Truth Discussion Time - Page 92

On January 23 2019 17:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't understand why this incident is getting coverage tbh. Or, I do, in a depressing way, but I don't understand why you guys are spending time on it. at first it was a bunch of teenagers acting like jerks then it was a bunch of liberals getting way, way too outraged on twitter (even compared to what the first footage was showing) neither example showed anything really meaningful. There's nothing weird or surprising about a bunch of teenage boys being semi-jerks (full context provided they're still kinda jerks, much less than initially, but I'd be fairly disappointed in my own son if I saw him act like this, even knowing the full context) and ridiculing a person who confronts them, and there's nothing weird or surprising about there being lots of people on twitter who are dumb asshats - this is intrinsic to the medium (giving a platform to shout whatever short message you want to shout to any person who wants to shout it obviously leads to a bunch of stupid yelling), and has nothing to do with political leaning. Using this as an example of racism against whites? Seriously? There's an element of 'anti-privileged-kid' to the kneejerk reaction, there's no meaningful 'anti-white' message being communicated. I mean it seems like people like baal are seriously arguing that racism against whites is worse than racism against black people or muslims nowadays.. And I just don't know what to say to that. It's so far off. (Yes, obviously if a black person says 'all white people should die' that is a racist statement. Equally obviously, it's worse if a person maintaining that opinion is in a position of power than if he or she is not. )

I didn't want to spend any time on it, but it was obviously misrepresented by Santafairy and I felt like I had to look into it and share what I found that paints a more coherent picture. I was going to look into it anyway because I saw some people mention that the Gillette commercial distracted from this. Interestingly, I saw that it was our other resident Trump admirer GoTunk who brought up the subject in almost the exact same way on Teamliquid (and literally no one agreed with him over there). It's true that the initial story that came out was poorly framed and it's obvious that the backlash was excessive because that's what social media breeds, but to paint it as an anti-white thing is dumb. The picture itself is fairly striking, especially when you take into account that the confrontation occurred at the Lincoln Memorial. If there was some ambiguity left as to what the MAGA hat represents, after this ongoing shut down of the government for a bullshit wall that is nothing but a symbol of racism, there shouldn't be any now. Whether or not these kids know what it represents is another story. You don't really know much at that age, especially not with a fundamentalist upbringing.

On January 23 2019 17:59 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2019 15:38 Loco wrote:   On January 23 2019 01:10 blackjacki2 wrote: Native American dude was trying to martyr himself by triggering the white douchebags into doing something foolish so he could expose their true character. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/v...ovington-students-just-153137522.html Seems like it's everyone else that got triggered What the hell are you talking about? Are you psychic? How do you come to guess that his motivation was to "trigger" people? There's nothing remotely indicative of that. There were religious bigots on both sides and tensions were escalating, he says he got in the middle to diffuse it, and there is no good reason to doubt that he is saying the truth. The true character of the religious bigots on both sides is on clear display in the full video, he didn't need to expose shit. It makes no sense to think a group of kids are hate-filled, racist, religious bigots, and to simultaneously think that a minority marching up to them and beating a drum is a good way to diffuse tension. You can clearly see from the video that you posted that when he walked up to them the kids are kneeling, talking with themselves, and paying no attention to the other group. Then when he walks up to them they get hyped up and start yelling. So if his intention was to deescalate things it clearly had the opposite outcome.   The true character of the religious bigots on both sides is on clear display in the full video, he didn't need to expose shit. Would anyone be talking about this nonsense if he didn't do what he did?

It makes no sense to think that a bunch of kids who are protesting a basic human right by pushing their religion onto others, and who put on full display their support for Trump, a thoroughly hateful and disgusting liar of a person, could be bigots? Well, I suppose in an alternate universe you would be right, it makes no sense at all.

It's true that it doesn't look particularly tense from our perspective when he ends up walking there, but less than one minute before that it did. Why is it so inconceivable that maybe he didn't want to wait for the next big wave to happen?

On January 23 2019 18:11 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2019 17:59 blackjacki2 wrote:   On January 23 2019 15:38 Loco wrote:   On January 23 2019 01:10 blackjacki2 wrote: Native American dude was trying to martyr himself by triggering the white douchebags into doing something foolish so he could expose their true character. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/v...ovington-students-just-153137522.html Seems like it's everyone else that got triggered What the hell are you talking about? Are you psychic? How do you come to guess that his motivation was to "trigger" people? There's nothing remotely indicative of that. There were religious bigots on both sides and tensions were escalating, he says he got in the middle to diffuse it, and there is no good reason to doubt that he is saying the truth. The true character of the religious bigots on both sides is on clear display in the full video, he didn't need to expose shit. It makes no sense to think a group of kids are hate-filled, racist, religious bigots, and to simultaneously think that a minority marching up to them and beating a drum is a good way to diffuse tension. You can clearly see from the video that you posted that when he walked up to them the kids are kneeling, talking with themselves, and paying no attention to the other group. Then when he walks up to them they get hyped up and start yelling. So if his intention was to deescalate things it clearly had the opposite outcome.   The true character of the religious bigots on both sides is on clear display in the full video, he didn't need to expose shit. Would anyone be talking about this nonsense if he didn't do what he did? It makes no sense to think that a bunch of kids who are protesting a basic human right by pushing their religion onto others, and who put on full display their support for Trump, a thoroughly hateful and disgusting liar of a person, could be bigots? Well, I suppose in an alternate universe you would be right, it makes no sense at all. It's true that it doesn't look particularly tense from our perspective when he ends up walking there, but less than one minute before that it did. Why is it so inconceivable that maybe he didn't want to wait for the next big wave to happen?

Did you seriously just take half of my sentence out of context and argue against a point I didn't even make?

Oh, about the whole 'Norway is the most gender-equal country on earth yet our women choose traditionally', that was subject to quite some debate in Norway about 4 months ago. I don't have time to spend a lot of time delving into this right now, but the gist of it is 'that claim is so lacking in nuance and based around shoddy methodology/data gathering that it largely ends up being wrong'. For one, the way the data is selected makes it seem like a female nurse or teacher 'chose more traditionally than one who chose to be a housewife', which from my perspective is ridiculous. (Basically, gender-egalitarian societies end up looking much less segregated compared to less gender-egalitarian societies from a work-force perspective if 'housewife' is considered a profession than if is it not. From the looks of it, Peterson's claim is based around ignoring the women who are housewives. )

For example, this would make a country like Saudi Arabia, where 30% of nurses are male, look more gender-egalitarian than a country like Norway, where 10% of nurses are male. It does not take into account that Norway is a country where 59% of women and 65% of men above 15 are part of the work force, while the Saudi Arabian numbers are 17.5% for women and 77.5% for men.. I mean, I'm not saying 'choices made regarding profession is irrelevant of biology' - but the claim that 'the more wealthy and egalitarian a society is, the more gender-segregated it becomes' seems to be based around some pretty shitty research, at least regarding Norway.

On January 23 2019 18:23 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2019 18:11 Loco wrote:   On January 23 2019 17:59 blackjacki2 wrote:   On January 23 2019 15:38 Loco wrote:   On January 23 2019 01:10 blackjacki2 wrote: Native American dude was trying to martyr himself by triggering the white douchebags into doing something foolish so he could expose their true character. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/v...ovington-students-just-153137522.html Seems like it's everyone else that got triggered What the hell are you talking about? Are you psychic? How do you come to guess that his motivation was to "trigger" people? There's nothing remotely indicative of that. There were religious bigots on both sides and tensions were escalating, he says he got in the middle to diffuse it, and there is no good reason to doubt that he is saying the truth. The true character of the religious bigots on both sides is on clear display in the full video, he didn't need to expose shit. It makes no sense to think a group of kids are hate-filled, racist, religious bigots, and to simultaneously think that a minority marching up to them and beating a drum is a good way to diffuse tension. You can clearly see from the video that you posted that when he walked up to them the kids are kneeling, talking with themselves, and paying no attention to the other group. Then when he walks up to them they get hyped up and start yelling. So if his intention was to deescalate things it clearly had the opposite outcome.   The true character of the religious bigots on both sides is on clear display in the full video, he didn't need to expose shit. Would anyone be talking about this nonsense if he didn't do what he did? It makes no sense to think that a bunch of kids who are protesting a basic human right by pushing their religion onto others, and who put on full display their support for Trump, a thoroughly hateful and disgusting liar of a person, could be bigots? Well, I suppose in an alternate universe you would be right, it makes no sense at all. It's true that it doesn't look particularly tense from our perspective when he ends up walking there, but less than one minute before that it did. Why is it so inconceivable that maybe he didn't want to wait for the next big wave to happen? Did you seriously just take half of my sentence out of context and argue against a point I didn't even make?

They didn't have to think it was a good way if it was the only way they had. It got their attention didn't it? I don't see how the other option is more likely, why would it piss off a bunch of kids that you play the drums near them? If you want to stress the importance of the outcome, how pissed did they look to you? They were clearly having a lot more fun than before he moved there.

Sorry I misread.

On January 23 2019 17:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't understand why this incident is getting coverage tbh. Or, I do, in a depressing way, but I don't understand why you guys are spending time on it. at first it was a bunch of teenagers acting like jerks then it was a bunch of liberals getting way, way too outraged on twitter (even compared to what the first footage was showing) neither example showed anything really meaningful. There's nothing weird or surprising about a bunch of teenage boys being semi-jerks (full context provided they're still kinda jerks, much less than initially, but I'd be fairly disappointed in my own son if I saw him act like this, even knowing the full context) and ridiculing a person who confronts them, and there's nothing weird or surprising about there being lots of people on twitter who are dumb asshats - this is intrinsic to the medium (giving a platform to shout whatever short message you want to shout to any person who wants to shout it obviously leads to a bunch of stupid yelling), and has nothing to do with political leaning. Using this as an example of racism against whites? Seriously? There's an element of 'anti-privileged-kid' to the kneejerk reaction, there's no meaningful 'anti-white' message being communicated. I mean it seems like people like baal are seriously arguing that racism against whites is worse than racism against black people or muslims nowadays.. And I just don't know what to say to that. It's so far off. (Yes, obviously if a black person says 'all white people should die' that is a racist statement. Equally obviously, it's worse if a person maintaining that opinion is in a position of power than if he or she is not. )

Isn't "anti-privileged-kid" just codified racism against whites? Are we basing his privilege off of anything other than his white skin? If not then I don't see any meaningful difference between "anti-privileged-kid" and "anti-white."

I think Baal's beef isn't that racism by whites is considered worse than racism against whites. It's that racism against whites is considered tolerable.

basing the idea of privilege around them going to an all boys private catholic school, no? I mean I read that this is actually one of the least expensive private schools in all of the US, so they might not actually be privileged, but to me, 'private school' indicates privilege a lot more than 'white' does.. I mean I can't control or even have full awareness over what internalized prejudices I have, but I really have a hard time accepting that I'm 'negatively inclined towards white people' - like 98% of real life friends I've ever had have been white, as am I..

The fact of the matter is, as a white man, I can't think of a single example ever where I encountered racism or was discriminated against due to my gender. To my knowledge, the same applies to virtually all other white men that I know. I know stuff might differ from country to country, and maybe some white americans actually could point to them narrowly missing some job or college application because some slightly less qualified black guy or woman was preferred over them. I could even understand how such an event would be really frustrating. But compare this to the experience of every black guy cept Kanye I've ever heard talk about the subject, and it seems like they all have had high double digit + experiences of real, tangible racism worse than the worst single example I can think of happening to me or any of my 10 closest white friends.

To the degree where racism against white people is considered tolerable, it is so because white people (I'm a representative) think that the examples of racism against white people are laughably tame in comparison to what we're all able to observe black people going through all the time. I'm not excusing the shit that these kids encountered on twitter, because some of it was way, way out of bounds, but.. I'd rather have a one in a million shot of being unfairly judged by the twitter masses - even if that results in death threats - than a 999999/million shot at encountering some degree of real racism in my life, even if it's tame shit like women clutching their purses when I walk by them on the street.

On January 23 2019 18:44 blackjacki2 wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2019 17:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't understand why this incident is getting coverage tbh. Or, I do, in a depressing way, but I don't understand why you guys are spending time on it. at first it was a bunch of teenagers acting like jerks then it was a bunch of liberals getting way, way too outraged on twitter (even compared to what the first footage was showing) neither example showed anything really meaningful. There's nothing weird or surprising about a bunch of teenage boys being semi-jerks (full context provided they're still kinda jerks, much less than initially, but I'd be fairly disappointed in my own son if I saw him act like this, even knowing the full context) and ridiculing a person who confronts them, and there's nothing weird or surprising about there being lots of people on twitter who are dumb asshats - this is intrinsic to the medium (giving a platform to shout whatever short message you want to shout to any person who wants to shout it obviously leads to a bunch of stupid yelling), and has nothing to do with political leaning. Using this as an example of racism against whites? Seriously? There's an element of 'anti-privileged-kid' to the kneejerk reaction, there's no meaningful 'anti-white' message being communicated. I mean it seems like people like baal are seriously arguing that racism against whites is worse than racism against black people or muslims nowadays.. And I just don't know what to say to that. It's so far off. (Yes, obviously if a black person says 'all white people should die' that is a racist statement. Equally obviously, it's worse if a person maintaining that opinion is in a position of power than if he or she is not. ) Isn't "anti-privileged-kid" just codified racism against whites? Are we basing his privilege off of anything other than his white skin? If not then I don't see any meaningful difference between "anti-privileged-kid" and "anti-white." I think Baal's beef isn't that racism by whites is considered worse than racism against whites. It's that racism against whites is considered tolerable.

One thing you notice quickly is that it's not the disabled/mentally ill white guy who has been beaten by his wife who is in the middle of these spats and criticized for being unaware of his privileges. It's able-bodied uneducated people with easy access to basically everything and who show a certain arrogance. It's hyper-individualists like Jordan Peterson who live in a fairy tale world where no one has ever been systematically oppressed. Those who are the quickest to shout that they are victims are those who can't even conceive that they could have been advantaged over others through sheer luck in the great meritocratic system they live in.

Do you think affirmative action policies are anti-white? Does anyone here do? Kind of an important thing to ask to be sure that this is not a debate around reverse racism but actual racism against whites.

On January 23 2019 19:14 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2019 18:44 blackjacki2 wrote:   On January 23 2019 17:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't understand why this incident is getting coverage tbh. Or, I do, in a depressing way, but I don't understand why you guys are spending time on it. at first it was a bunch of teenagers acting like jerks then it was a bunch of liberals getting way, way too outraged on twitter (even compared to what the first footage was showing) neither example showed anything really meaningful. There's nothing weird or surprising about a bunch of teenage boys being semi-jerks (full context provided they're still kinda jerks, much less than initially, but I'd be fairly disappointed in my own son if I saw him act like this, even knowing the full context) and ridiculing a person who confronts them, and there's nothing weird or surprising about there being lots of people on twitter who are dumb asshats - this is intrinsic to the medium (giving a platform to shout whatever short message you want to shout to any person who wants to shout it obviously leads to a bunch of stupid yelling), and has nothing to do with political leaning. Using this as an example of racism against whites? Seriously? There's an element of 'anti-privileged-kid' to the kneejerk reaction, there's no meaningful 'anti-white' message being communicated. I mean it seems like people like baal are seriously arguing that racism against whites is worse than racism against black people or muslims nowadays.. And I just don't know what to say to that. It's so far off. (Yes, obviously if a black person says 'all white people should die' that is a racist statement. Equally obviously, it's worse if a person maintaining that opinion is in a position of power than if he or she is not. ) Isn't "anti-privileged-kid" just codified racism against whites? Are we basing his privilege off of anything other than his white skin? If not then I don't see any meaningful difference between "anti-privileged-kid" and "anti-white." I think Baal's beef isn't that racism by whites is considered worse than racism against whites. It's that racism against whites is considered tolerable. One thing you notice quickly is that it's not the disabled/mentally ill white guy who has been beaten by his wife who is in the middle of these spats and criticized for being unaware of his privileges. It's able-bodied uneducated people with easy access to basically everything and who show a certain arrogance. It's hyper-individualists like Jordan Peterson who live in a fairy tale world where no one has ever been systematically oppressed. Those who are the quickest to shout that they are victims are those who can't even conceive that they could have been advantaged over others through sheer luck in the great meritocratic system they live in. Do you think affirmative action policies are anti-white? Does anyone here do? Kind of an important thing to ask to be sure that this is not a debate around reverse racism but actual racism against whites.

I'm sure there are a shit ton of different types of affirmative action policies and I'm sure some of them are anti-white whether or not they intend to be.

Do you think there is a logical, quantifiable difference between the 2 statements "Our University should admit more minority students" and "Our University should admit fewer white students"? Assuming there is a finite and unchangeable # of students that they can admit in this hypothetical, is there anything different between these 2 statements?

If you are given the choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, and you choose one, does that mean that you having something against the other flavor? You'd have to actually say something or behave in a way that demonstrates that you do in order for us to know. The main issue with your hypothetical is that it doesn't say why and the reasoning is not known to us. But we know the "why" of racism, namely that it is motivated by intolerance and prejudice (and results in violence). There are two logical or ethically-motivated reasons that can justify such polices: the first recognizes historical and structural reality and seeks to right a wrong that is still playing out, the other is that diversity is inherently valuable in such environments. As I understand affirmative action policies, they do not carry embedded in them prejudice against the white person simply because it doesn't act in their interest, and they do not result in violence against whites. But if you have some argument that they do and that it does, I'm all ears.

On January 23 2019 19:04 Liquid`Drone wrote: basing the idea of privilege around them going to an all boys private catholic school, no? I mean I read that this is actually one of the least expensive private schools in all of the US, so they might not actually be privileged, but to me, 'private school' indicates privilege a lot more than 'white' does.. I mean I can't control or even have full awareness over what internalized prejudices I have, but I really have a hard time accepting that I'm 'negatively inclined towards white people' - like 98% of real life friends I've ever had have been white, as am I.. The fact of the matter is, as a white man, I can't think of a single example ever where I encountered racism or was discriminated against due to my gender. To my knowledge, the same applies to virtually all other white men that I know. I know stuff might differ from country to country, and maybe some white americans actually could point to them narrowly missing some job or college application because some slightly less qualified black guy or woman was preferred over them. I could even understand how such an event would be really frustrating. But compare this to the experience of every black guy cept Kanye I've ever heard talk about the subject, and it seems like they all have had high double digit + experiences of real, tangible racism worse than the worst single example I can think of happening to me or any of my 10 closest white friends. To the degree where racism against white people is considered tolerable, it is so because white people (I'm a representative) think that the examples of racism against white people are laughably tame in comparison to what we're all able to observe black people going through all the time. I'm not excusing the shit that these kids encountered on twitter, because some of it was way, way out of bounds, but.. I'd rather have a one in a million shot of being unfairly judged by the twitter masses - even if that results in death threats - than a 999999/million shot at encountering some degree of real racism in my life, even if it's tame shit like women clutching their purses when I walk by them on the street.

I feel the same way you do. I'm definitely privileged to be white in my society. I don't feel oppressed in the least bit. But I still have a self-interest to not tolerate racism against whites.

On January 23 2019 17:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't understand why this incident is getting coverage tbh. Or, I do, in a depressing way, but I don't understand why you guys are spending time on it. at first it was a bunch of teenagers acting like jerks then it was a bunch of liberals getting way, way too outraged on twitter (even compared to what the first footage was showing) neither example showed anything really meaningful. There's nothing weird or surprising about a bunch of teenage boys being semi-jerks (full context provided they're still kinda jerks, much less than initially, but I'd be fairly disappointed in my own son if I saw him act like this, even knowing the full context) and ridiculing a person who confronts them, and there's nothing weird or surprising about there being lots of people on twitter who are dumb asshats - this is intrinsic to the medium (giving a platform to shout whatever short message you want to shout to any person who wants to shout it obviously leads to a bunch of stupid yelling), and has nothing to do with political leaning.

Agreed, this shouldn't be in the media, but it was liberal media losing their shit doxxing these kids and personalities like Reza Aslan saying they have punchable faces wtf.

Sure some teens acted like idiots doing the "tomahawk" thing, but in the scale of who is the bigger idiot here, well black hebrew israelites openly want genocide, so they are fucking maniacs and the native american guy is a known confrontational activist who walked to them and banged that drum in their faces, not defusing anything but escalating it.

Using this as an example of racism against whites? Seriously? There's an element of 'anti-privileged-kid' to the kneejerk reaction, there's no meaningful 'anti-white' message being communicated. I mean it seems like people like baal are seriously arguing that racism against whites is worse than racism against black people or muslims nowadays.. And I just don't know what to say to that. It's so far off.

Nobody has argued this, I've repeatedly said that racism against blacks, muslims etc is worse, but that racism against whites is socially tollerated, don't you agree with this?

(Yes, obviously if a black person says 'all white people should die' that is a racist statement. Equally obviously, it's worse if a person maintaining that opinion is in a position of power than if he or she is not. )

Also agree because people with power can do more good or damage because well, they have more power.

That being said, SJW believe that theres no such thing as racism against white people, I assume you know this, in fact I think Loco was talking about this when he said "academic definiton of racism", with academic he means maniacs from social studies.

On January 23 2019 17:32 Loco wrote: Did I say 'dictionary definition'? No.

I know you said academic (SJW) definition, and afaik they dont recognize that there can be racism against white people so I naturally asumed this was also your position, so it isnt?

If there were a right-wing ad, that showed all black offenders and all white heroes wouldn't you acknowledge it as being racist?

You read my arguments but did not address them, nor did you address the video with 300k views that I linked that addressed this and debunks the claims that you ended up making and which I did not respond to. You want a response? There is no nice way to say this: you are pushing far-right propaganda. The fact that you think you can use the New Economic Policy of Lenin to reveal the "incontrovertible fact" that the Nazis were socialists, all the while ignoring that Stalin got rid of this very policy, should say a lot about the way you think superficially about this. So is Stalin not a socialist then? There isn't one 'socialism', it can refer to vastly different regimes and policies, but when we understand that this is the case and we don't define it it is because we are using the most commonly understood definition of it: public ownership of the means of production. Such a state of affairs didn't exist under Hitler's Germany and he also happened to conveniently kill everyone on the left of him, gee, I wonder why. No chance they co-opted the word and a few socialist ideas to garner more support for their party. There is a scholarly consensus from historians on this, but there will always be those who will keep believing what they want to believe in because this is a post-truth era after all.

I think there will never be a clear discussion between what is right/left until it is properly defined because things like nationalism, focus on ethnicity, borders, family values etc are considered right wing I suppose because they are mostly conservative ideas.

Theres also another way to define left/righ, and that is through individualism and collectivism I suppose this is more economically focused but also social, when I call Nazis socialist I mean that they had a collectivist ideology that sacrificed the person in the pursuit of the common good, liberties or "negative freedom" as you like to call it were non-existent.

I don't care for your justifications? I didn't ask you why you did it. I simply stated the obvious: once you have decided that the person you are discussing things with is repeatedly dishonest, there is no where to go and no reason to ask them to respond to anything. Maybe you are right and you are a lot more self-aware than I am and I am a truly dishonest person. That doesn't change anything about the conclusion that debating any issue is now guaranteed to be one hundred percent pointless.

Or you could stop being intellectual dishoenst

"I declare myself the winner of this debate!" spoken like a 13 year old child. My memory tells me otherwise: I showed that you never posted "irrefutable evidence" that these results stemmed from biology and nothing else, and you even conceded to my point. I quote you: "If I said science has "proved this" I mispoke, what I mean is logic and evidence strongly points towards that". Now you say you did indeed post "Irrefutable evidence" .... which is basically the same thing as "science proved this". I maintain that there is no such consensus, in fact the position you laid out is quite controversial still in the social sciences that looks at this. That you think that the climate change consensus is less robust than this and we can just "trade studies that counter each other" on the topic of climate change says a lot about just how far deep into ideology you are and how little of a science education you have gotten. That's it for me.

So you are arguing about if something is 100% or 99% or someting? evidence strongly points towards is pretty high in the confidence scale, and it was a study that you absolutely ignored solely because it supported a theory that went against your dogmas.

I said we can trade studies when it comes to the damage and timelines about climate change, and there is a lot of non scientific hysteria about it.

Exibit A, Ocasio-Cortez who I think you like (LOL):

On January 23 2019 18:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: Oh, about the whole 'Norway is the most gender-equal country on earth yet our women choose traditionally', that was subject to quite some debate in Norway about 4 months ago. I don't have time to spend a lot of time delving into this right now, but the gist of it is 'that claim is so lacking in nuance and based around shoddy methodology/data gathering that it largely ends up being wrong'. For one, the way the data is selected makes it seem like a female nurse or teacher 'chose more traditionally than one who chose to be a housewife', which from my perspective is ridiculous. (Basically, gender-egalitarian societies end up looking much less segregated compared to less gender-egalitarian societies from a work-force perspective if 'housewife' is considered a profession than if is it not. From the looks of it, Peterson's claim is based around ignoring the women who are housewives. ) For example, this would make a country like Saudi Arabia, where 30% of nurses are male, look more gender-egalitarian than a country like Norway, where 10% of nurses are male. It does not take into account that Norway is a country where 59% of women and 65% of men above 15 are part of the work force, while the Saudi Arabian numbers are 17.5% for women and 77.5% for men.. I mean, I'm not saying 'choices made regarding profession is irrelevant of biology' - but the claim that 'the more wealthy and egalitarian a society is, the more gender-segregated it becomes' seems to be based around some pretty shitty research, at least regarding Norway.

It's a good point, however if this were the cause of these results then men would ve overrepresented in all jobs in less-egalitarian countries, so we would see even a higher % of men in STEM in these countries, but this isn't the case, quite the opposite

The church smirked and then other churches surrounded him. Even as a combat veteran from the War of 1812, he felt threatened.

at least he's actually a native american

He never said he felt personally threatened -- he said he felt a threat to the safety of the Israelites. I asked if you agreed with me or not as to whether the Black Israelites could have been overpowered despite their "adult status" and you decided not to respond. I also pointed to video evidence that he did in fact get surrounded but now you mock the idea again after ignoring it. I also pointed to the fact that you prematurely called him a liar. What do you do now? You find something that is completely irrelevant to the discussion and indulge yourself, because you don't care about social issues, this is just fun for you.

No one here questioned his status as a Native American activist, did they? This reveals nothing. That's what activists do, they protest. You post these screenshots as if he did something wrong, something that puts into question his integrity. It's like you think everyone feels the same as you that activists who protest against the violence that their people have been put through and are still being put through are basically just troublemakers without a cause. Posting this accomplished absolutely nothing, it didn't go into the logic of the protest and it didn't make the point that you think it did. I also couldn't find a single non-right wing or non-tabloid site discussing this, showing the true purpose of this 'news': to ramp up divisiveness and reinforce a popular right-wing narrative. This is essentially the online shitposting equivalent of doing the Tomahawk chop dance.

On January 24 2019 17:25 Loco wrote: He never said he felt personally threatened -- he said he felt a threat to the safety of the Israelites. I asked if you agreed with me or not as to whether the Black Israelites could have been overpowered despite their "adult status" and you decided not to respond.

I dont think either group was threatened and I dont think walking up to one of the groups and banging a drum in their faces is in any way remotely defusing anything.

Also I dont belive in his claimed intentions, he walked into a fucking church to protest, this guy is clearly an activist and his intent was to get into their MAGA faces.

On the specific question that if they could have been overpowred, It might have been evenish in terms of potential damage, I didn't count how many they were but I think each of them could take 4+ teens and more the bigger the overalll numbers, but I think its a "would you rather fight 2,000 ducks or a horse sized duck" kind of question.

I also pointed to video evidence that he did in fact get surrounded but now you mock the idea again after ignoring it. I also pointed to the fact that you prematurely called him a liar. What do you do now?

If you walk into a the middle of a fucking group you will be surrounded, what did you expect that all the kids ran way from him?

He said "I'm a vietnam time veteran" not a "Vietnam veteran" oh.... you got me dude lol.

He is a liar, he wasnt defusing shit he didn't feel the israelites were threatened, he is an activist who has done this before, as I said, he just wanted to get into their MAGA hat-wearing faces.

You find something that is completely irrelevant to the discussion and indulge yourself, because you don't care about social issues, this is just fun for you.

yes because the crux of all our difference is that I dont care but you do, brilliant conclusion.

This is essentially the online shitposting equivalent of doing the Tomahawk chop dance.

So I push right-wing propaganda, and now I'm also a tomahawk chop dancing racist.... In before I'm a nazi lol

I guess democrats don't realize that the more they protest Trump the more likely it is that he will get reelected.

All this bullshit you're discussing is quite irrelevant, its a bunch of dumbos provoking other dumbos, except the indian guy is provoking teenagers... they are fucking teenagers wearing MAGA hat, does he think he will raise awareness or persuade them into common sense by doing what he s doing????

It's a complete joke that this is something that caught people's attention. Shows how inadequate both sides are.

His approval rating has dropped consistently for the past two months