits the general definition of a deity"
The problem is there is no true "general definition". Definition of "God" vary as much as definitions of what classifies as "fun".
"Society has a set of criteria that define something as a deity"
Which society? Eastern society would have quite a different "set of criteria" to define a deity than Western society, for example.
Also, society doesn't set definitions of words.
1
-
***** - "Absence of belief doesn't require rejection"
Not in Implicit Atheism, no. But ALL forms of Explicit Atheism require rejection since all forms of Explicit Atheism know what a "God" is, or believe they do, and do not accept it. That's a rejection. To reject something is not accept it as true. It doesn't mean to proclaim you know for a fact that it's false.
"As long as you do not actively hold the belief that a deity exist, you lack that belief."
And that's a rejection:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reject
"to refuse to believe, accept, or consider (something)"
"Why are you arguing that atheism is the rejection of belief in an deities, when you already accept the concept of implicit atheism?"
Right now I'm just talking about Explicit Atheism, which is the most common type. Implicit Atheism is not common among adults since most adults on Earth have heard of a god-concept at some point in their lives.
"And yes if you have no opinion on a pizza, you do not like it"
True, but you don't dislike it either. You haven't rejected it.
"The problem here is our language, were not liking can mean to actually find it distasteful, were the literal meaning of the word simply is that you do not find it tasty."
Agreed.
"Similarly, if you do not have any concept of god, you do not believe in any god, but that does not equal to believe in its nonexistence."
That would only be if you are an Implicit Atheist. Most Ignostics, Apatheists, etc. are not Implicit Atheists. They've heard of god-concepts and simply have an opinion on the issue that isn't a "Yes" or "No". You don't have to have a "Yes" or "No" opinion on anything, really.
"Really? Then who does"
What I should say is that society doesn't get to redefine words however they like. Society can't redefine "hot" to mean "cold".
"But neither is there a "true" definition of any of the other words we used in this discussion."
The words "Theism" and "Atheism" have a much more well-defined and universally understood definition than the term "God". Especially the word "theism". There is no way which a person who does not believe in any gods could meaningfully be called a "theist", is there? The term "God" could mean anything ranging from a man in the sky with powers to simply the physical universe itself.
"But still we understand each other"
No, we don't always understand each other. If a Hindu talks about "God" chances are he means something much different than what a Jew or Muslim is talking about. When Albert Einstein talks about "God" he means something much different than what a Christian means by that word.
"So what?"
See above. There is no singular definition of "God". That's the "so what".
"If you believe gravity is a deity"
Bad comparison. There is only one definition of gravity. There are nearly endless definitions of "God". Just like there are nearly endless definitions of "fun". Gravity is a scientific term. "God" is not. Neither is "fun".
"But that doesn't change the fact that people either believe in that something or they do not."
I'm sure there are people out there who do not have an opinion on your unique redefinition of "Gravity".
"It can't include both theism and atheism"
It does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism
Naturalistic Pantheism is an atheistic form of Pantheism. It holds that the physical universe and its laws could be considered "God", but not in a religious sense since they believe the Universe is not alive and has no will or consciousness. Theistic Pantheists believe the Universe is God but that it's not necessarily all matter/physical, they believe it has a consciousness and some even believe it has a will:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
"Gods exist"
That's not what Transtheism is positing. It posits that such a thing is beyond existing or not existing. You obviously did not read the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transtheism
A good example would be the Jain take on "God":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism
"If their doubt of god goes so far"
They doubt your definition of "God" and your definition of "existence".
"Wrong, if it can't be classified as an animal, it may still be one"
May is not an is.
"But that does not mean that those that are animal, aren't animals"
Some of them will turn out to be plants, fungi and other microbes. Thus not animals. But you're getting beside the point.
"They are not dependent upon being discovered to be what they are.
They are either animals or they are not."
Technically "animal" is a concept invented by humans. We could decide that Mammals are "Animals" and Reptiles are "Gubials" (made up a term) if we wanted. It's a concept.
Likewise, someone does not have to have an opinion on any given issue. That is where you err, claiming everyone has to have an opinion on an issue. They most certainly don't. People also don't have to agree with your definition of "God" or "existence" as you do not hold a patent on either one of those concepts.
"What you are proposing is, that somebody who never said what he thinks about god is outside the spectrum"
What would you define as "god"? You may consider him to not think about "god" while he may disagree with you depending on how one defines "god".
What I'm proposing is that someone may be aware of different definitions of "god" and have no solid opinion on the matter. Just like someone can be aware of a movie's existence or have seen a movie and have no real opinion on the movie.
"is outside the spectrum"
No, you're proposing that there is no spectrum. You're proposing that it's a binary, I'm proposing that belief is a spectrum.
"His beliefs are not dependent on your understanding and knowledge of them."
Oh the irony. That applies to you here, not me. Because you don't understand anything other than Theism and Atheism does not mean his beliefs are dependent on your ignorance of other concepts. In other words, because you don't know much about things other than strict Theism and Atheism does not mean he can only fit into those.
"Before we had this discussion, I was already an atheist, even though you could not classify me as one, because you had no knowledge about me."
I never denied that. And before this conversation I was already Ignostic and remain one. So far you have yet to classify me as a Theist or an Atheist because you have yet to define "God" for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christopher Jones - I agree. I guess I was more reacting to popular trends in Secular Humanism than the actual ideology itself. Unfortunately a lot of modern Humanists, since the Hippie Movement in the 60s, have adopted this view that Human nature is actually inherently benign and that our evil is all or mostly taught. I disagree with that view because many if not most of our evil tendencies shows clearly in infancy and early childhood without any evidence of having been taught to us. Such as our selfish crying, our disregard for the lives of others, our urges to destroy other life out of curiosity or amusement (kids killing bugs and birds), etc.
I think it's only through intervention from ethical authority figures (parents, teachers, peers, counselors, etc.), constant external criticism, constant self-criticism and self-evaluation, and higher thought that we eventually partly free ourselves from these terrible natural passions. That and self-discipline and dedication to a higher universal code of ethics. I guess you could say I'm a modern-day Stoic in that sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** - To be sure, there ARE genetic groupings among humans. However, these genetic groupings don't amount to "Races" because:
1) A "Race", taxonomically-speaking, would be a group that is morphologically homogeneous, has its own private evolution and common ancestor distinct form other populations, and its members are more genetically similar to each other than to outside groups. This does not apply to continental groups of humans. All humans are overall more genetically similar to people from other populations than they are to members of their own population. Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. don't have their own separate and private evolutions. Humans have constantly migrated and intermixed throughout the entirety of human history. There is no morphological type that is unique only to "whites" or "blacks", etc. That and human genetic gradient changes clinally rather than cladistically:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Hence why scientists avoid using terms like "Race" because the concept doesn't fit the reality and complexity of genetic, cladistics and Haplogroups. Humans that don't look much alike phenotypically can often be very close in genotype. Chadic-speaking West Africans and most West Europeans both belong to the R1b Y-DNA Haplogroup whereas most East Europeans don't.
At most, the term "Race" can maybe loosely be applied to craniofacial types. Even then it wouldn't neatly correspond with genetic types. Ethiopians and Somalis would be "Caucasoid" because of their phenotypical features but genetically they're less genetically distant from Sudanese people than they are from Germans. Russians would be "Caucasoid" even though genetically they're often closer to Asiatic peoples.
1
-
***** - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#Response_to_Edwards
"Witherspoon et al. conclude that, "Since an individual's geographic ancestry can often be inferred from his or her genetic makeup, knowledge of one's population of origin should allow some inferences about individual genotypes. To the extent that phenotypically important genetic variation resembles the variation studied here, we may extrapolate from genotypic to phenotypic patterns. [...] However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes", and warn that, "A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
stephenbarry14w - "No they do not"
Yes they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29
"They are just forced to say so because if they do not, the left wing s like you accuse them of being racist and destroy them"
Horseshit.
Here we go. When right-wing racists and racialists can't back up their bullshit with science their last resort is to appeal to bullshit tinfoil hat conspiracy theories they cannot back up either.
1) Present evidence that tens of thousands of scientists around the world are being forced or coerced into silence about "the truth" by some vast political cabal. Who is this "left wing" cabal? How are they forcing these scientists to do anything? How will they "destroy" them? Who funds their means to do so?
2) Where is this magical evidence that proves race exists and that there is a hierarchy of racists? Who is hiding it? How do racialists supposedly know about it if this supposed vast left-wing conspiracy is hiding the "real data"? Who's leaking "the truth"?
3) Why do the minority of scientists who believe that race exists and that there is a hierarchy of races (like J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen, Satoshi Kanazawa, etc.) still have a job in the scientific fields if this cabal supposedly "destroys" you by calling you a "racist" (as if that's enough to stop your career)?
"You proved that the way you instantly assassinated Dr Watson's character"
No I didn't. I pointed out that because he is a scientist does not mean that any view he holds on any issue isn't automatically correct. I pointed out the flaw in your Appeal To Authority fallacy.
"instead of counter his claims"
Except I did. I pointed out that the majority of geneticists disagree with him and showed why they do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29
"The man who discovered DNA and the man who invented the brain scan"
This same man also believes that Irish people are genetically more ignorant than other Europeans. I guess this must be true since the man who helped discover DNA believes so, correct?
Albert Einstein, the Father of Modern Physics, also believed Socialism is the correct system to have. He must be correct since he practically invented modern physics, yes? (given you seem to hate left-wingers)
Isaac Newton, who revolutionized Physics, also believed in alchemy.
So answer me, since Watson helped discover DNA is he correct in his belief that Irish people are genetically doomed to be ignorant people? He also believes that darker-skinned people make better lovers (are better in bed) than people with lighter-skin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_watson#Provocative_comments
"and both were attacked and silenced by people like you"
Bullshit. No one has attacked or silenced him. He's still an active scientist and still publishing reviews, books and studies. Scientists who don't believe in race, like Steven Jay Gould, got criticism from racialists like Ruston and Jensen, Murray and Herrnstein, Richard Lynn, etc.). Did they "attack and silence" Gould when they panned his book "The Mismeasure of Man"?
If you say "No", how comes when scientists who do not believe in "race" criticize those who do it's "silencing" but not when scientists who do believe in "race" criticize those who don't? Why are you being a hypocrite?
"who wish to suppress science fact"
'Race Realism' is not scientific fact. It's a pseudoscientific theory that is directly contradicted by scientific fact. That's why it's criticized and not widely accepted among scientists. Scientists generally don't accept unscientific beliefs as scientific.
It's fairly easy to show that "races", in fact, do not genetically exist among modern Homo sapiens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#Cluster_analysis
"Anyone can see the races are different. Anyone with eyes can see that"
eyeroll
Anyone with eyes can also see that the Sun appears to revolve around the Earth and that the stars are much smaller than the Moon.
Science is based on FACTS. Not guesswork based on appearances. Because 2 people look visually similar does not mean they are genetically closer or part of the same genetic "grouping". Australian Aborigines are the population on Earth most distantly related to Africans. Europeans are genetically much more closely related to African populations than Australian Aborigines or the so-called "Negrito" peoples in Micronesia. The Sami people of Scandinavia, who generally have lighter features (light hair and eye color) are one the European populations most closely related to Africans.
Doesn't look like it, does it? That's because scientific fact often contradicts and belies visual appearances. Just like the majority of stars are actually bigger than the Sun and the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, despite the Sun appearing to move in our sky. We don't base science on what people think they can see, dumbass.
"Why would the races be the same?"
That's not what science says either. You claim that scientists are being bullied into claiming that race does not exist, yet it's obvious you don't know what scientists are actually saying.
Scientific evidence/consensus states that most differences in Human genes, alleles and traits differ within continental groups rather than between them. Ex: 85-90% of genetic differences in Europeans are between different European populations. Overall, Europeans are genetically more similar to any given population in East Africa than European groups are to each other. Only 10-15% of Europeans' genetic differences are differences from Africans or other non-Europeans, 85-90% of Europeans' genetic differences are differences from other European populations.
This is because populations change clinally rather than cladistically. Populations move around the planet and as they move further away from their parental population loci there are slight changes to random letters in their genetic code over time, yet they remain more similar to their parental population loci than they do to other populations who move into the same area and co-evolve with them.
"We evolved in different environments, at different times"
False. Human populations have constantly moved and intermixed throughout their history. People didn't move out of Africa directly to their current locations and sit there for 80,000 years. The majority of the ethnicities in Western Europe are relative newcomer Indo-European language speakers who have a different immediate ancestor than older European populations like Finns, Hungarians and the Basque. Western Europeans usually descend from people in the Near East and peoples in the Caucasus whereas Eastern Europeans more often descend from Central Asian peoples.
We just call all these disparate people in Europe "white people" because they share similar skin color and some facial features (although that varies quite significantly). Because they all live in the same continent and share a similar skin color doesn't mean they're all 1 group genetically or that they share the same ancestry. Likewise, these disparate groups in Africa we call "black people" actually descend from different immediate ancestors from each other and are more genetically diverse than Europeans. Early researchers just lumped them together and called them all "black people" because they share a similar skin color.
Because people share a skin color and continent does not mean they are the same genetic tribe or even closely related. Some people in East Asia have pink skin, brown or blonde hair and blue or green eyes similar to Europeans, despite having very different ancestors. Australian Aborigines have blonde hair at higher rates than most Europeans, but are not closely related to Europeans. Genetic features can evolve independently.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If you include Pike Creek, Hockessin, Greenville"
All of these areas have lower income than Severn, Odenton ($85,137 and $96,641 median income, 1.6% poverty), Crofton ($93,198 and $101, 644 median income, 1.8% poverty) and Severna Park (median income for a household in the CDP was $106,983, and the median income for a family was $116,246, 1.2% poverty).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I said that because it's a fact. The Mali Empire, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, Abyssinia, the Ashanti Empire, the Kongo Empire, the Hausa State, etc. were as powerful and often as developed as civilizations in Europe such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire (well, it had been conquered by the Turks by then), Muskovy, etc.
In fact Europe was periodically dominated by Huns, Turks and Arabs around this time as were parts of Africa by Arabs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uh, reality check: It's not the 1700s anymore. Even if everyone had a .50 Cal turret the US military could easily dominate the public. The public does not have tanks, jets, gunship helicopters, FLIR, night-vision, cruise missiles, armored Humvees, body armor, repeating rifles, JDAM munition, etc.
All everyone being armed would do is allow criminals to cause repeats of the North Hollywood shootout and possibly kill hundreds of people before the cops can subdue them. Not take over the govt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) To call White Supremacists, Nazis and Fascists left wing is fucking crazy. Nazism and Fascism are far-right ideologies. They are anti-egalitarian, hate socialists, communists, anarchists, liberals and progressives, they're Social Darwinists, social traditionalists, anti-unionist, corporatist, racists, anti-immigrant, nationalist, etc. Doesn't sound left wing at all.
2) What separates von Brunn from a Muslim extremist who shoots people aside from ethnicity and religion? Nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Core tenants of Fascism and Nazism: Anticommunism, anti-liberalism, anti-Marxism, corporatism, class collaboration (the antithesis of class conflict which is the basis of socialism), business nationalism, nativism, social conservatism, religious traditionalism, Social Darwinism, anti-unionism and state protectionism to uphold "heroic capitalism" and avoid a socialist revolution.
Related ideologies: Falangism, Integralism, Producerism, Rexism,
Yeah, real left-wing. (sarcasm)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Republicans also don't just blame black people....they also blame Hispanics, Asians (remember Michelle Malkin and Pete Hoekstra?), Arabs, Muslims, non-Zionists, gays, women who aren't conservative housewives, poor people, rich liberals (like George Soros), white liberals, college students, intellectuals, scientists, union-members, non-Southerners and non-Midwesterners, etc. But black people are the favorite reliable fallback boogieman/scapegoat for most white conservatives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hahaha. Agree 100%.
The only thing that scares the shit out of me about that thought is that 40% of Democrats are considering sitting out the 2010 election. All that will do is ensure assholes like Grassley, Boehner, Inhofe, Bachmann, Virginia Foxx, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, etc. get to control Congress and ensure that people like Weiner, Grayson, Feingold, Sanders, etc. get voted out.
If liberal/progressive voters sit out the next 2 elections she might have a serious chance of winning. o__0
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"A86, except that the left has to lie to gain power"
So what do you call the Bush years? Or right-wing dictatorships of the Cold War? I guess Hitler, Mussolini, Suharto, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet, Fulgencio Batista, Park Chung-hee, the Shah of Iran, Mobutu, Idi Amin, etc. were nice stand up guys. Not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"insider trading, help wall street, start more wars, keep Americans in debt"
So they're the same as Republicans. Yes, any intelligent person knows that.
"Bigger government" Yes, because the Patriot Act, banning gay marriage, banning contraceptives, banning abortion, spying on citizens, getting rid of constitutional right to trial and setting up special tribunals, giving out trillions a year to defense contractors, giving billions of subsidies to agribusiness & energy companies is "small govt".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JohnnyBravoCentral - Complete bullshit.
National debt as of 01/20/2009 - $10,626,877,048,913.08
National debt as of 07/21/2011 - $14,342,884,944,996.28
The national debt has increased by about ~$3.65 Trillion since Obama took office. Less than double.
National debt as of 01/20/2001 - $5,727,776,738,304.64
It doubled under Bush.
To get technical half of the FY 2009 Budget was Bush's. The FY 2009 Budget was already passed before Obama took office. Obama simply changed a few things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's a pretty false statement.There have always been nonwhite inventors, innovators, engineers & scientists in the US. All the way back to the 1600s & 1700s. Ex: Benjamin Banneker.
After slavery ended and nonwhites were gradually allowed more equal opportunity there have been an increasing number of nonwhite scientists, engineers, mathematicians, innovators, doctors, inventors, etc. If you go to most large hospitals in the US many of the doctors are African, Asian, Indian or Middle Eastern.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deanlowdon8381 You have to use discernment with ALL texts. Including secular ones. Do you follow the books or teachings of whatever political ideology or alignment you subscribe to blindly? No, you use discernment. You're free to disagree with some of what the founders of your political ideology said or suggested, or what subsequent ideological contributors wrote. The same with religion. That's how many, if not most, religious people treat their holy texts. Most religions even have textual criticism or textual analysis, exegesis, interpretation, etc. Literally thousands of years worth of different religious scholars and leaders disagreeing about interpretation, implementation, authenticity, what to disregard or abide by, etc. Like I said, your understanding seems uniquely like a conservative Evangelical Protestant understanding of scripture or religion. Your mindset would be foreign to a Catholic, for example. The Catholic Church has tens of thousands of pages of different priests and monks arguing about interpretation and their discernment (The Catechism) and Catholics see it as basically co-equal with the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the 1800s the Republicans believed in federalism, expansion of the public sector, a strong gold standard, industrialization, civil rights, labor regulations and federal banking. The Democrats believed in confederalism/localism, states' rights, a narrow scope of federal govt, bi-metalism, agrarianism, social conservatism/traditionalism and decentralized banking.
A progressive wing rose in the Democrat Party in the 1890s that took over the party. Modern Democrats descend from that wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS - "You sick leftist fucks first call Nazis far right"
Because their views are far right and they don't consider themselves leftists. Class collaboration (the antithesis of class conflict), corporatism, Social Darwinism, ultranationalism, anti-egalitarianism, a belief in Functionalism, business nationalism, support of "Heroic Capitalism", Romanticism, religious conservatism, social traditionalism, etc. are all right-wing philosophies and world views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because Republicans DO NOT believe in small govt. They believe the government should decide who lives and dies, who should be born, telling women what to do with their own bodies, what adults can and can't get married, spying on citizens without warrant, the Patriot Act, NDAA (Republicans don't oppose it, they just want it for themselves), declaring war on Iraq illegally, giving away taxpayer money to Big Oil and Big Coal, taking away voter rights, etc.
Small govt my fucking ass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@789123456789 - It depends. A lot of good music has been Pop music. Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Prince, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Pink Floyd, Roy Orbison, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Whitney Houston, Jackie Wilson, etc. are all Pop artists as a primary, secondary or tertiary genre. The word simply means "Popular" and popular isn't always bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They're "worried" because a Democrat is passing a census. When Republicans are spying, wiretapping, banning gay marriage, forcing Creationism to be taught in school, banning non-abstinence education, giving emergency powers to the executive branch, passing illegal wars without Congressional approval, creating "Terror Alert" systems, searching everyone without regulations, banning abortion, etc. it's all good with them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Considering mass murder of innocents is the hallmark of leftists around the world"
Hm, so Hitler, Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, Trujillo, Suharto, Ferdinand Marcos, Juan Peron, Augusto Pinochet, Mobutu Sese-Seko, etc., all right-wing, didn't commit mass murders of innocents? Interesting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AroundSun - "well, the true definition of right wing is limited government"
No it isn't. Right-wing simply means to support private ownership or common ownership of productive property, traditional hierarchy or conservative values. There are authoritarian, big-government right-wing ideologies (Fascism, Nazism, Falangism, Rexism, Producerism, etc.) and anti-authoritarian, small-government, or even no-government, left-wing ideologies (Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism, Autonomism, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the govenment is not our nanny"
So why do types like want to the government to outlaw gay marriage, fund agribusiness, give out corporate welfare, fund tax breaks for big business, fund abstinence-only programs and charter schools, fund the military, etc.? Why do people like you use government-created roads, fire service, police, etc.?
Obviously you don't realize just how much businesses rely on the government for everything from loans to energy to transportation, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gotta disagree with Kyle that without religion people wouldn't be homophobic. There are tons of atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious Millennials and Zoomers who are part of the Manosphere who are just as homophobic and transphobic as any religious conservative. Trans rights doesn't actually poll all that well either even among nonreligious people. Religion isn't some invasive memetic psychic force from another universe that invaded our reality. It's a bunch of ideas borne from human minds based on preexisting thoughts borne from preexisting conditions and questions about the universe, existence, phenomena early humans experienced, and the meaning of life. A simple Historical Materialist/Dialectical Materialist analysis is largely sufficient to understand how religion came about. Homophobia exists in most religions because homophobia already preexisted in human societies before religion. Religion largely just justifies feelings, ideas, suspicions, and inclinations that humans already had in a culture before the religion was created. Homophobia naturally arose pre-religion for the same reason most other bigotries arose: because the people who the bigotry is aimed at are different from the majority, or the bigotry was an ad hoc rationalization to justify some kind of oppression, alienation or conquest. Like modern racism was invented during The Crusades and the Age of Conquest to justify colonialism, mass population extermination, and slavery. Homophobia arose because some or many humans couldn't understand why some other humans aren't into what they find attractive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"and very, very few if any of those contributions came from Africa"
Most of the world's first multi-story buildings, scaffolding, irrigation farming, iron-smelting, standing militaries and intercontinental trade ships hail from either Africa or the Fertile Crescent. -___- The Haya people of Tanzania developed blast furnaces hot enough to smelt carbon steel (temperatures over 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) 2,000 years go, 1,900 years before Europe.
Stop dude, just stop. XD
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS - "mass genocide, famine, war destruction, slavery,gulags, holocaust, holodomor & communism"
I like how you put communism in there. The other things you listed are what were caused misery. Yes, most Eastern Europeans were not direct victims of gulags, war or famines. Otherwise they'd all be dead. No one prevented Eastern Europeans for from finding employment, learning to read in school, being able to go to the movies or drink from fountains.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
All Democrats who don't show up in 2010 are doing is insuring that people like Grayson, Weiner, Sanders, Feingold, Franken, etc. get voted out of office. While you sit on your ass at home crying and pouting the Republicans will be hard at work voting out those people and voting in more people like Boehner, Grassley, Virginia Foxx, Bachmann, Jim Inhofe, etc.
At least get off your ass for Grayson, Weiner, etc.'s sakes. A progressive Congress in '10 and Dean in '12.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wishful thinking. If there were no religion humans would fight over the 101 other issues they fight over. Race, ethnicity, color, creed, land, money, nationalism, political/economic ideology, gender, etc.
It's not like the majority-atheist China and North Korea are exactly peaceful. Humans are just bound and determined to kill themselves, religious or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
to be intelligent or hard-working to have success. What's important is ownership, which is what gets you money in our system. Ownership can be obtained many ways and just as often, if not more so, is obtained through family background, legacy admissions, cronyism, nepotism, luck, opportunism, brown-nosing or just plain cheating and lying. Those can get you ahead in our system just as well as skill, intelligence or hard work. In fact, 50% of people got their job through their family or friend.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Click on the first wiki link"
Quote from the article, "In 1996, the Indianapolis Museum of Art published a collection of essays, which included contributions from leading experts in various fields including archaeology, art history, physical anthropology, African studies, Egyptology, Afrocentric studies, linguistics, and classical studies. While the contributors differed in some opinions, the consensus of the authors was that Ancient Egypt was a Northeast African civilization..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andron333 - Mauritius, Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, Botswana, Namibia, Mauritania, Gabon.
Africa has several countries with pretty high economic growth rates right now as well as some of the world's most rapidly industrializing countries. South African infrastructure is was largely built by black labor and capital raise from the fruit of black labor/production and consumption.
There are fucked-up white countries too. Like Chechnya, Belarus, Albania, the former Yugoslavia, Argentina, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@calimar28 - "but in every country they invade. Even their own countries are failure"
Countries have been invaded by black people? Anyways, South Africa, Botswana, Mauritius, Seychelles, Ghana, Barbados and Jamaica are doing fairly good. Can't say the same for Argentina, Chechnya, Albania, Ireland, Greece, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
(dot) huppi (dot) com/ kangaroo / L - socialism (dot) htm
There are many different types of socialism. Market socialism, guild socialism, Marxist socialism, Stalinism, Maoism, social democracy, democratic socialism, Autonomism, libertarian Marxism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, mutualist anarchism, etc. What type are you talking about?
Don't say "all of them" because many of these are conflicting. That would be like conflating Keynesianism and Austrianism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to its mission statement, "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."
$69,000,000,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,500,000,000,000 we spend on military stuff. I think the latter is far more responsible for our national debt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShatterNWO - "Gov't doesn't really create jobs"
So teachers, firefighters, police, doctors, workers at public utility companies, soldiers, etc. aren't really employed? They aren't "real" jobs? NASA, the DoD, etc. have created plenty of jobs. At its height NASA directly employed or indirectly employed (contracted companies to work for them) 400,000 people. Not to mention how many companies have spawned to commercialize technology from the space program, like half the stuff in the hospital.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShatterNWO - "Gov't doesn't really create jobs"
So teachers, firefighters, police, doctors, workers at public utility companies, soldiers, etc. aren't really employed? They aren't "real" jobs? NASA, the DoD, etc. have created plenty of jobs. At its height NASA directly employed or indirectly employed (contracted companies to work for them) 400,000 people. Not to mention how many companies have spawned to commercialize technology from the space program, like half the stuff in the hospital.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like socialism. I like public roads, a national military, the fire department (even the police department), public bridges, Medicare, NASA, unionized $38/hour jobs with pensions and retirement plans, child labor laws, food quality regulations, collective bargaining, worker control of the workplace, etc.
"going back to Russia"
Russia is a capitalist country, dumbass. You actually think we're still in the fucking Cold War? OMG
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also, while you're screaming "blacks be rayciss!" why did most black voters support Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama up until December 2007, if most black people are so racist? Why did black voters vote for white men in every previous election over black candidates like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Carol Mosley Braun, Cynthia McKinney, Alan Keyes, J.C. Watts, R. Douglas Wilder, Shirley Chisholm, etc.? Why did black voters vote for Ed Rendell massively over Lynn Swann?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's against social justice, he's against democracy, he supports social interventionism (banning gay marriage, banning abortion, teaching Creationism in school, banning weed, etc.), he's anti-egalitarian and lean towards Social Darwinism, supports corporatism and "heroic capitalism", supports a militarist Nanny State obsessed with spying, constant wars and the removal or suppression of "undesirables" (like "illegal immigrants" and leftists, etc.)
Sounds like a Fascist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You forgot about the American revolution, which was mostly made up of citizen militia."
That was in 1776 when the most advanced weapons in the world were muskets, cannons and flare rockets. This is 2009 where industrialized militaries have Blackhawks, Apaches, F/A-18s, Humvees, .50 Cal turrets, Cobra miniguns, tanks, body armor, M-249s, M16s, AK-47s, urban sniper rifles, 2000 lb bunker busters, A-10s, napalm guns, etc. A citizen militia won't do jack against that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@803brando - Actually, if you add up DoD spending, overseas contingencies, spending on contractor and subcontractor budgets, liabilities, etc. the wars have been in excess of $1,100,000,000,000/year since 2008. By 2014 they could start bordering on $2,000,000,000,000/year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, because Rock is known for being a non-violent genre. The term "Sex, Drugs and Rock N'Roll" doesn't exist and most rockers sing lyrics about staying in school, respecting your parents, doing your homework, not chasing money, practicing safe sex, abstaining from drugs and alcohol and being a positive person. Totally no rock songs with lyrics like, "I watch you die, I hear you cry, it feels my soul with such delight!! *death metal scream*".....
Lol Done being a hypocrite?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"RAP SUCKS!!!"
Run DMC, Whodini, Public Enemy, N.W.A., Eazy-E, Tupac, Biggie, Common, Talib Kweli, Immortal Technique, Dead Prez and Jay-Z suck? WTF?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have to give it to Republicans, they're masters of arousing and appealing to something base in humanity. Something primal, something prehistoric. They're masters of appealing to fear, hatred, rage, ignorance, selfishness, narcissism and bloodlust. That's why they appeal to racists, sexists, bigots, xenophobes, the greedy, the selfish, the antisocial and the paranoid.
They all share a root in operating on baser, more animalistic human instincts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And several Neo-Nazi parties have National Conservative in their name. What's your point?
National Socialism, as I've said 10,000 times before, is different from Socialism Proper. You would understand if you didn't parse words. Now tell me, what about this is socialistic: a belief in the state defending private capital, belief in domestic industrial capitalism, corporatism, class collaboration (opposed to class conflict), traditionalism, conservative religion, nationalism, racism, etc?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ROHFutureOfWrestling - Core tenants of Nazism: Corporatism, business nationalism, anti-unionism, racial nationalism, class collaboration (which is the total antithesis of left-wing politics, which is based on class conflict), Social Darwinism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-feminism, social conservatism, religious conservatism, xenophobia, anticommunism and anti-liberalism.
Most of their political allies were right-wing parties and leftists were their first and most hated political enemies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because most of Fascism's core tenants are right wing. Corporatism, support for "heroic capitalism", business nationalism, xenophobia, ultranationalism, nativism, social traditionalism, intertwining religion and politics, Social Darwinism, anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-unionism, obsession with national security and support for bloated military budgets and a government preoccupied with spying, hatred of pacifism, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Republicans love Big Gubmint just like the people they criticize. Regulating teenagers having sex, non-married couples having sex (even MARRIED couples having sex), spying on citizens without warrant, arresting anyone without warrant, charges or evidence, giving out multi-trillion dollar subsidies and contracts to defense contractors, giving police absolute power, putting spy equipment in home TVs, banning gay marriage & abortion, banning minority voting rights, etc. is nowhere near small govt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some white artists getting in on something a decade or so after it's already been crafted and taken off isn't really a "joint effort" (no offense to white artists in these genres) You also forgot Rock which largely originated from black communities. Ditto with Ragtime, R&B, Swing, Doo-Wop, Ska and Reggae.
"blatantly misinformed lie"
Obviously you've never heard of the Jitterbug, the Watusi, the Charleston, the Mashed Potato, Poplock, Wackin', Breaking, etc. All originate in black communities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wvu05 This. I find that New Atheists are essentially just **inverse religious fundamentalists**. Just like religious fundamentalists they insist that textual litetalism, textual inerrancy, harsh eschatology, lack of exegesis (because understanding scripture non-litetally is a false interpretation in their minds), fanatical zeal, end-times obsession, and a vilgiantly exclusionary mindset and desire for non-believers to be punished is the only way holy texts can be read or that theology/religion can be believed in "correctly". Just like religious fundamentalists they insist that religious moderates, religious liberals, and religious progressives are intellectually dishonest people misinterpreting the scripture/religion and that religious conservatives/reactionaries are the only true believers or true followers who "correctly" understand it. A telltale sign that an atheist is a New Atheist is their insistence that religious people who aren't fundamentalists or theologically conservative are coping phonies not performing the faith correctly, while crazed fundamentalists are the ones doing it as the founder would want. They also tend to attack people who identify as Agnostic, Ignostic, or "Spiritual But Not Religious". New Atheists think that the only thing you can be is a raving reactionary theist who wants to harm or force nonbelievers into submission, or a hardcore Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss-style strong atheist. They view Agnostics as covert theists or Atheists who are "cowards", and view religious non-fundamentalists as unbelievers or atheists waiting to happen who are in denial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
and made a career out of making the unregulated/unfettered capitalist market out to be some omniscient semi-conscious (or acts in a semi-conscious way) entity that is always self-correcting under just about any circumstance. Never mind monopolies, oligopolies, monopsonies, duopolies, private cartels, negative externalities, planned obsolescence, companies taking shortcuts, low wages, imperfect consumer information, irrational consumers, hedging, etc. Everything works out without a referee.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Again using data when there were no black candidates."
1952 Charlotte Basss (Progressive Party, USA) the first black female presidential candidate, 19722 (Shirley Chisholm), 1976 (Willie Mae Reid), 1984 (Jesse Jackson and Leonora Fulani), 1988 (Jackson), 1992 (Alan Kesyes and L. Douglas Wilder), 1996 (Keyes), 2000 (Al Sharpton, Keyes), 2004 (Sharpton, Keyes and Carol Mosley Braun), 2008 (Barack Obama).
Plenty of opportunity to elect a black president. What's your next excuse?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And non-Socialism is a broad category that includes many conflicting ideologies. Non-Socialism would include Capitalism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism (communism and socialism aren't the same thing), Anarchism, Libertarianism, Communitarianism, Producerism, etc. Just like Non-Theism includes Atheism, Antitheism, Deism, Igtheism, Ignosticism, Apatheism, etc.
Calling all non-theism "atheism" would be like calling all non-socialism "capitalism". Capitalism and Atheism are more specific terms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hofifut - Actually the median CAN be skewed. Anyone who is taken a Statistics class can tell you this. When you learn about Skewness a Positive or Negative Skew can lean the median higher or lower than the median of plot or matrix with a different skew, especially if there is a different number of values in a plot or matrix than another. For instance:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,2,3,4,7,8,8,8,9
Notice the median is higher on the lower set? Because it has a negative skew.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddieisfiction - Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states:
"Such citizens, of every race and color, and without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, ... shall have the same right in every state and territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property"
This is what the 14th Amendment was partially based on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope, Census Bureau:
(.) census (.) gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02 (.) pdf
White population of the US - 72.4%. Table 1, Page 4. Right there.
White alone - 2000 - 194,552,774 or 69.1. 2010 - 196,817,552 or 63.7
White (includes Hispanic) - 2000 - 211,460,626 or 75.1. 2010 - 223,553,265 or 72.4
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Its not "white people vs black people dance" is "everybody's vs black peoples dance"."
Okay, how many non-black equivalents to the Cakewalk, the Watusi, the Charleston, the Jitterbug, Popping, Wacking, Breaking, Jazz steps, Liquid Dance, Lambada, Salsa, Stepping, etc. are there? That's pretty good for a group that's less than 15% of the population to invent more than half of popular American dances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed. The world is full of ethnic groups who don't neatly fit into these Colonial Era "racial categories". Like Berbers, Tuaregs, Ethiopians, Somalis, Micronesians, Malaysians, Turks, Kazahks, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Afghans, etc. Hispanics are a nightmare for people who believe in "race".
Just goes to show how artificial "race" truly is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You do realize the pro-KKK/segregation people called themselves the "Conservative Coalition"?
If you honestly think most Klansmen are or were progressives you're ridiculously stupid. Progressives tend to believe in federalism, social programs, civil rights, womens' rights, gay rights, labor activism, etc. All things Klansmen have always been against. Klansmen support nationalism, white supremacy, confederalism/localism, women at home, tend to view labor movements as communist/socialist, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xxdonaldqxxx - No written language? Africa has several written languages including Sudanese hieroglyphics, Ge'ez (one of the world's oldest), Vrai, N'ko, Tifanagh, etc. You've honestly never heard of the Nubian, Axum, Nok civilization, Mali Empire, Songhai Empire, Great Zimbabwe, Makuria, the Kingdom of Sinnar, the Funj Sultanate, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, the Swahili city-states, the Somali Empire, the Oyo Empire, the Ashanti Empire, the Hausa state, the Igbo state, etc.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
...a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance."
*United States DOJ, BJS, Criminal Victimization in the US, 2002, Statistical Tables, (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004), tables 40, 42, 46 and 48
**United States DOJ, FBI Uniform Crime Reports, “Hate Crime Statistics,” (various years, 1995-2000)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've never seen any economic system create more production than destruction. Maybe hunter-gatherer societies and peaceful agrarian pastoralists. That's about it. Fedualism, monarchy, mercantilism, Keynesian capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, even social democracy have all been violent and destructive and caused wars over land, resources, labor and money.
IMHO anarchism is the only system where people don't have the power to oppress others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You haven't refuted a thing I said. Calling me bigoted against gun owners is not a rebuttal, dumbass.
Tell me, how would gun owners get through body armor, MRAPs, tanks, night-vision, infrared cameras, computerized mounted turrets, security lasers, etc. and take out gunships, F-117s, B-2s, Global Hawks, F-18s, Green Berets, Navy Seals, etc.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EternalPhoenix2183 - Lol So, so true.
Michael Jackson, George Carlin, Farah Fawcett, Bernie Mac, Isaac Hayes, Ed McMahon, Billy Mays, Brittany Murphy, Howard Zinn: All gone
Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin, "Dr." Laura, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner: All still alive and kickin'.
I wish the fucken Dragonballs existed or something so we could wish the former back to life in exchange for the latter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luvcheney1 - Now please stop faking the funk. I learned this stuff back in Econ 250 (Principles of Macroeconomics) years ago.
"With 3.8% after tax profit?
3.8% of what? If the 3.8% profit is only 3,8% as in $1,003,800 of revenue leaving $38,000 of profit, that would be a lot different than $1,038,000,000 of revenue leaving a profit of $38,000,000.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Except NASA, millions of jobs during the New Deal, soldiers, firefighters, cops, doctors, nurses, public workers, etc.
2) The Curiosity Rover currently sitting on Mars, the technology for half of the machines in the hospital, the Internet you're now using (Arpanet), etc.
3) Which the government printed for private citizens and businesses and which the government secured contracts, granted property deeds and built roads to make private commerce possible on a national scale.....
*facepalm*
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FeDe4 - The core tenants of Fascism and Nazism are corporatism, class collaboration (which is the antithesis of class conflict), nationalism, Social Darwinism, religious conservatism, social traditionalism, opposition to democracy, anti-liberalism, anticommunism, anti-egalitarianism, support of "heroic capitalism", etc. You can't be a socialist and be opposed to egalitarianism, class conflict, worker ownership, etc. That's like claiming someone opposed to private ownership is a capitalist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You never grew into a real person, you don't have a profound believe system or a purpose"
Yes, because "Best Puke Ever!" is such a profound worldview or a sign of maturity, wisdom and higher thought....Most people who have profound belief systems are considered NERDS (Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, Stephen Hawking, Edward Witten, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc.).
BTW, it's "belief system", not "believe system", kid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Buddhists belief in rebirth (life after death), karma, Nirvana, the Eightfold Path, the Five Noble Truths, Tirthankara, Sunyata, Tathagatagarbha, that the Buddha was actually enlightened and knew more than the average person, etc. These are all dogmas because none of them are verifiable.
There is no scientific proof that rebirth, karma, Nirvana, etc. exists. If you don't believe in these concepts you aren't a Buddhist. You're playing at Buddhism because you find some of its ideas appealing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Patriot Act, spending trillions on wars, corporate welfare, bailouts, etc., banning gay marriage and abortion, school vouchers, Creationism in the classroom, etc. is not "small government"
Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all increased government and increased spending. Reagan and Bush II especially.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@genie0390 - Lol, who the fuck told you some shit like that? The Fascist and Nazi movements are all far-right in nature. Some core tenants of Fascism are: nationalism, anti-egalitarianism, anti-liberalism, anticommunism, corporatism, anti-unionism, business nationalism, heroic & dynamic capitalism, class collaboration (a complete antithesis of socialism), a militarist state obsessed with national security, social conservatism, religious conservatism, etc.
They had heavy conservative support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Goddamn, 2008 and 2009 have been shitty years for famous people. How many is that now?
George Carlin, Bernie Mac, Isaac Hayes, Eartha Kitt, Tim Russert, Ed McMahon, Farah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, Billy Mays, John Hughes, Arturo Gatti, Sean Taylor, Brittany Murphy, etc.
A lot of celebrities seem to have caught the attention of the Grim Reaper as of late.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hate to spoil your alone on the frontier fantasy but if you or anyone in your family for the past 10 generations has ever driven on a public road, taken a govt loan, taken benefits from the GI Bill or programs passed during the New Deal (like HUD, FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.), collected Medicare or Social Security, taken food stamps, taken a federal subsidized loan, a govt mortgage loan, used public parks, done busienss with a company using roads, etc. you've taken from the govt. Lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franksnow79 - By the mid-1930s the core tenants of the Nazi Party were: Corporatism, business nationalism, anti-unionism, anti-liberalism, rabid anticommunism (and I mean RABID), chauvinist nationalism, class collaboration (which is pretty much the antithesis of socialism), Social Darwinism, religious conservatism, nativism, social interventionism and traditionalism.
I think you'll find socialists oppose most if not all of that. Hitler killed more socialists and communists than he did Jews.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alphacause - Hahahahaha
Partition the shares of the Tea Party website to the American Communist Party, Christian socialist groups (that term will make right-wing heads explode), the Unitarian Universalist Church, Atheist Alliance International, Project Reason, Ms. Magazine, the United Negro College Fund, Amnesty International, Michael Moore's website, Al Gore, green energy companies and Japanese porn companies. ;)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Exactly. I think the 7 million liberals, leftists, union members, gays, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, Turks, blacks, biracial people, Jehovah's Witnesses, handicapped people, etc. and the 20 million Russians who were killed by the Nazis would be insulted that the ADL thinks the "holocaust" only refers to one group of people. I mean no mean-spiritedness to the Jewish victims or Jewish people in general but the Jewish victims weren't the only people who became statistics of that word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"compared to other races voting for those candidates"
And? Blacks have also voted disproportionately for white candidates. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all received more than 70% of the black vote. None of them received more than 55-60% of the white vote, at any point.
Your point is moot, we vote equally for white candidates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lack of belief and disbelief are the same thing:
disbelief
Definition: lack of faith in something
Synonyms: disbelief, doubt, misdoubt, misgiving, mistrust, qualm, question, skepticism, suspicion, wariness
thesaurus (.) com/browse/disbelief
See? Linguists classify "a simple lack of belief" as a type of disbelief. Also, by your definition of atheism would exclude gnostic atheism (an active belief one can know gods don't exist). Atheism is at least a lack of belief but can be more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1