"Races" aren't chosen, don't have tests to be sure you have the same psyche as them to become a certain race, and don't insist on a unified front against the world standing with murderers, abusers, thieves, and liars no matter what.
I've never heard of races having clearly defined leaders that make the rules and speak for everyone.
Most important, I've never heard of a race that repeatedly and proudly declares it's OK for them to lie to get what they want.
Professions are NOTHING like race.

And duh...you fools, I was intentionally (mis)quoting a famous racist quote.
You triggered people would be funny if it weren't so sad.

I get the theory, but that's just not how real life works. Telling people 'I may do "X, but you may not because you aren't the right race' is never an acceptable argument, won't get you much cooperation, nor does it show the proper disdain for that mindset that has been so disastrously used against minorities historically.

Edit: Also, this makes a HUGE mistake of thinking all black people agree, like they're all alike. That couldn't be farther from the truth, they are not unified on this issue, they, like everyone else, are diverse in their thinking.


If people insist on fairness and equality, they'll get far more support and far less opposition from fair minded people. Change the meaning of the word like we did with "fag" (now meaning Harley Davidson riders), sure, but not just for one group. Insisting on a double standard means they don't have a problem with double standards that work in their favor. That loses them the support of people who believe in equality and hate double standards with passion.

That's a long disjointed rambling rant for an apparent comprehension mistake.
I suggest you read again, I only mentioned antifa because Bob misidentified them, not to support or defend them.
So far as I know, they were not active in this specific fiasco, the one I'm commenting on. I have no love for them, as they seem to be fighting violent fascism with violent fascism.
I've seen no footage of black hooded thugs this time, only polo shirt wearing nazis (not hyperbole, actual nazis) fighting hipsters, women, children, and elderly people.

You must be fucking kidding, Asmo. The white nationalists are clear why they are feeling safe to unify and license to mobilize, their guy won the white house and he's gonna help them take their country back and make America white....I mean great again. When Trump tried to spread the blame for the violence, they saw that as another endorsement, as did most people. It's not a reaction to antifascists, antifascists are a reaction to their resurgence imo. Which came first, the KKK, the Neo Nazis, the alt right, or Antifa?
To be crystal clear, so you aren't confused again, my mention of the antifascists here is not an endorsement of their group or methods.

While I have no interest in defending right wingers, the old adage of "defending scoundrels" applies...

You must be fucking kidding Newt... Seriously, have you had your head up your ass over the past year with the various riots and attacks headed up by antifa? The same people that classify anyone who doesn't submit to their orthodoxy as nazi's, then say it's fine to physically assault said nazi's for talking, because talking is literally as dangerous as physical violence? You remember the Battle of Berkley, bikelock guy, moldylocks and her scalp claims/sap gloves/M80's in glass bottles?

But yeah, they're as pure as the driven snow right?!?!? /eyeroll

The communists and the nazi's are only separated by the thinnest of differences, and both prefer to resolve issues with violence rather than conversation. Favouring one over the other is like saying Hitler was better than Stalin (or vice versa). But antifa and other identitarian groups do have to wear responsibility for unifying white nationalists and giving them license. They've spent so long vilifying whiteness that the only surprise here for me is that this sort of thing hasn't happened sooner.

But yeah, way to stand with the Communists Newt. Nice job.

@harlequinn

Why should you re-read the bible? Because, like most Christians, you clearly demonstrated that you don't know what it actually says (which is the point of the video), and yet here you are telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay. So... hypocrisy much?

But then you double-down and are now trying to argue with me that the Christian god is not actually considered omnipotent--despite me pointing out three places in the bible where it explicitly states "he" is. Although I'm not at all surprised that a religious person is arguing against facts, I actually agree with the sentiment. If a Christian god truly existed, one look at the state of the world would tell you that "incompetent" is a better descriptive adjective than "omnipotent."

Look man, I get it. You're invested in your religion. I was once too, and just like you argued with atheists about these kinds of arcane points (i.e. is the Christian god omnipotent?) before slowly realizing it is all bullshit and that humanity at this stage of development would be much better off without religion (and by religion I mean any philosophical way of life that uses "faith" as it's primary source for finding truth instead of rational thinking). I don't deny it served a purpose once as a unifying social force, but its day is done. One day you'll either come to the same conclusion or you'll ignore the mountains of problems it causes in the world because you feel it brings you some measure of peace or clarity or whatever. I hope it's the former for you.

Unfortunately, knowing a lot of religious people, I expect it will be the latter. In which case, I can only hope your religion brings you only happiness and you keep it from damaging others' lives as much as possible.

Lets see ....grass roots movement or TYT making you believe it is a grass roots movement.

We have a " fan" who sent in this video and I love it... It is his own organization.


The Justice Democrats are a political action committee[1] founded on January 23, 2017, by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks,

Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, and

former leadership from the 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.

Its stated goal of reforming the Democratic Party by running "a unified campaign to replace every corporate-backed member of Congress and rebuild the [Democratic] party from scratch" starting in the 2018 Congressional midterm elections.[2][3]

The Justice Democrats have been described as attempting to create a left-wing populist movement analogous to the right-wing Tea Party movement.[4]


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

Not all. When Clinton and Schultz stole the nomination, this "liberal" stated clearly and repeatedly that she had just handed the election to Trump....I would say Clinton and Schultz bitch slapped the liberals.....now as to the pundits, yes, and he's still rubbing their nose in it.
What an egoless unifier he is, and what an amazing job he's done at bringing the country closer together already.

Sounds like an exercising in rearranging the furniture on the Titanic to me.

In a world where discrimination and separatism is qualitatively and quantitatively on the rise, people in charge must be ecstatic that they can appease people without having to do anything meaningful that might piss off the extremists on the right, or "shareholders". And people are so used to being told that change is only possible through incremental adjustments that they'll eat it up like candy and think this is progress.

"People people people, if you're going to call someone a filthy tranny and throw fast food at xem on public transport, at least use the proper pronoun when you verbally abuse xem."

When there's a hole in the boat and you're taking on water, the least of your concerns should be about what language you use to describe the in-rushing water or shape of the hole, nor arguing over the colour of the material you use to repair it.

I'm sure some people will see this as a victory. Until next time they apply for a job and not get hired due to transphobia. And the manager of the company, with a gleam in their eye, begins the rejection letter with 'Dear bun/bunself', then sniggers to themselves and says "fucking trannies."

What I'm trying to say was summed nicely in a tweet i saw the other day:
ALTRIGHT/NEO NAZI: your all going to the gas chambers!!!
NEOLIBERAL: you're*

If this is the extent of what activism is able to achieve, i should say that the establishment/elite have won by pacifying and declawing the protesters. It's no longer about breaking the shackles of oppression. We can't go around breaking shackles everywhere - think of the effect on the economy? And what about people getting hit by shrapnel? No, instead the LGBTQ community will be given multi coloured chains, the black community will be given slightly longer chains, and we'll pad the shackles with silk so that everyone is much more comfortable. Don't complain about the concept of being chained, instead complain that your chain is not as nice as the next guy's chain.

It's as though the great struggle of protest and civil disobedience has been taken over by the liberal intelligentsia, and the worst kind of discrimination faced by a 20 year old middle-class university student with rainbow coloured dreadlocks and a nose piercing is the letter they receive about their student loan that begins "dear sir/madam". So they go out and march about it and think they've made progress when they get their own pronoun. In their life, in their experiences, they are treated equally in other respects, so they think they ARE fighting inequality.

But for the working class male or female transsexual who gets filthy looks and a seat isolated by themselves on public transport, to travel to their entry level job where they've been skipped over for promotion for not looking the part, or getting the right level of respect from the trans-phobic staff, getting snide whispered comments from customers about the size of their hands, getting abuse yelled at them as they travel to have a night out at the ONLY trans-friendly bar within a 20 mile radius....... I get the feeling that receiving a letter with the correct pronoun isn't exactly going to change their fucking lives.

To remove a weed, you go for the roots. Some wanker calling you him/her when you prefer bun/bunself is not the root of this problem. The problem is that they are trans-phobic, not the language - which is just the tool they use to discriminate against you. To change the language and think that you've won is a bit like redefining room temperature and claiming you've warmed everybody by a few degrees.

If you march for equal rights, fair pay, fair treatment then people are going to see that and join your protest because they also want those things. Those things will solve the problems faced by the trans community, feminists, masculinists, minorities alike! And through common goals and by supporting each other en masse for simple, unified goals like EQUALITY, progress will be made, change will happen. It is a concept called solidarity and seems to be going out of fashion, but our grandparents knew.

The objective for the establishment is to drive a wedge between groups of people so that their demands are more manageable, and they can be turned on each other. Feminists, masculinists, LGBT, everyone... can't you see how better off you'd be marching together for common values that lie at the core of what every human wants?

Wall of text, sorry... and I know it looks like i'm being insensitive. So congratulations, genuinely, for getting someone to use your preferred pronoun if that makes you feel better. But whilst people have been fighting tooth and nail to get their own pronoun (in civilised settings only), we've suffered huge leaps backwards in freedom and tolerance behind their backs whilst they were bent over intently concentrating on the finer detail of what their ideal equality looks like.

These things seem to continue to ignore Jill Stein.

And in doing so, they miss an important point: Johnson is the "spoiler candidate" for TRUMP. In other words, the chances of votes for Johnson swinging the plurality of votes in a hotly contested state in favor of Clinton are massively higher than swinging such a state into favoring Trump.

Stein is the spoiler candidate for Clinton. But die-hard Democrats should be pleased with her poll numbers being low, which suggests that fewer usually-Democrat voters are looking for an alternative option than usually-Republican voters. In other words, the Democrat party is currently more unified than the Republican party.

...But before patting themselves on the back too hard, they should remember that perhaps the only reason that their historically disliked candidate is more unifying than the GOP option is that he is even MORE historically disliked. A dubious distinction at best.

I think I'll stick with my protest vote (for Stein), thank you very much.

I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution
There have been numerous two state solutions, starting with the British in 37.
The 48 U.N. plan was really a 3 state solution with Jerusalem under international control....so you're factually wrong, and clearly you can't have meant that when you say "2 state solution". The 2 state solution was proposed in 74. Also, the Nazis were gone in 47...so you're still wrong about 'standing with the Nazis' even if you meant the 3 state solution.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.

Edit: By any theory, it was a unified (at least peacefully living together) nation fractured by massive illegal immigration and an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. What if illegal Mexican immigrants claimed south Texas-California as a separate country, using the same reasoning? Would you support that? I wouldn't....and I doubt many would. To me, they have a better case to make, but still not a reasonable one.

1. I *AM* an LGBTQ person, I don't speak for them, but I am one voice.
I tend to avoid harassing people.

2. No.

3. a) Both. They aren't mutually exclusive. I want women to be equal and I want legal protections in place to maintain this. This is not secret information.
b) They do.

4. Question 3b) suggests women should be responsible for their safety. Question 4 seems to criticize the notion of being responsible for your own safety. Glad to see unified thought in this. The answer is I expected random bouts of mockery, judgement, and violence. You know, the other 95% of my life.

5. Because shitting on a group that seeks to change culture to react similarly to loss of black life as it does for white lives, while pointing out where society fails to meet this standard is pretty charactersticly racist.
Also I don't say that "Kill all white people" is not racist.

6. Yes. Did you know that the permanence of objects, the transmission of ideas and culture and systems of law are based on events in the past? That by studying history we can understand how humans work in a unique way, that knowing that say, there was a WWI may help us understand the conditions under which WWII occurred and that this knowledge may help us decide what to do in the aftermath of WWII to avoid a recurrence?
That if a group has historically had problems, many of those problems have probably been inherited along with consequences of the problems (such as poverty, strongly inherited social trait). Yes. Linear time,human affairs, culture. They are all things that exist.

7. Yes, I have many examples of people doing this. Mostly this is due to short lifespan. But there are many manchildren in our culture, who seem to think that other people asserting boundaries is immature.

8. There are programs designed to help boost male education dropout rate. If you 'fight' for 'improvements in the fairness of social order ' to help achieve this, you are a Social Justice Warrior, and so you could just have asked yourself.
Also, American bias? Pretty sure this is not a global stat...

9. Because one focusses on correcting the inequalities between the sexes and was born at a time when women didn't have proper property rights, voting rights etc etc, and so it was primarily focussed on uplifting women and so the name 'feminism'. Egalitarianism on the other hand, is the general pursuit. Many feminists are egalitarian, but not all. Hence different words. English, motherfucker....

10. Nothing, as I am not.

11. No, my grandparents were being enslaved in eastern Europe by the far left and right (but more the right, let's be honest).

Seriously though, I don't remember the liberal protests of "Not all ISIS".

12. Ingroup outgroup hatred and distrust is a universal human trait. Race seems to provoke instinctive group psychology in humans, presumably from evolving in racially separate groups.

13. The phrase is intended to deflate 'Black Lives Matter' whose point is that society seems to disagree, in practice, with this. There's only one realistic motivation to undermining the attempts to equalize how the lives of different races are treated socially.
It's also designed to be perfectly innocuous outside of this context so that white people can totally believe they aren't being dicks by saying it.

14. My social justice fighting is almost always done in secret. I hate the limelight, and I hate endlessly seeking credit for doing the right thing. So I try to keep it to a minimum while also raising consciousness about issues where I can.
Hey wait, did you fall for the bias that the big public figures are representative in all ways of the group? HAHAHAHA! Noob.
Wait, did a man voicing a cartoon kangaroo wearing an Islamic headdress, superimposed on video footage of a woman in a gym grinding her hips tell me to stop trying show off how awesome I am and and to get real?

15. No, they are both not capable of giving consent. Sounds like you have had a bitter experience. Sorry to hear that.

16. I spent two decades trying to change myself. I tortured myself into a deep suicidal insanity. When I stopped that, and when society had changed in response to my and others plights being publicised sympathetically I felt happy and comfortable with myself.
You would prefer millions in silent minorities living through personal hells if the alternative means you have to learn better manners? What a dick.

17. Sure. It's also OK if you say 'nigga' in the context of asking this question. But I'm white and English. You should ask some black Americans if your usage causes unintended messages to be sent. I'd certainly avoid placing joyful emphasis, especially through increased volume, on the word.

18. Ah, you've confused a mixture of ideas and notions within a group as a contradiction of group idealogy. Whoops. I don't understand gender identity. I get gender, but I never felt membership in any group. That's how I feel, and have since the 1990s. The internet has allowed disparate and rare individuals to form groups, and some of these groups are people with different opinions about how they feel about gender and they are very excited to meet people other people with idiosyncratic views as they had previously been alone with their eccentric perspective.

19. If white men are too privileged then the society is not my notion of equal.

20. After rejecting the premise as nonsensical. In as much as I want rules to govern social interactions that take into consideration the diversity of humanity as best as possible, I recognize those same rules will govern my behaviour.

21. Women can choose how to present themselves. Video Game creators choose how to present women in their art. I can suggest that the art routinely portrays women as helpless sex devices, while supporting women who wish to do so for themselves.

22. You DO that? I've never even had the notion. I just sort of listen and digest and try to see if gaps can reasonably be filled with pre-existent knowledge or logical inferrences and then I compare and contrast that with my own differring opinion and I consider why someone might have come to their ideas. Assuming they aren't stupid I try to understand as best I can and present to them my perspective from their perspective. I don't sing, or plug in headphones or have an imaginary rock concert.

23. I have done no such thing. Look, here I am listening to you. You have all been asking questions that have easy answers to if you looked outside your bubble of fighting a handful of twitter and youtube users thinking these people represent the entirety of things and seeking only to destroy them with your arguments rather than understanding the ideas themselves.

24. Reverse Racism is where white guys are systematically (and often deliberately) disadvantaged - such as the complaints against Affirmative Action. I'm sure your buddies can fill you in on the details. The liberal SJWs you hate tend to roll their eyes when they hear it too. Strange you should ask.

25. No. I've never seen the list. I just use whatever pronouns people feel comfortable with. Typically I only need to know three to get by in life, same as most other English speakers.

26. I'm the audience motherfucker, and so are you. That's how it works.

27. I don't do those things, but yes, I have considered the notion of concept saturation in discourse. Have you considered the idea that people vary in their identification of problems, based on a number of factors. Some people are trigger happy and this may be a legitimate problem. Since you are aware of this, you also have a duty to try to overcome the saturation biases.
Similarly, if you keep using the word 'fucking', motherfucker, you'll find it loses its impact quite quickly. See this post motherfucker. Probably why you needed to add the crash zoom for impact. You could have achieved more impact with less sarcasm and and a more surprising fuck.

If the second coming of Jesus happened tomorrow and it turned out it had been David Bowie all along and he was wearing a leprechaun costume I would still not give 45% chance of a unified Ireland.

Great overview, but i think the specifics are a little academic (as in not based on first hand experience).

You should read the prince. Look at what people did throughout history, and look at what we and other nations do today.

At some point, you have to realize that nothing has changed. Technology has moved on, but we're still the same monkeys that were around before, and we're still behaving the same way.

Nations don't last. You can be on top for a couple centuries, but afterwards you fall down the totem pole. Most places on earth spend most of their time getting crapped on. It's a special time when they get to crap on others.

Regardless, the 2nd amendment was made with the awareness of the human condition. The perpetual dissatisfaction that drives people to strife. Peace is not everlasting. Even if you behave well, there's always a group that comes along to bring trouble.

A gun behind every blade of grass is the best possible method for national security there is. A nation with a broke government in turmoil will not have an organized military. But an armed people still represent a massive discouragement to any candidate occupier.

The west has had a good run for the past few decades. But it's never lasted before, and it won't last this time. It may not be in our lifetime, but things will eventually go belly up.

Then again, it could be in our lifetime. Europe is getting rapidly nationalistic under immigration pressures. US/Europe are poking Russia in the eye with missile installations and military exercises (maybe to rile them up and get people focused more on Russia and less on the immigrant crisis - common enemies are the best unifiers). You never know. Historically, when things go to hell, they were ~always fine not so long prior.

You don't have to worry about these things. They'll happen when they happen. History doesn't care either way.

2nd amendment can look like an anachronism during a period of quiet. But eventually it will make perfect sense again.

-scheherazade