"According to a recent study out of Australia on online dating apps, people who display a marked romantic preference for one race are more likely to be racist."
"Data was crosschecked with the results from a Quick Discrimination Index, a survey that measures attitudes on race and diversity that participants also completed, they found those who scored high on the discrimination index also had high levels of racial preference."
"So if you say you have a racial preference on your dating profile, you're very likely to also hold racist beliefs in other areas."
-Key word: "likely"
There is also the Okcupid study on Race and Attraction, 2009 - 2014. Black women are apparently the least desirable. So I guess everyone that doesn't want to date black women is racist? "82% of non-black men on Okcupid show some bias against black women."
we are all racist, some like to pretend they are not, some try and control/change it, and some want to embrace it.
the end.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 02 2016 10:29. Posts 4943
On April 01 2016 19:15 Quest2Know wrote:
Are you a racist if you're primarily drawn toward
people within your own racial group?
No.
please explain why.
Please explain why I would be?
If you do feel that sexual preference IS NOT racist and you are accused of racism, what would your response be?
Shut the fuck up. Not to you, that would just be my response.
Feel free to include any relevant studies.
There's a documentary on this wireframe model that shows it can be applied to any race and even any sex. It is a basic measurement of symmetry that our brains define attractiveness as. Quality symmetry displays quality genes, thus we are drawn to it. They also showed the same attractive faces to infants and they all unanimously responded in the same manner regardless of race.
I am predominately attracted to white women, however I have seen a few black women that had the faces of a white woman and their blackness didnt bother me at all, I would have totally smashed that and had a relationship and everything. But it's rare.
Besides pure instincts our perception of what is beautiful is heavily influenced by what is depicted as beautiful in the media. Caucasian features are definitely portrayed as ideal, minority actors and models usually look like white people with a slightly darker complexions. Obviously a lot of what composes our idea of what is beautiful is visual cues like physical health or birthing potential (lol) but there's a huge cultural influence as well.
1
K40Cheddar United States. Apr 02 2016 18:04. Posts 2202
Am I racist for liking girls that are not my race and hating white chicks?
On April 01 2016 19:15 Quest2Know wrote:
Are you a racist if you're primarily drawn toward
people within your own racial group?
No.
please explain why.
Please explain why I would be?
Ok, let me throw out a hypothetical here...
If we switched from: "prefer Caucasian" and "prefer Blacks" to "no Whites" or "no Blacks" etc., would your opinion change? (Give a yes/no in your head before you read further.)
Stating that you "prefer" one race over another is not much different from saying "no" anyway, since you're issuing a caveat to anyone that is not X race. It is akin to saying: "Well, you can try your luck with me, but it probably isn't happening." You are discouraging people of various races from contacting you.
Onto your question. "Why would I be?" Well, I'm not a regressive leftist/progressive so that's a bit difficult for me to answer. Personally, I don't care if someone is or isn't attracted to a specific racial group because I've always believed that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and sexual desire is something that we have no control over. I've got better shit to deal with than to analyze who I'm attracted to and why, BUT being that I've come under criticism in the past and present and I've been accused of racism numerous times about this particular situation, I thought I would do some reading and inquire.
If I had to flip the regressive switch and take a shot at demonizing your sexual desires, I may say: You don't care about racial discrimination because your race (Caucasian) rarely ever faces sexual racism. You are rarely ever told "no" based on your race. Your standards of beauty are heavily promoted on a global scale influencing your decisions. So I believe that your desires are just influenced by social norms. Society has made you racist.
In saying "no" or "prefer" you are basically discriminating against and shutting out millions or even billions of people whom you've never met before. You are saying: "I've never met you before, but you are not attractive to me because you belong to x race." There is a strong correlation between racial discrimination and racist attitudes according to X study."
Feel free to include any relevant studies.
In this documentary did it state whether this wireframe model matched the faces of specific races / ethnic backgrounds more often than others? Perhaps disproportionately so?
On April 02 2016 17:04 K40Cheddar wrote:
Am I racist for liking girls that are not my race and hating white chicks?
If I understand you correctly...
You are a white male that does not like white females? "Hate" is vague, so I will need to make some assumptions here...
I believe that western society has been heavily influenced by Cultural Marxism so I can understand why you would feel that way. Your hatred of white chicks is probably illogical.
I speculate that you dislike (are not attracted to) (or outright hate) white girls as a result of their attitude(s) and not so much as a result of their physical appearance.
Or am I wrong? It's just unusual to find white people who write-off other white people due to physical attraction.
Usually those people have self-loathing tendencies. Have you been discussing The Crusades or The Atlantic Slave Trade on your FB page at all this week?
On April 01 2016 19:15 Quest2Know wrote:
Are you a racist if you're primarily drawn toward
people within your own racial group?
No.
please explain why.
Please explain why I would be?
If you do feel that sexual preference IS NOT racist and you are accused of racism, what would your response be?
Shut the fuck up. Not to you, that would just be my response.
Feel free to include any relevant studies.
There's a documentary on this wireframe model that shows it can be applied to any race and even any sex. It is a basic measurement of symmetry that our brains define attractiveness as. Quality symmetry displays quality genes, thus we are drawn to it. They also showed the same attractive faces to infants and they all unanimously responded in the same manner regardless of race.
I am predominately attracted to white women, however I have seen a few black women that had the faces of a white woman and their blackness didnt bother me at all, I would have totally smashed that and had a relationship and everything. But it's rare.
Documentary title?
1
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 02 2016 22:17. Posts 4943
I tried finding the documentary on youtube, just found a bunch of other little 5-10 minute shorts instead. I'll look again later, it was kinda cool. As to the other guy's question, I want to say that they did indeed lay the image on more white women than other races, but I think that was just for "familiarity" sort of thing. As someone mentioned media is heavily white-centric so it's just what we're used to seeing, but they did lay the template on asian/black/whatever and if they were hot, it matched. They also of course put it on ugly people just so you could see how badly it did not match.
I think anyone who uses the phrase 'cultural marxism' without intending on bashing someone for using the phrase 'cultural marxism' is completely full of shit, always. Literally 100% correlation.
I think it's racist to look everywhere for a racial problem. (doesn't matter what race you are)
Make it rain$$$
Last edit: 03/04/2016 18:02
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Apr 03 2016 19:59. Posts 2226
On April 03 2016 15:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think anyone who uses the phrase 'cultural marxism' without intending on bashing someone for using the phrase 'cultural marxism' is completely full of shit, always. Literally 100% correlation.
what word should they use for it?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
I can accept that the original academic use of the phrase from the 70s can have soome extremely esoteric applications, but the way literally everyone has used cultural marxism for the past 5 years has been the same way anders behring breivik did, as some derogatory term for multiculturalism-political correctness. He's literally the guy who popularized the phrase. And if you want to be critical towards multiculturalism or political correctness, be my guest, but using cultural marxism is basically like using Al-Baghdadi-phrases in describing western imperialism. Anyone who uses it in a serious manner basically confirm their adherence to a conspiratorical belief in that leftists are deliberately attempting to undermine 'western culture'. It's basically like believing in 'eurabia'.
Marx hardly even writes about culture. It's an idiotic term used by idiots and it should be an immediate red flag for people looking for people to ignore.
On April 03 2016 09:22 Baalim wrote:
Open a diccionary, read the definiton of racism and answer your own question
this basically... racism is a belief so it has nothing to do with sexual preference. you don't get to decide what turns you on, but you do get to decide what you believe in (to some extent at least)
Since the original topic is basically dead, I may as well respond to your comments.
I use "Cultural Marxism" as a blanket term to underline destructive sociological issues predominantly occurring within Western Civilization. Whether Cultural Marxism is a deliberate effort by Western Governments to undermine Western civilization is largely irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that it is happening.
Mass immigration is proving to be harmful to Western civilization. It is important to note the distinction I'm choosing to use as there is a difference between immigration and mass immigration. The former of which I'm not opposed to.
Cultural relativism - Not all cultures are equal yet they are being treated as such or greater than Western culture.
Feminism in its current state is damaging to both women and men.
Free speech is being eroded and replaced with Liberal fascism. Just ask your neighbor - Sweden; the regressive kingpins of the world.
These are facts, and they fall under the umbrella of Cultural Marxism.
1
traxamillion United States. Apr 04 2016 01:22. Posts 10468
liberal fascism is about as nonsensical of a term as cultural marxism is. just adding an unrelated misnomer to a word, be it culture or liberal, doesn't make for a new coherent phrase. liberal fascism is like saying communist capitalism or whatever, they are actually pretty much opposites.
I accept that cultural relativism is a real thing in liberal academia, but it is certainly not about treating other cultures as greater than western culture. It's the combination of two different factors; firstly considering tolerance and acceptance two of the virtues of western culture that must be preserved - which is not something that can simply be stated, it must be practiced. For tolerance and acceptance to continue being virtues of western culture, we must be tolerant and accepting. The second factor is that the previous time xenophobic sentiments, racial thinking, us-vs-them mentalities ruled european mindsets, we committed one genocide, engaged in slave trade and colonial oppression, and attempted another genocide.
There are feminists who have fairly radical ideas on what gender equality should entail. I don't agree with the most radical ones, but I am also fairly certain I don't agree with your impression of what the current state of feminism is -because I know many self-professed feminists I consider very rational.
Free speech being eroded - I vehemently disagree, I think overall, more people are able to express their thoughts and opinions than what has ever before been the case. People are just somehow confusing people vehemently disagreeing with attempting to stifle free speech. Granted, there are opinions that can't really be publicly uttered if you wish to hold public jobs - but this is largely because expressing hateful thoughts and sentiments towards a group of people that you have to interact with makes this interaction difficult. Then there are also actual real problems with media underreporting incidents to not spark more negative sentiments - this I have no defense for and think is really, really stupid, because it fuels these conspiratorical ideas that have little root in reality.
Social mariximism is basically a conspiracy theory, not really a rigid scientifically sound theory. So i dont see why opposing or plain out negating social Marxism as invalid is not correct.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Free-market is economic theory, studied extensevly. Though it does not exist in the real world (the market will never be free of changing variables); dont see a problem using that term on technical level; not so much as a political belif or whatever the word is being missused as these daya
Social darwinism, from quick read, alao seems like unfound "theory" that has no real world applications nor theoretical application.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Last edit: 04/04/2016 18:32
1
soberstone United States. Apr 04 2016 23:11. Posts 2662
On April 04 2016 17:31 uiCk wrote: Free-market is economic theory, studied extensevly. Though it does not exist in the real world (the market will never be free of changing variables) ; dont see a problem using that term on technical level; not so much as a political belif or whatever the word is being missused as these daya
Social darwinism, from quick read, alao seems like unfound "theory" that has no real world applications nor theoretical application.
What? Ofcourse they exist in the real world. Perhaps not an international or national scale, but certainly free markets exist between individuals, between small groups of people, and in black markets, there are certainly free markets. Dunno wtf you mean by this. I don't know what you mean by changing variables but they certainly don't imply innately un-free markets. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but I really don't think a) you know what you are talking about, or b) you haven't adequately presented your argument. A or B or both are true.
Just because we can't create the conditions by which to prove through first-hand, pure evidence that something exists doesn't mean it has no real world application. That's an absurd, Niche-like assumption that is ultimately quite harmful. Are you saying gravity is a worthless concept with no real world application because we can't see it and don't fully understand it's causes? Sure bud. At a certain point the preponderance of evidence and successful application of certain theories within broader models creates just cause for the unanimous accepting of such theories. Free-market economics should be one of those things... but socialist politicians and information distributors keep holding us back from moving on from this stupid argument. Thank god for social media.
On April 04 2016 17:31 uiCk wrote: Free-market is economic theory, studied extensevly. Though it does not exist in the real world (the market will never be free of changing variables) ; dont see a problem using that term on technical level; not so much as a political belif or whatever the word is being missused as these daya
Social darwinism, from quick read, alao seems like unfound "theory" that has no real world applications nor theoretical application.
What? Ofcourse they exist in the real world. Perhaps not an international or national scale, but certainly free markets exist between individuals, between small groups of people, and in black markets, there are certainly free markets. Dunno wtf you mean by this. I don't know what you mean by changing variables but they certainly don't imply innately un-free markets. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but I really don't think a) you know what you are talking about, or b) you haven't adequately presented your argument. A or B or both are true.
Just because we can't create the conditions by which to prove through first-hand, pure evidence that something exists doesn't mean it has no real world application. That's an absurd, Niche-like assumption that is ultimately quite harmful. Are you saying gravity is a worthless concept with no real world application because we can't see it and don't fully understand it's causes? Sure bud. At a certain point the preponderance of evidence and successful application of certain theories within broader models creates just cause for the unanimous accepting of such theories. Free-market economics should be one of those things... but socialist politicians and information distributors keep holding us back from moving on from this stupid argument. Thank god for social media.
dig deep there, i was merley refering to the fact that you will never see free markets at it's purest form; there will always be forces that influence price aside from suply/demand theory (human behaviour: greed, monopolistic tendencies, oligarchies, human "preferences",) thus making 'free market' something unachivable. Unless we all become robots with same OS and same data bucket.
Edit: in short, free market is simply a characteristic of an actual market, composed of diferent forces.
Note to self, use less examples for less possible future tangents.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
You don't sound entirely unreasonable but I still disagree. At the very least you're able to identify *some of the problems.
In my opinion, "Liberal Fascism" became institutionalized soon after the widespread acceptance of political correctness within mainstream politics. Political correctness is a tool the left has successfully harnessed to stifle debate and shame dissent. I think we can both agree that if you're unable to identify a problem you're unable to identify a solution and the left refuses to aptly identify many problems it deems to be offensive or insensitive. Why? Because they might offend a segment of its voter base that they imported. The left seems to have a bigger problem with the language used over the actual severity of the crime itself unless it's being perpetrated towards a minority.
Liberal Fascism has become an increasingly appropriate phrase to use since the bulk of bad ideas currently stem from the left and these ideas are dominating political discourse whether the left is in power or not. It should be quite clear by now that I disagree with political correctness and without a doubt it has been used for political gain by the left. I don't care about people's feelings, I care about the truth. "That is offensive to say and therefore should not be said" is not a legitimate argument and shouldn't be a legitimate reason to avoid discussing something. This is why we are seeing the rise of Donald Trump in America and the rise of the far right in Europe. These people wouldn't exist if not for the past and present insanity of the left. The general public is tried of being told what to think and how to feel. So yes, I equate Liberalism with Fascism because if it doesn't fit the liberal paradigm of moral righteousness you will be shamed, you will be demonized and you may even lose your career and family.
For those unfamiliar with politics and sociology I suppose I'll drop a list below to illustrate some of the many issues I'm referring to.
-Recently the Scottish Police issued a warning on Twitter stating that it will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated. The Scottish police WILL visit your house for any language they deem "unnecessary" or "unkind." That is basically police harassment of a citizen and this does not seem like a reasonable use of police resources when no crime has been committed.
-Angela Merkel is working with Mark Zuckerberg to clamp down on anti-immigrant and anti-refugee speech on Facebook. This is not conspiracy. The audio recording can be found online.
-Politicians have been fined for using government statistics to highlight societal issues. In Sweden a court fined a politician for hate speech because he mentioned that Muslims are over represented in rape statistics. The court ruled that "it does not matter if the statement is true."
-Paul Weston was arrested in the UK for quoting Winston Churchill.
-Gregory Alan Elliott of Canada was tied up in court for three years over disagreeing with feminists on Twitter.
-Canadian Mike Ward was put on trial because he made a joke about a disabled person. Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock won't even perform comedy skits on university campuses anymore due to Liberal (aka regressive Liberal students.)
-The racial backgrounds of the UK Rotherham gang rapists were covered up and reports of rape were ignored for many years because the police were worried about being viewed as racist and politically incorrect. Often times siding with the perpetrators as opposed to the victims. Not disclosing the race or ethnic background of the perpetrators is a common tactic of Swedish media.
-There are "safe spaces" on Liberal university campuses in America and Europe banning various language they don't agree with. Clicking instead of clapping because clapping is is said to be "triggering" etc. You have professors being fired for simply disagreeing with their students. It is appalling to realize that some day these people may be our future leaders.
-You have "Welcome Refugee" advocates that were eventually raped by "refugees" and coerced into remaining silent by the Liberal organizations they work for.
Your perception of "us-vs-them" is ironic.
The West has been unable to engage in fair discourse regarding mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islam. As result we may be heading for an us-vs-them civil war scenario because politicians failed to listen.
So the left and the people that voted for these politicians are to blame.
We should not allow past acts of barbarism--for which almost every civilization is guilty of--to cloud future decisions. What I'm focused on is the present, and I would argue that the events of the past are clouding future judgement. Angela Merkel welcoming over a million "refugees" into Germany in 2015 is a prime example of abandoning reason to atone for a guilt-ridden past.
Modern feminism seems to be about women looking for problems where problems don't exist. For example: The gender pay gap that two feminists and various other people and institutions have already debunked. And every other issue I've looked into seems to be a complete fucking lie. Now, I'm not going to claim that I've investigated every women's issue, because I haven't. I've got more interesting things to study. There are however people that make a lot of money peddling the victim narrative and feminism seems to be facilitating that process. If moderate feminists are so concerned about equal rights, maybe they should switch their sights toward misogynistic countries and avoid making false accusations of rape against university campuses. Women have many advantages over men, and men's rights groups have been bulled into closure by feminists so I find it difficult to feel any degree of compassion toward feminists. The problem is, the feminist discourse has been hijacked by radical feminists such as Anita Sarkeesian. These radicals are at the forefront pushing their ideology on the rest of us and unfortunately people---mostly leftists--are listening, and It's influencing policy in regressive ways. This form of "equality" does not sound like equality to me; it sounds like female superiority advocacy. Western women don't have it bad. Men and women are not the same, and as a result there will never be perfect equality. Boo Hoo. Fuck feminism.
User was banned for this post.
Last edit: 05/04/2016 02:22
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Apr 05 2016 05:37. Posts 2226
why?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
What I am seeing is you looking at the ~10 most extreme examples of 'liberal thought-policing' during a period of a couple years in countries with total population of ~600 million and equating this with free speech being eroded. I also don't agree that all the examples you cite are really truthful portrayals of what happened - Paul Weston certainly was not 'arrested for citing Churchill'. To quote Police Commissioner Simon Hayes (rather than quote the headline from the Daily Mail, a complete garbage newspaper);
It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.
Members of the public are of course at liberty to debate issues of importance to them in private or public spaces. However, there must be a level of decorum and decency.
I don't think everything you say is wrong or bs, and I think it would be possible for us to have a healthy discussion on this matter - you're clearly intelligent and willing to engage in a level-headed discussion. However, there are several elements of your posting that strongly indicate that you are delving into conspiratorical territory, the aforementioned use of red-flag phrases like cultural marxism and liberal fascism are two of these, and in your previous post you alluded that the reason why leftists refuse to engage the problematic sides of Islam is that we are afraid to 'offend a segment of its voter base that they imported.' This is complete nonsense, leftists actually debate the problematic sides of Islam all the time - we just refuse to engage in fear-mongering and we don't accept exaggerated portrayals of how bad the situation is. But plenty leftists consider the famous pew research center picture showing how big percentages of muslims believe in various dangerous thoughts very problematic, and these issues are frequently debated in academic circles.
Like, I'm not going to defend everything people from the left has stated relating to these issues - there are morons on every side of the political isle, and while a leftist moron might whine about their need for university campuses to be a place where they can feel safe from antagonizing thoughts or words, this does not mean that this is the prevailing leftist mindset. I come from a leftist family in leftist Norway and I've studied leftist studies and hung out with leftist hippies. I think aside from feminism (where I have indeed encountered quite some that I find way too radical), none of the people in my circles would support some of the more ridiculous things you mention. We all think banning Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock is fucking stupid. The huge problem is that you are looking at these largely isolated incidents that are so extreme that they attract media attention and extrapolate from these a grand, overarching conspiracy stifling free speech and thought, going so far as to say that liberalism has turned fascist, which simply is not rooted in any form of reality and which genuinely showcase either ignorance of what fascism entails or a deliberate obfuscation of words. I'm not arguing that everyone on 'the right' is willing to nuke Europe, but if I showed as little respect for republican mindsets as you show for leftist ones, this would be the kind of hyperbolic extrapolations I could find myself making.
Did any university actually ban Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock? I think he meant they won't perform because university audiences are so sensitive that you can't really be funny.
Why does everything have to be left vs right and not right vs wrong? When some sort of issue comes up do you and your family and friends talk about it and follow whatever is the popular leftist opinion? What if you disagree even slightly? I think you would be afraid to and thats the problem with whats going on in the world right now. Everyone just wants to be angry in a group without using their brains.
On April 05 2016 16:55 KrappyKonnect wrote:
Did any university actually ban Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock? I think he meant they won't perform because university audiences are so sensitive that you can't really be funny.
Why does everything have to be left vs right and not right vs wrong? When some sort of issue comes up do you and your family and friends talk about it and follow whatever is the popular leftist opinion? What if you disagree even slightly? I think you would be afraid to and thats the problem with whats going on in the world right now. Everyone just wants to be angry in a group without using their brains.
Everything is not about what is left vs what is right. But political ideologies are normally quite cohesive, and if your world view happens to be one where one ideology explains world history/events better than another ideology, it is likely to explain mostly all events better from your perspective, and it is likely to supply better answers to problems that arise. Then there's the thing where opinions aren't binary or trinary, it's not like you are either a left wing, centrist or right wing, rather you will find yourself leaning more one way or the other depending on issue, but if you find yourself further left ideology wise in general, you are likely to be further left on each individual issue as well. Not to mention that the left-right dichotomy is a simplification which sometimes has definite shortcomings - but it also has a lot of validity and utilizing the terms, which are pretty universally understood and accepted, makes me not have to write even longer posts
Basically, it's not that me, my friends or my family just follow whatever the popular leftist opinion is, it's that the world views that initially made us accept leftist explanations for world occurrences continue to be our world views and they continue to be valid explanations for events. Except sometimes they are not - which is why people like myself, who identify as leftists, have no problems with, even among fellow leftists, arguing that in Norway, we should talk more about gender equality than about feminism because I believe both genders are currently disadvantaged in different ways, rather than historically, where women were the discriminated part. I don't have time to write more now, but I can definitely go more in depth regarding this issue if you are interested.
Yeah I dont really understand it at all but seems to me we should try and look at things in the middle and then weigh the case to decide what side you lean on. I think people who have no idea just follow whatever is the liberal message or whatever is the conservative message and dont use their brains. Or lifelong democrats and republicans. Why not listen to what both candidates say and pick which one you agree with the most. I think this labelling of ourselves is silly. Its hard to see both sides to an issue when you come into it with most of your weights on one side.
Like how you are worried about feminism and how we are different in different ways. Feminists wouldnt like to hear that. Its the same thing with other issues people get mad and plug their ears when people are trying to be the other side to a debate.
On April 05 2016 16:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
What I am seeing is you looking at the ~10 most extreme examples of 'liberal thought-policing' during a period of a couple years in countries with total population of ~600 million and equating this with free speech being eroded. I also don't agree that all the examples you cite are really truthful portrayals of what happened - Paul Weston certainly was not 'arrested for citing Churchill'. To quote Police Commissioner Simon Hayes (rather than quote the headline from the Daily Mail, a complete garbage newspaper);
It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.
Members of the public are of course at liberty to debate issues of importance to them in private or public spaces. However, there must be a level of decorum and decency.
I don't think everything you say is wrong or bs, and I think it would be possible for us to have a healthy discussion on this matter - you're clearly intelligent and willing to engage in a level-headed discussion. However, there are several elements of your posting that strongly indicate that you are delving into conspiratorical territory, the aforementioned use of red-flag phrases like cultural marxism and liberal fascism are two of these, and in your previous post you alluded that the reason why leftists refuse to engage the problematic sides of Islam is that we are afraid to 'offend a segment of its voter base that they imported.' This is complete nonsense, leftists actually debate the problematic sides of Islam all the time - we just refuse to engage in fear-mongering and we don't accept exaggerated portrayals of how bad the situation is. But plenty leftists consider the famous pew research center picture showing how big percentages of muslims believe in various dangerous thoughts very problematic, and these issues are frequently debated in academic circles.
Like, I'm not going to defend everything people from the left has stated relating to these issues - there are morons on every side of the political isle, and while a leftist moron might whine about their need for university campuses to be a place where they can feel safe from antagonizing thoughts or words, this does not mean that this is the prevailing leftist mindset. I come from a leftist family in leftist Norway and I've studied leftist studies and hung out with leftist hippies. I think aside from feminism (where I have indeed encountered quite some that I find way too radical), none of the people in my circles would support some of the more ridiculous things you mention. We all think banning Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock is fucking stupid. The huge problem is that you are looking at these largely isolated incidents that are so extreme that they attract media attention and extrapolate from these a grand, overarching conspiracy stifling free speech and thought, going so far as to say that liberalism has turned fascist, which simply is not rooted in any form of reality and which genuinely showcase either ignorance of what fascism entails or a deliberate obfuscation of words. I'm not arguing that everyone on 'the right' is willing to nuke Europe, but if I showed as little respect for republican mindsets as you show for leftist ones, this would be the kind of hyperbolic extrapolations I could find myself making.
While indeed its a small minority these regressive people from the left, (people claiming safe space, demanding scientists to apologize for shirts etc) it is a very rapidly growing trend, its not an old thing that is stable, its a new thing that is increasing fast and for that reasons I think it requires our attention.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
traxamillion United States. Apr 06 2016 05:30. Posts 10468
Smurfing? he has another account or something?
I think he dropped some of the best posts on this site. Unban imo
