Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UXLZ]

On the EC:

Top 100 cities are less than 20% of the US' population.

Actually the theoretical amount of votes needed to win the electoral college is like 23%

And that is with only 2 contestants.

It's absurdly unlikely to happen, but the math is done here.
https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=4m19s

[EnigmaticHat]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Whoosh!! Missing the fucking point.

You say they can eat dick? They say you can go to hell. Everyone loses. That's the point.

You are dramatically deceived if you think that fundamentalists and racists have somehow the same moral standing as people struggling to be recognized. When was the last time a gay person shot up a religious gathering? When was the last time a religious person shot up a gay gathering?

This false equivalence has to stop. The conservative party isn't just "different." The message produced by party leaders have as core principles things that are inconsistent with not just the ethics of the western world, but even inconsistent with the ethics they profess to hold: treat others as you would like to be treated, and minimize the interference of the many upon the few. These broken ethics don't go away, and they do incite violence.

The lash-back against "safe spaces" is not, I think, about safe spaces as a concept, but rather the fear the average uneducated voter has for the educated, a lever to be used to further wedge apart the gap between rural and urban populations. I think ultimately it comes down to racial divides once more; white liberals are "othered" so that they cannot serve as a bridge between white conservatives and minorities. Thus, they are portrayed as SJW nazis with whom no dialog can exist, not "normal people." This propaganda prevents conservative voters from coming to understand just how much they've been lied to.

Unrelated, here's a terribly disappointing video.

Oh, I remembered annother of Trump's campaign promises: nationwide roll-out of the unconstitutional practice of stop-and-frisk. I recall that constitutional fundamentalism arises frequently in regards to White American's 2ed amendment rights, but rarely for Arabic-*, Latino- and Black-Americans' 4th and 14th. Even if it was truly random, (although I can think of no practical way to remove bias from the system,) it is baldly unconstitutional in the most obvious way: it consists entirely of a police officer shaking someone down without cause. I really can't comprehend how someone could see it as anything but a violation of our most deeply held rights.

*And Sikh, since Americans now see turbans as automatically evil. I blame Professor Quirrel.

Whoosh again.

No. Pttg, there are people other than hostile gay people, and hostile haters.

There is this massive herd of inoffensive people in the middle who have to live with the Shit the other two stir up.

They get labeled as haters, the way you just excluded all others just now, and they get call fag lovers and deviants from the other side just the same.

When you divide the world into Us and Them, you CREATE "them".  Is that the world you want? Because that us the world you are making with division and exclusion like you just shown.

So what you're saying is, if gay people had just said nothing, they'd have equal rights now?  And no one would hate them?

Look dude, we get your point.  We just don't agree with it.  That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.  And in that case, they should argue for that side, none of this wishy-washy hypocritical "why can't we all get along" silliness.  Shutting down a conversation is the same thing as arguing for status quo.  Which in this case is taking the side of the oppressor over the oppressed.

[Rolepgeek]

On the EC:

Top 100 cities are less than 20% of the US' population.

Actually the theoretical amount of votes needed to win the electoral college is like 23%

And that is with only 2 contestants.

It's absurdly unlikely to happen, but the math is done here.
https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=4m19s

UXLZ, official city limits are often sporadic and inaccurate. Take a look at the top 10 metropolitan statistical areas instead.

@EnigmaticHat: There's a difference between calling for civility and telling everyone to stop arguing, for the record.

[wierd]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Whoosh!! Missing the fucking point.

You say they can eat dick? They say you can go to hell. Everyone loses. That's the point.

You are dramatically deceived if you think that fundamentalists and racists have somehow the same moral standing as people struggling to be recognized. When was the last time a gay person shot up a religious gathering? When was the last time a religious person shot up a gay gathering?

This false equivalence has to stop. The conservative party isn't just "different." The message produced by party leaders have as core principles things that are inconsistent with not just the ethics of the western world, but even inconsistent with the ethics they profess to hold: treat others as you would like to be treated, and minimize the interference of the many upon the few. These broken ethics don't go away, and they do incite violence.

The lash-back against "safe spaces" is not, I think, about safe spaces as a concept, but rather the fear the average uneducated voter has for the educated, a lever to be used to further wedge apart the gap between rural and urban populations. I think ultimately it comes down to racial divides once more; white liberals are "othered" so that they cannot serve as a bridge between white conservatives and minorities. Thus, they are portrayed as SJW nazis with whom no dialog can exist, not "normal people." This propaganda prevents conservative voters from coming to understand just how much they've been lied to.

Unrelated, here's a terribly disappointing video.

Oh, I remembered annother of Trump's campaign promises: nationwide roll-out of the unconstitutional practice of stop-and-frisk. I recall that constitutional fundamentalism arises frequently in regards to White American's 2ed amendment rights, but rarely for Arabic-*, Latino- and Black-Americans' 4th and 14th. Even if it was truly random, (although I can think of no practical way to remove bias from the system,) it is baldly unconstitutional in the most obvious way: it consists entirely of a police officer shaking someone down without cause. I really can't comprehend how someone could see it as anything but a violation of our most deeply held rights.

*And Sikh, since Americans now see turbans as automatically evil. I blame Professor Quirrel.

Whoosh again.

No. Pttg, there are people other than hostile gay people, and hostile haters.

There is this massive herd of inoffensive people in the middle who have to live with the Shit the other two stir up.

They get labeled as haters, the way you just excluded all others just now, and they get call fag lovers and deviants from the other side just the same.

When you divide the world into Us and Them, you CREATE "them".  Is that the world you want? Because that us the world you are making with division and exclusion like you just shown.

So what you're saying is, if gay people had just said nothing, they'd have equal rights now?  And no one would hate them?

Look dude, we get your point.  We just don't agree with it.  That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.  And in that case, they should argue for that side, none of this wishy-washy hypocritical "why can't we all get along" silliness.  Shutting down a conversation is the same thing as arguing for status quo.  Which in this case is taking the side of the oppressor over the oppressed.

Whoosh again, into us vs them.

No. I am saying that your last, best hope in the face of pence, is to reach out to the people you alienated, which is what enabled his rise.  It us the only way to stop him, which you keep resorting to hyperbole to ignore.

[UXLZ]

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

To the whole thing: Alright, gimme some numbers.

Sure, send me the mindreading laser satellite and I'll get right on that.

So you have no idea. Could be five of them in a remote cabin in Alaska, could be everyone south of Jersey. But you're utterly convinced that they compose vast hordes causing massive damage to... something. "Us," I suppose.

There are no numbers, so it cannot be known. Suuuuuuure.

I'd like to get to the rest of both of your posts, but first- could you explain how you arrived at this response? Really thoroughly, step by step, with multiple pictures?

Pictures? No. But I can give a step-by-step explanation.

1. Trump has made many racist (sexist, etc.) statements.
2. Despite this, he had roughly the same voters as did Romney etc.
3. This suggests that most Trump-voters either:
     a. Didn't care.
     b. Liked what he said.
     c. Disliked what he said, but not enough for them to not vote for him.

[wierd]

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

DING DING DING!!!

We have a winner!!

[Rolan7]

Woo, I found a peaceful protest while playing Pokemon GO!  I held up a sign and did chants and stuff, it felt good (:
Some people stood in the road for a bit but we managed to convince them to stop ):<
One guy got arrested for jaywalking which seemed silly, but I think he knew what he was doing.  Someone shouted an obscenity at the cops but got shouted down with "No!" and then "Love trumps hate!"

It was a good time, even if it seemed a little pointless...  This is a university town.  These voters were informed already.  Still, felt good.

Someone suggested that if Trump gets prosecuted before the inauguration, we might not get Pence.  Still not sure how that would work, since I think it's unprecedented.

AWB, whatever could that mean...  Oh right - Assault Weapons Ban.  Funny how you hid that behind a bland acronym

As for Colin Powell mishandling data, I'll link it again.  I don't blame you for the thread moving fast, but it is your fault for not knowing about it from the election:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/08/former-secretary-state-colin-powell-gave-clinton-tips-for-private-email-use.html

And... Clinton bullied the FBI, when the conservatives in charge of congress desperately wanted her found guilty
Uh-huh...  Next you'll say 9/11 wasn't an inside job (I jest, but seriously that's some tinfoil theory you've got there)
That totally explains why the FBI came out with "Oh hey MAYBE she was actually guilty!" a couple days before the election.  Oh yeah, absolutely on her payroll.  "oops nope haha jk" they then admitted.

I said the entire USA is voting irrationally.
If you take that as a personal attack, that's on you.  Don't be so sensitive.

Yes, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.
It was a gun ban, Hillary and Obama supported, it took away guns. (Took them away, as in made them impossible to get)

Took them away, as in didn't take away a single gun?  All existing legal guns were grandfathered in.  No guns were taken.
You sorta-almost acknowledge that, but I'm just going to drive it home.
She didn't.  Take.  Their guns.  To claim otherwise is yet another massively repeated LIE.

Nevermind that we're talking about fricken assault rifles here.  Actually I don't know if I fully agree with the legislation?  It's just not what people say it is.

I was talking about Trump specifically. Yes, that makes Powell incompetent to, like many people under Bush. It's the reason I voted Obama.

What?  No you weren't:

Colin Powell, Trump, and other Republicans mishandled sensitive data in very similar ways...  Ignored by the mainstream media.
Such as?

Anyway, Colin Powell was not incompetent...  I'm not going to try and prove that, you're welcome to disagree.
This was business as usual though.

The Executive branch has much more power over the FBI then congress. Not on her payroll no, but about to be subject to her.
Is it a good idea to talk shit about your future boss, cause everyone, even Trump, thought Hillary was going to be the next US president.
And I've already said, I doubt criminal charges are in order. I think she is incompetent. It will be interesting to see what they have to say now that she won't be in power now, though.

They were so afraid of her power...  that they helped ruin her presidential bid.
When I put it like that, it almost makes sense, though I think not in the way you mean.

[EnigmaticHat]

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

This is moving away from my point, which was a specific response to weird's point.

I was specifically and exclusively talking about people that are trying to shut down the conversation.  Specifically the many variants of "why can't we just all get along", "we're all human", ect. ect.  My point is that those people are not "taking the third path", they're just arguing in favor of whichever side is status quo and being chickenshit about it.  Even if they themselves don't realize it.

Actual third paths like neutrality, or genuinely different perspectives, that's fine.  I have no issue with that, and was not trying to argue all arguments must have exactly two sides.  Calls for civility is a weird line versus trying to shut down the conversation but yes, if it actually is genuinely just a call for civility that's OK too.

Whoosh again, into us vs them.

No. I am saying that your last, best hope in the face of pence, is to reach out to the people you alienated, which is what enabled his rise.  It us the only way to stop him, which you keep resorting to hyperbole to ignore.

...right.  Because prior to this moment, there has never, ever been anyone like Pence in this history of US politics.  It reminds me of the famous phrase "Gods, guns, getting along with gays."  Pity the LGBT community had to come along and give the GOP a reason to hate them.

Look, "in regards to the debate over gay rights, gay rights activists and religious fundamentalists have been equivalent levels of harmful, rude, and generally uncivil."  To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?  Because a huge amount of what we're arguing hinges on this point and you keep dodging it.

[PTTG??]

Equal opportunity law is a two edged sword. Yes, the Jew cannot disqualify on basis of Nazism.

I'm getting really tired of your metaphor here. You've used it several times now and you seem to be implying that Nazism and homosexuality/christianity/atheism/ethnicity/etc. are equally valid. Nazism is in ideology, not an ethnicity. It's possible to be intolerant to intolerance without being otherwise intolerant.

Furthermore, you still aren't getting it: This election has surpassed the coke/pepsi brand loyalty war and is something new. Trump's policies are definitely harmful and definitely wrong, and his election alone has harmed the discourse of the country. If I were to give up and sit down, then I would be allowing an injustice to occur in front of my eyes. Its funny you keep mentioning Nazis, weird.

[wierd]

That horde of "inoffensive" people in the middle needs to shut up or admit that they are taking a side.

This "you're with us or you're against us" attitude is a huge fucking problem and it's why everything ends up so polarized. Screaming at people who're trying to keep things civil because they think it's the best way to work towards a better future isn't going to make them want to join you.

You talk about shutting down conversation, but isn't that what you're trying to do right now?
The point isn't that these things shouldn't be talked about, that would be ridiculous, but all it seems that you want to do is alienate your potential friends and whip your potential enemies into the biggest frenzy that you can.

This is moving away from my point, which was a specific response to weird's point.

I was specifically and exclusively talking about people that are trying to shut down the conversation.  Specifically the many variants of "why can't we just all get along", "we're all human", ect. ect.  My point is that those people are not "taking the third path", they're just arguing in favor of whichever side is status quo and being chickenshit about it.  Even if they themselves don't realize it.

Actual third paths like neutrality, or genuinely different perspectives, that's fine.  I have no issue with that, and was not trying to argue all arguments must have exactly two sides.  Calls for civility is a weird line versus trying to shut down the conversation but yes, if it actually is genuinely just a call for civility that's OK too.

Whoosh again, into us vs them.

No. I am saying that your last, best hope in the face of pence, is to reach out to the people you alienated, which is what enabled his rise.  It us the only way to stop him, which you keep resorting to hyperbole to ignore.

...right.  Because prior to this moment, there has never, ever been anyone like Pence in this history of US politics.  It reminds me of the famous phrase "Gods, guns, getting along with gays."  Pity the LGBT community had to come along and give the GOP a reason to hate them.

Look, "in regards to the debate over gay rights, gay rights activists and religious fundamentalists have been equivalent levels of harmful, rude, and generally uncivil."  To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?  Because a huge amount of what we're arguing hinges on this point and you keep dodging it.

make it general sjws, then strongly agree.

i see safespaces as the nascent beginnings of feedback loop nuerosis of fear and paranoia of otherness. the very thing that causes violence to gay people. it isnt that i see gaay people as violent NOW, i see it heading that way, and want it stopped.

[wierd]

Equal opportunity law is a two edged sword. Yes, the Jew cannot disqualify on basis of Nazism.

I'm getting really tired of your metaphor here. You've used it several times now and you seem to be implying that Nazism and homosexuality/christianity/atheism/ethnicity/etc. are equally valid. Nazism is in ideology, not an ethnicity. It's possible to be intolerant to intolerance without being otherwise intolerant.

again, note the word "creed" being on the federal eeoc list.

that covers any belief, not just religious.

as for nazis, i did not bring them up. i was responding.

[PTTG??]

Equal opportunity law is a two edged sword. Yes, the Jew cannot disqualify on basis of Nazism.

I'm getting really tired of your metaphor here. You've used it several times now and you seem to be implying that Nazism and homosexuality/christianity/atheism/ethnicity/etc. are equally valid. Nazism is in ideology, not an ethnicity. It's possible to be intolerant to intolerance without being otherwise intolerant.

again, note the word "creed" being on the federal eeoc list.

that covers any belief, not just religious.

Next you're going to tell me that freedom of speech allows you to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

I edited my earlier post. I added:
Furthermore, you still aren't getting it: This election has surpassed the coke/pepsi brand loyalty war and is something new. Trump's policies are definitely harmful and definitely wrong, and his election alone has harmed the discourse of the country. If I were to give up and sit down, then I would be allowing an injustice to occur in front of my eyes. Its funny you keep mentioning Nazis, weird.

[wierd]

Do you need me to find you the executive order telling federal agencies they have to follow equal opportunity, where it explicitly mentions creed, to satisfy you?

[TheBiggerFish]

@PTTG:Ahem.