Short answer, no, not if they make cakes with messages.

Because there's no way to tell if it's really a firmly held belief or just douchbaggery, and it's far more likely to be the latter (examples of that above), no. The next step might be no cakes for blacks, because they're unclean descendants of Cain, or Jews because they don't serve Jesus, or people wearing blended fabrics because they should be stoned to death, and certainly no cake for atheists.

If you have a public business, serve the public, otherwise partner with your church and limit your customers to like minded people instead of singling out certain groups to publicly deny service....or move to a religiously intolerant country where your intolerance is allowed and not antithetical to the national morals.

Want to cut down the number of deaths by firearms? Stop tolerating shit like this:

"Shane Patrick Boyle, a founder of Zine Fest Houston, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short. Alec Raeshawn Smith, age 26, was found dead in his apartment on June 27. He was rationing his insulin after he aged out of his parent’s insurance coverage."

After everything is said and done, desperation/poverty is what should be looked at the hardest. Nothing makes people go apeshit as much as intolerable living conditions.

Universal background checks, bans on high cap mags, etc -- that's just doctoring around the edges. Get the Works Progress Administration going again. And while you're at it, revive the CCC and the PWA as well.

Aside from atrocious working hours and societal pressures, life in Japan is a lot less desperate than in most other countries. The low unemployment alone does wonders.

All humans drink milk from infancy (unless they're fed formula instead). Lactose intolerance sets in with age, as the body stops making lactase, the enzyme that digests lactose. Hence this commercial is marketing milk for kids.

Aren't must asians lactose intolerant, as their ancient ancestors never drank milk on a regular basis? Interestingly it was evolution that gave neolithic european and middle eastern peoples the ability to digest and process lactose as adults, a genetic mutation that soon became widespread.

But for asia, must be a difficult market to break into.

Newt
your are so misguided.

The ANTIFA have been on a rampage of violence and intolerance.

The KKK have held many peaceful rallies over the years promoting their sick ways. Antifa are nothing but violence. Thungs not worthy of holding an American flag.

ANTIFA preach that Trump is a Fascist but are so wrong. Same goes for those who support Trump and other Americans that are sick of you radical kind.

So were were the cops/? Berkley they really protected the peace and in charlottesville???


If I went to an America first rally and knew you and your kind would be showing and bring you violence Yep I would be packing... Its called self defense.


TRUMP 2020 becomes more and more a reality every time ANTIFA show up. AND you know ANTIFA is making it happen. FUNNY.

I'm almost never in Sift Talk, but I noticed this too. Used to be that to make the top 15 a video would have to get well over the 10-vote generic "sifted" status, but recently I've seen several occasions when there aren't enough videos with 10+ votes to even fill out the top 15 completely.

I'm not an extremely long-time sifter, I've had an account here for 8 years and lurked for probably a couple before that. But in general, the main reasons that I actually joined the community here when I rarely do anything more than lurk (no facebook / reddit / whatever for me) still apply:

Standard YouTube isn't a community, it is a toxic wasteland. Trolls are the rule, not the exception. By far.

On the Sift, I rarely participate by actually posting videos, but the comments sections on videos here are a massive breath of fresh air compared to other sites (particularly YouTube). That's what drew me here and has kept me here.


That being said, I think we've been losing some of the openness to different opinions that has been a real strength of the sift community. With such a divisive US President, I'm sure some of that is inevitable. But, while we've always been better about that than elsewhere on the internet, I think we're losing some of that advantage.

I think the sift leans left -- not extreme, but noticeably. I used to lean moderately right, although generally more in the middle on social issues. My time on the sift (and also NOT living in the US) has pushed me more to the left, again particularly on social issues, but even on the meat-and-potatoes stuff that I think actually belongs in the realm of government. I'm still to the right of sift average, but closer than I was. Credit for that shift in my viewpoints is definitely in part due to the sane, open-minded, and accommodating debates in comments here.

I recognize that it is hard to be accommodating to some of the sifters that are further to the right than I ever was. A certain basketball coach comes to mind. But even when viewpoints from sources like that veer into territory that we find intolerable, I think we here at the sift used to be better about rationally but firmly voicing disagreement without sort of ... picking a fight. If that makes sense.

Just speaking for myself, I think I've probably been upvoting videos less because a higher percentage of what is being sifted is political, and I get fatigued with the volume of that. That's very much tied in to the current situation and media environment, so there isn't necessarily anything to be done about it, but I'd wager that is partially responsible for the lower traffic beyond just myself.

@newtboy

i think what bcglorf is suggesting,and correct me if i am wrong bc,is that the ideological intolerance that is permeating the far left,and creeping into the current media narrative...is turning people away from the left and driving them further right.

that how the ultra-left deals with criticism by labeling ALL criticism as an attack,and not a functioning dynamic of dialogue,is counter-productive and again..drives people further right.

so what is a moderate to do?

on the alt-right they have a choice of a grotesque and vulgar racist political philosophy akin to the "aryan supremacy" of the 30's dressed up as nationalism and patriotism.

and on the alt-left they have an equally grotesque group who subvert freedoms and liberties all in the name of "equality" and "tolerance".while single-handedly being the most intolerant of them all.

fascists to the left of me..
fascists to the right..
and here i am..
stuck in the middle...

Fair enough, but I thought my longer explanation by examples made my meaning more clear. Making calls that people should not be allowed to deny membership into private clubs/groups based upon behaviors and choices is going to dive away people you need to get the support of.

IMO the Dems need to stop calling out the flying spaghetti monster club for denying membership to people who eat spaghetti. Spaghetti eaters still have their right to eat spaghetti, they just don't need to join a club of people who think that's immoral. Save the outrage for the FSM branches that deny membership to those without noodley appendages, as that has now crossed over from a choice/behavior and into something immutable.

If we can agree on that in principle, let me then step forward to the real example.

Stop telling Christians that not accepting non-christians as members or leaders in their churchs is immoral or intolerant or bigotry or evil. Most of the major religions in the world on some lesser or greater extent declare each other immoral. Live and live is enough, you don't need to demand they accept membership or leadership candidate from other religions with beliefs or practices they consider incompatible with their own. Oh, and if the Dems really want bonus points here, who you choose to have sex with and how you choose to do it can be included in this.

1. You don't speak for all trans/POC/gays etc, so you can only describe your personal experience. There are a number of documented trans people who agree with Peterson and don't want the state strong arming people in to mouthing the words...

2. Peterson does not promote transphobia, he resists being forced to speak certain words. They are not synonymous. If the fuckwits yelling their heads off spent the time to listen, they'd understand that.

3. Peterson was fine with the idiots at the event chucking a trantrum because it showed them up to be the intolerant idiots, not him. He was calm and reasonable, and if they had listened to him then put questions to him, they may have advanced whatever cause they claim to represent. Instead they came across as a pack of morons. /shrug

4. You talk about drawing lines around things, lines that should not be crossed, but without people daring to propose going outside those lines, gay rights would not be a thing... You see? It takes a brave person to step outside the lines and propose something that may be offensive to some. Same with women rights, transgender folk etc.

5. You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to not be offended.

6. Mobs strongarming people in to silence has far more to do with Nazi ideology than resisting being forced to speak certain words. It's okay to punch Nazi's right?? \= )

That's not how this works. Liberals and conservatives are supposed to be polar opposites. A liberal should never agree with a conservative on anything. The more divided and intolerant we are of differing opinions, the better this country will be. Freedom of speech means you have the freedom to share my political views or else you're just a Nazi scumbag.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

My point is that many of these protesters have a double standard. They're actually defending intolerance - people like Linda Sarsour, who block honest discussion from actual libertarians like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Yeah OK reading that back to myself, my point was far from clear in the OP.

Terrorists are usually not from countries that America or even previously the Soviets have been bombing the shit out of.

ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven.

The countries with one of the most intolerant cultures, are some of the best educated and wealthiest people on the planet. Countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. These countries are best buds with the west, and yet they still jail women when they are raped (not the rapist), and they stone and crucify protesters asking for human rights. These are the actual laws, not a few extremists, or terrorists, it's the law of the country. They are intolerant and oppressive by law, thanks to their theocratic ruling system.

To sum up the above, it's not an educational issue, it's not a poverty issues, it's not a revenge issue. It's culture, attitudes, and religion.

EDIT: Expecting a uniform measured response from 100% of a terrorized, decimated, displaced people who've lived a living hell for years, some growing up in it, to a plan that seems to remove any hope of escape to a place where they might live a normal life, an escape they've worked towards for years at great expense and hardship, and in some cases escaping certain death due to helping America....no culture or people on earth are going to live up to that. American's certainly don't. We go off half cocked over 1% of that hardship and fly planes into federal buildings.

...Says the person advocating blaming and ruining the lives of innocent people for the acts of those that attacked and displaced them. Destroying the lives of random innocent people will never make the situation better, it will create more hatred for the US. That's the behavior I'd expect from a racist or Nazi because they're seeing everyone with a certain demographic as terroristic. We don't need more people with intolerant and inflexible attitudes.

I think it's the racism and xenophobia they already had coupled with a sudden influx of "others" that are now in their daily lives that turns them to extremism, because they've been primed to do so by the far right. If it was only a matter of "my feels got hurt" and nothing else, we wouldn't have international outrage at our horribly thought out, disastrously implemented, clearly racially and theologically motivated travel ban, but it hurts far more than feelings, it will kill some people.

HA!!!! All those groups have been labeled terrorists at one time, and all of them have committed terroristic acts. Every. Single. One. You just pulled a Bob and used an example that totally destroys your point.

Read some history, Christian extremism puts Islamic extremism to shame.

I'm certain this does happen, just as you've described. But I can't agree that it's a measured response.

Terrorizing random innocent people will never make the situation better. That's the behavior I'd expect from a racist or a nazi (because they're seeing as everyone within a certain demographic as guilty) We don't need more of people with intolerant and inflexible attitudes.

And although the xenophobia could be the last straw which turns someone to extremism, I think it's most likely because they've already been primed to do so. Because if it was only a matter of "my feels got hurt" and nothing else, then we'd be seeing terrorism by minorities such as gays, Jews, aboriginals, Tibetans and so on. But we don't. And while these groups act out in some pretty extreme ways, it's not anywhere near on the immoral levels as we've seen from islamists.