Total posts: 1,942
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Just remembered you responded with this. So, prior to 1967, Israel was basically ok?
Edit:
I think Hamas can be put down like dogs.
Wait… now you align with Israel’s goal in this conflict?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Something Wylted said in another thread stuck with me. The worst thing that can happen is for society to become so tolerant that they are utterly consumed by a an intolerant nation. If that doesn't describe what's going on right now with Hamas, what other way can you describe it?
Are you sure it was Wylted? I recall saying that actually and falling under the disapproving stare of the “conservative = racism” types.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
You wrote the words dude.
*sigh* Repetition is the key to learning:
Perhaps I skipped a step in my thought process explanation. The reason I specified “white westerners” is because it would be easier to understand why a westerner of color might be inclined to sympathize more with Palestinians— Palestinians being the oppressed people of color in this binary paradigm, and a perceived kinship and sympathy there would be understandable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think he is saying that if America is so supposedly "racist" and that racism is natural and built into everybody (according to the latest eugenics junk science)...
If all of this is true,(and it is so clearly not true) then it makes no sense that large swaths of American white people are cheering on the killing of foreign white people by Palestinians (who Americans are "naturally" supposed to hate due to unconscious racial bias or whatever BS theory is taught today).
Yeah, sort of, but more my explanation in post 48. As I said earlier, people tend naturally to side with those who share their values. Americans have more values in common with Israel than with Palestinians. The LGBT aspect you mention is an excellent example of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Ok but you wrote the word white. You did, not me.
Damn… I really must remind myself that the “Racism!” gun has a hair trigger around here.
Perhaps I skipped a step in my thought process explanation. The reason I specified “white westerners” is because it would be easier to understand why a westerner of color might be inclined to sympathize more with Palestinians— Palestinians being the oppressed people of color in this binary paradigm, and a perceived kinship and sympathy there would be understandable.
I’ll ask again: And why do you trust more the Palestinian version of events and who is the aggressor over the Israeli version of events and who is the aggressor?
But… I’m starting to get the feeling this is like talking to a wall… a wall that screams “rrrrracism!” whenever the accusation can be shoehorned in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Why would a white man ever side with a brown man?
Hmm… you are eager to accuse me of oversimplifying things into a strawman argument, yet here you go doing exactly what you accuse me of.
Instead, interpret my question as “Why would a westerner side with an anti western people against a western nation?”
Ah, it's because they think the west is bad.
Generally speaking, yes. You act as though I’m making this claim up out of thin air. There are countless articles and books on the growing anti western sentiment that has been brewing in universities since the 70’s.
From what I've seen of Hamas they're sick bastards. They're decidedly bad, beyond redemption
Do you want Hamas to surrender to Israel?
Of course not because you believe this to be the case:
But Israel made them that. Palestinians live like penned animals. Israel has brutalised these people for decades. You reap what you sow.
For all the atrocities committed by Hamas, you ultimately blame Israel rather than Hamas for them. You believe Israel is decidedly worse in all the tit for tat, back and forth, decades of wrongs done on both sides. And why do you trust more the Palestinian version of events and who is the aggressor over the Israeli version of events and who is the aggressor?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
reinterpret his words
Oh, I am not REinterpreting Trump’s words; I am interpreting them for you as you clearly misunderstood him in this thread. But you seemed to basically get it earlier when Wylted phrased it this way:
He is talking about doing such a great job that it will make most people republican when they see all the good he has done for the country.
You: “As usual, completely making shit up.”
But then your question to me implied that you regressed back to misunderstanding. The point remains: talking shit (and his supporters know he is doing this) does not equal dictator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I didn't accuse you of racism.
You have an odd— and dismissive— way of NOT doing that.
You group a large amount of people into a group based on your opinion of their characteristics,
Please point to where I do this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Maybe so. I’m not convinced that you fully understand what I am saying though. How do you know that your conclusion isn’t based upon a misunderstanding on your part or merely clumsy wording on my part? Complex subjects are prone to these pitfalls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
The fuck are you talking about dude lol.
Oh, if only I could believe you were truly curious about this. Yet another adherent of “the first accuser of racism must be right!”
Funny thing, Jews have historically distinguished themselves from white people. It’s actually the pro Palestinian activists who tend to pigeonhole Israelis as “white.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
“and I don’t have a great need to see that discussion history repeat itself.”
Yep, this is going the same way as last time we discussed this issue, which is why I bowed out then and didn’t tag you in my first response to this thread. You clearly adhere to the “whoever makes the first accusation of racism is in the right” school of thought. *yawn*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I will admit that my explanation isn’t exactly flattering to postmodernist thinking, but 1) it wasn’t directed at you, 2) it wasn’t meant to be flattering, and 3) you have only demonstrated how you fit into my summary rather than depart from it. That you don’t intend to fit the school of thought I describe only affirms it.
Edit: if you must pick a single takeaway, it shouldn’t be “Western = bad.” Maybe “oppressed = good (as in the good guys)”, or maybe “limited to a binary paradigm.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
My post was about understanding why people take the sides they do on this conflict. I detailed how one can understand why a westerner such as yourself would side against Israel, which is a western nation and US ally. My curiosity about your position was satisfied last time we discussed it in a whole other thread, and I don’t have a great need to see that discussion history repeat itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your views exemplify exactly what I am talking about… to a T.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
So you equate humane treatment of other people to self destruction.
Equate? No, you are reading things I haven’t written. To recap, your thread title asks, “What’s the worst that could happen?” You are not asking “What is something bad that will happen?” So, I am answering your question about the WORST thing that COULD happen. That would be tolerance, exhibited in excess, could eventually enable its own demise, which would be the worst thing.
Where's the enemies at the gates here?
France appears to be emerging as a cautionary tale on this front.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Probably my biggest fear with liberal western democracies, which tend to emphasize the virtues of freedom and tolerance, is that they will ultimately tolerate their own cultural demise, which would mean the end of freedom and tolerance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Here is an equally true statement
As the tit for tat “who is worse” arguments can go on ad nauseam regarding Israel and Palestine, I try to look for more fundamental reasons (or biases) why people side with one over the other. Muslims and Jews are generally pretty easy to understand as far as which side they favor. Westerners favoring Israel is also pretty straightforward. But when white westerners favor Palestinians? That is more difficult to understand. I have observed that it involves one or more elements which are all rooted in postmodernist thought.
The western education system has become very postmodern, teaching that the world should be judged through the lens of power structures as opposed to recognizing similar value systems. The power structure lens encourages an oppressor vs oppressed binary:
Palestinian = non Western = poor = oppressed = inherently good
Israel = Western = rich and powerful = oppressor = inherently bad
There is also what I call “morality by casualty rate”:
High casualties = defenseless = oppressed = inherently good
Low casualties = powerful = oppressor = inherently bad
Once a people group has been judged as oppressed, no amount of malevolent action will make them decidedly bad. Conversely, when a group has been deemed an oppressor, no amount of benevolent action will cause them to be viewed as good.
Of course, the Holocaust throws a curveball in this binary of Israelis as oppressors, which is why that historic tragedy is often minimized, ignored, negated, or the argument is made that Palestinians have undergone similar at the hands of the Jews.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You misunderstand what he is being facetious about— he is not joking about ending our democracy; he is joking about the GOP garnering such a large part of the electorate that many (such as the people at this particular rally) can stay home on Election Day in 2028, and a win will still be assured.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It might even be worse than you think. Well, that probably isn’t possible… it is as bad as you think:
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Especially people who regularly deal with the copious trolling on these very forums. This just in: Trump enjoys trolling his opponents.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
One of the symptoms of TDS is an inability to discern when Trump is being facetious. That said, I don’t get his exhortation to Christians to vote “just this once,” as if Christians are stereotypically reluctant to vote (?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Do you have some video examples of Shapiro and Peterson exhibiting what you describe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
*waving of the hand*
Harris was never a “border czar.”
Biden was as sharp as ever until his shockingly swift mental decline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That is a monumental attempt at some Jedi mindshit there! Thing is, it doesn’t really work in this galaxy…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
- The intersectionality of her sex and racial heritage would make her a historic president
- She will bring balance to the SCOTUS
- She is for a menstruating person’s right to choose
- She wants to lower firearm fatalities via stricter gun laws
- She wants corporations and the more fortunate to pay their fair share
- She is for racial equity/DEI/reparations
- She is for affordable education, healthcare and childcare
- She announces her pronouns so one doesn’t have to ask or ASSume
- She inspires young women everywhere that through hard work and perseverance, they, too, can sleep their way to the top.
- Gotta love that laugh!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you recall, there was going to be a Disinformation Governance Board headed by a Nina Jankowicz a couple years ago to answer those very questions and concerns. But after much criticism, controversy, and a disturbing sense that the novel “1984” was getting too real, the whole idea was canned…
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What is inexplicable (without a deep state) is why the demented fascist figurehead won a primary and a flock of "journalistic" organizations did their very best to hide and confuse the facts up until total defeat was looming over them.
The DNC/MSM seemed quite content with propping up a figurehead as long as that figurehead was compliant and could be re-elected. Once failure with the latter was virtually assured… well, we are still witnessing how that plan B or lack thereof is turning out…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Kamala will be unburdened by what has been,
That’s what she said:
Created:
The video isn't Trump;
It isn’t?? Dang, I thought Trump was finally busting out some legit moves instead of his usual which looks as though he’s jerking off two guys at once:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I wasn’t able to hear his entire rewritten speech, but the difference between Trump before and after the shooting appears to be the bandage…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are simply too many inaccuracies in your posts to address them all adequately. Chief among them is that you conflate the concept of gender with gender stereotypes, gender roles, gender norms, and gender traits (where “gender” is the modifier of the concept in question rather than the concept itself). You simply (and erroneously) put all those various concepts under the umbrella of “gender.” Furthermore, you conflate the concept of “gender traits” with certain activities which various societies have separated according to gender (or sex). Now, for that lie down…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tidycraft
Feel free to continue the convo you were having with HB, as I was just butting in…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That isn't up for dispute.
Well, there it is, then. You are so completely convinced of how factually right you are that it isn’t up for debate. This proves that further conversation on this matter with you is futile. It’s actually a relief, as I might actually need to lie down for a bit after reading your latest responses… like yeesh…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So there being someone, somewhere in the world talking about a thing isn't saying alot.
Here’s another:
And there’s more, but I don’t wish to Gish gallop. The push toward sex as a social construct IS a thing. It is inherent in progressivism to keep the goalposts moving further down the track as goals are achieved. Knowing this, I’ll make a fairly easy prediction: if “gender is a social construct” ideology gains widespread acceptance in western societies, and it seems to be on its way, the next goal will be “BOTH gender and sex are social constructs.” Then the redundancy of that nomenclature will become evident, and the ideology will simply become “sex is a social construct.”
Gender is the cultural perception we have of people.
So, “dude looks like a lady”— actually MAKES that person a woman?
You can see proof of this because there are people who don't fully fall into the definition of male or female. There are people who are both, or neither. But we only have 2 genders that society recognizes. This proves that gender and sex differ.
Ah, yes, the old “use the exception to disprove the rule” gambit. How many arms and legs do humans have? Two of each? Well, there are babies born with one arm or one leg. Do they then cease to be human?
no, there was not.
From Wikipedia:
“The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.[24]”
You perceive there being only 2 sexes and 2 genders. Therefore you assume
Please, take caution in assuming what I perceive or… assume. I perceive three sexes: male, female, and intersex. However, intersex is a rarity, an aberration, akin to being born with one arm. Again, what I am saying is that claiming that gender and sex are completely distinct is an opinion, a school of thought, not necessarily a fact as you declare without doubt. There is another school of thought: that gender and sex are synonymous, if not EXACTLY the same, exact thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
perhaps you didn't notice that message was a reply to someone else. So obviously the reply was talking about this conversation. IE neither he nor I were discussing biology, we were discussing gender. So you bringing up someone completely separate and saying "that guy's talking about biology" is a little strange.
Point taken. YOU were not talking about biology. What I was seeking to introduce is the fact that there are people in the transgender movement who do, indeed, argue that biology is very much a part of the debate, and this fact does not seem to be generally acknowledged.
what factual claims have I made that are not factual?
That sex and gender are two different things. That is an opinion rather than a fact. There was a time in society when sex and gender were synonymous words and this view was devoid of controversy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well, you asked, “Who’s talking about biology?” I answered that a particular biologist IS bringing biology into the “social construct” argument.
Perhaps you need to clarify your point in rhetorically asking (as if the answer were “absolutely no one”) “Who’s talking about biology?”
Edit: alright, to get straight to my point: you are establishing certain concepts and claims as factual when they are not necessarily factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
who is talking about biology?
Apparently, this biologist is:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Nay.
“Stochastic terrorism” is an academic term designed to curb free speech a la “hate speech” laws and is ripe for abuse. “Incitement to terrorism” already covers what needs to be covered.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I told you we were the only pilots on this site.
I beg to differ, Professor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yes, Carlson would be an exciting choice— and yet another blunder (assuming he would even accept the position).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Who would be an “exciting” choice?
Sarah Palin was chosen out of a need for excitement, and the choice was one of political history’s great blunders…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You could simply bump your last thread on this subject, also titled “What is a republican?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If demonstrating it worked than Ross Perot would have became president
If announcing one’s IQ were truly persuasive and not merely douchebaggery, then Ross Perot could have submitted his test results to the American people and presumably have simply swooped into the presidency.
There’s a quote I like which I’ll loosely quote from memory, “The trouble with the world is that the foolish are cocksure while the wise are full of doubt.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
That sounds like midwit cope TBH. While true that it's nothing to brag about because you didn't earn it, but nobody really brags about their IQ. They just get frustrated with midwits and just gently inform them of their superiority.
“Midwit cope”? As quoted directly from the late Stephen Hawking? You are entitled to that opinion, of course. As for superiority, whatever meaning that may take on depending on the situation, it is FAR more persuasive and admirable to demonstrate it rather than merely claim it.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yeah, talk about mythmaking. It is such a potentially lionizing moment that it invites all sorts of conspiracy theorizing in order to discredit the optics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If he was close to 21, the math might work out. The point still stands that official party affiliation is hardly conclusive to someone’s true political inclinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
he donated 15$ to a democrat PAC on the day Biden was sworn in.
Cite? I ask because a minor is not allowed to donate to a PAC.
Edit: the age math would be close, but possible, I guess!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
(Whom does this sound like?):
Remember that Hitler also survived an assassination attempt.
Created: