Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Somewhat yes. They falsely claimed that Southern Democrats switched to Republican because they were pissed about the Civil Rights Act of 64. 21 Democratic representatives opposed the Act and only one switched and became the scapegoat for the myth. The other 20 stayed. Those seats didn't go republican until the late 80s and early 90s.
The South turned red late 80s and early 90s because Republicans supported their conservative values like pro-life, pro-guns and small government. It took decades to switch, and Ronald Reagan help speed run it.
The South turned red late 80s and early 90s because Republicans supported their conservative values like pro-life, pro-guns and small government. It took decades to switch, and Ronald Reagan help speed run it.
Many Southern Democrats at the time either turned a blind eye to the KKK's violence or even sympathized with its goals, leading some historians to argue that the KKK served the interests of the Democratic Party in practice, despite not being formally founded by the party itself.
You have to remember Democrats in South back in 1860s were aligned with confederate they were one of founding member even though they Democrats as establishment is not responsible .
You have to remember Democrats in South back in 1860s were aligned with confederate they were one of founding member even though they Democrats as establishment is not responsible .
No one is screaming, I'm only giving you fact checks. If you disagree with them, go check with them. I'm not all knowing about history. I'm only choosing to trust those sources.
In any case a bad history doesn't change the fact that the democratic party has moved to the progressive side while republican moved to the conservative one. So its not that hard to know who is right or wrong now.
The problems comes when people equates Republican and democrates or conservative and liberals news outlets as they are the same things. They are not.
Well, go for it, I'm open to having my mind blown. Good luck with that.
In any case a bad history doesn't change the fact that the democratic party has moved to the progressive side while republican moved to the conservative one. So its not that hard to know who is right or wrong now.
The problems comes when people equates Republican and democrates or conservative and liberals news outlets as they are the same things. They are not.
Well, go for it, I'm open to having my mind blown. Good luck with that.
Yes the DNC lost it's southern voters(Dixiecrats) and they joined the GOP during the civil rights movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
The DNC became the big tent party, meanwhile the GOP became a more conservative leaning party as a result of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
The DNC became the big tent party, meanwhile the GOP became a more conservative leaning party as a result of it
I come from a complotist and confused rightist ultra liberal and antiSJW background which lead me to have pretty horrible and hurtfull points of view.
Its precisely because I understood my faults, that I made a point to understand people's point of view more clearly in order to never fall for complotism and bigotry that could hurt people again. So, by using science and critical thinking as guides and tools, I slowly started to listen and understand people, politics and reality.
The reason why I'm a leftist now is simply because understanding all of this lead me to naturally trust people with scientific and leftist viewpoints.
And you might have a hard time hearing this.. but if there is one things that I understood.. is that the idea that the right and the left sides of the political spectrum have equivalences and "good values on both sides"... is a myth.
In politic, there is one side that has been historically fighting for ethical and human progress and another that as been fighting it out of fear of change and a lack of knowledge.
In reality, there is no "right and left", there are just those who wants things to evolve, and those who refuse to change.
Its precisely because I understood my faults, that I made a point to understand people's point of view more clearly in order to never fall for complotism and bigotry that could hurt people again. So, by using science and critical thinking as guides and tools, I slowly started to listen and understand people, politics and reality.
The reason why I'm a leftist now is simply because understanding all of this lead me to naturally trust people with scientific and leftist viewpoints.
And you might have a hard time hearing this.. but if there is one things that I understood.. is that the idea that the right and the left sides of the political spectrum have equivalences and "good values on both sides"... is a myth.
In politic, there is one side that has been historically fighting for ethical and human progress and another that as been fighting it out of fear of change and a lack of knowledge.
In reality, there is no "right and left", there are just those who wants things to evolve, and those who refuse to change.
I just simply don't believe you care if you hurt anyone.
First, you called me a bigot, which would hurt some people, but I'm the writer of my definition so not me, for me saying I don't want biological females to be hurt by playing with XY. (My writing program just told me the word biological female can be hurtful.)
So when you say you don't want to hurt people, that only pertains to certain people.
The world isn't perfect. Every one of us will harm others, so I'm not claiming I'm better than you. It's just what extent we allow that hurt to reach. It's a discussion when the needs of one trump the needs of many.
I think it's a nice thought that this utopian world exists, and everyone is happy. It's just impossible and I prefer more realistic views.
First, you called me a bigot, which would hurt some people, but I'm the writer of my definition so not me, for me saying I don't want biological females to be hurt by playing with XY. (My writing program just told me the word biological female can be hurtful.)
So when you say you don't want to hurt people, that only pertains to certain people.
The world isn't perfect. Every one of us will harm others, so I'm not claiming I'm better than you. It's just what extent we allow that hurt to reach. It's a discussion when the needs of one trump the needs of many.
I think it's a nice thought that this utopian world exists, and everyone is happy. It's just impossible and I prefer more realistic views.
"Without nuance" As if the concept of "nuances" was the pinnacle of critical thinking.
The injonction to nuance is a common tool used by liberals and confusionnists. This is the belief that in nuance rely the moral high ground, the superior mindset. This is also what leads those individuals to believe that "there is good on both sides" and therefore put them in a fragile position of equilibrium between two opposite sides.
And what happens when we push this belief to the extrem ? Well, this happens:
A fascist action in the name of progressism.
To anyone reading this: Never let yourself be fooled by people who tell you to have a more "nuanced" approach when you are talking about subjects such as oppression of minorities, racism or sexism.
You don't need to be nuanced on those subject. People are suffering and people are dying because people like them refuse to face the problems of society through a radical lens.
As for this:
How naive do you need to be to consider that you can be seen as a good person when you bring a radical progressive rethoric in a forum field with confusionnist, conservatist and apolitical meritocrates.
Don't insult my intelligence mate.
Being seen as a good person by people I'm fighting politically would be like being proud of being called "a good person" by someone like Donald Trump. I don't want to be liked by people like him.
If the majority of people are starting to like me on this forum... its either because I succeeded in making a change or because I screwed up somewhere.
I don't remember saying that I would never do anything to hurt everyone. I don't believe that I should have any kind of respect for people who holds and spread beliefs that can hurt others.
When I call someone a bigot, I describe their belief system as what it is. Facing the fact that we hold problematic belief CAN be hurtfull, yes. I don't deny that.
But again, I'm not a saint. With those people..
I will not insult,
I will not harrass,
I will not threaten,
I will not physically hurt,
But I won't be nice and respectfull.
Indeed.
And I'm not claiming that I'm better than anyone. Again, I'm just a leftist and I'm not a saint.
----- Let's be serious and lets calm down the trolling for a moment: ------
If there is one thing you must understand about me. Is that no matter the numbers of labels I will put on people or on you, I'm a result of my experience. My belief in the power of human change will therefore always surpasses everything!
Which means that when I call someone a Bigot or even a fascist, I hold absolutely NO hate toward the person.
I might be angry against them, I might be dissapointed by them, I might be hating their belief system and I might do everything in my power to stop them, but I will never hate them. Hate is not an emotion that can solve problems, empathy on the other hand does. And its because I know that things can get better and because I worked on my empathy (and that is still a work in progress) that I'm still here labelling you and other people.
I'm not doing that out of hate, I'm doing that to make you realize your point of view. Because I know that people can change if they face their reality.
Now, I'm not saying that labels are the best way to proceed. I would love to have other tools, but sadly, I've come to understand that explaining things, sharing knowledge, science or my own journey and debating doesn't help really either.
So yes, I use and I will continue to use labels. First because new people needs to understand that bigotry is fought on this forum and has a contradiction, but also because I expect those labels to have an effect and make people face their realities just like I faced mine.
The injonction to nuance is a common tool used by liberals and confusionnists. This is the belief that in nuance rely the moral high ground, the superior mindset. This is also what leads those individuals to believe that "there is good on both sides" and therefore put them in a fragile position of equilibrium between two opposite sides.
And what happens when we push this belief to the extrem ? Well, this happens:
A fascist action in the name of progressism.
To anyone reading this: Never let yourself be fooled by people who tell you to have a more "nuanced" approach when you are talking about subjects such as oppression of minorities, racism or sexism.
You don't need to be nuanced on those subject. People are suffering and people are dying because people like them refuse to face the problems of society through a radical lens.
As for this:
How naive do you need to be to consider that you can be seen as a good person when you bring a radical progressive rethoric in a forum field with confusionnist, conservatist and apolitical meritocrates.
Don't insult my intelligence mate.
Being seen as a good person by people I'm fighting politically would be like being proud of being called "a good person" by someone like Donald Trump. I don't want to be liked by people like him.
If the majority of people are starting to like me on this forum... its either because I succeeded in making a change or because I screwed up somewhere.
I don't remember saying that I would never do anything to hurt everyone. I don't believe that I should have any kind of respect for people who holds and spread beliefs that can hurt others.
When I call someone a bigot, I describe their belief system as what it is. Facing the fact that we hold problematic belief CAN be hurtfull, yes. I don't deny that.
But again, I'm not a saint. With those people..
I will not insult,
I will not harrass,
I will not threaten,
I will not physically hurt,
But I won't be nice and respectfull.
Indeed.
And I'm not claiming that I'm better than anyone. Again, I'm just a leftist and I'm not a saint.
----- Let's be serious and lets calm down the trolling for a moment: ------
If there is one thing you must understand about me. Is that no matter the numbers of labels I will put on people or on you, I'm a result of my experience. My belief in the power of human change will therefore always surpasses everything!
Which means that when I call someone a Bigot or even a fascist, I hold absolutely NO hate toward the person.
I might be angry against them, I might be dissapointed by them, I might be hating their belief system and I might do everything in my power to stop them, but I will never hate them. Hate is not an emotion that can solve problems, empathy on the other hand does. And its because I know that things can get better and because I worked on my empathy (and that is still a work in progress) that I'm still here labelling you and other people.
I'm not doing that out of hate, I'm doing that to make you realize your point of view. Because I know that people can change if they face their reality.
Now, I'm not saying that labels are the best way to proceed. I would love to have other tools, but sadly, I've come to understand that explaining things, sharing knowledge, science or my own journey and debating doesn't help really either.
So yes, I use and I will continue to use labels. First because new people needs to understand that bigotry is fought on this forum and has a contradiction, but also because I expect those labels to have an effect and make people face their realities just like I faced mine.
"Without nuance" As if the concept of "nuances" was the pinnacle of critical thinking.
The injonction to nuance is a common tool used by liberals and confusionnists. This is the belief that in nuance rely the moral high ground, the superior mindset. This is also what leads those individuals to believe that "there is good on both sides" and therefore put them in a fragile position of equilibrium between two opposite sides.
And what happens when we push this belief to the extrem ? Well, this happens:
A fascist action in the name of progressism.
To anyone reading this: Never let yourself be fooled by people who tell you to have a more "nuanced" approach when you are talking about subjects such as oppression of minorities, racism or sexism.
You don't need to be nuanced on those subject. People are suffering and people are dying because people like them refuse to face the problems of society through a radical lens.
As for this:
How naive do you need to be to consider that you can be seen as a good person when you bring a radical progressive rethoric in a forum field with confusionnist, conservatist and apolitical meritocrates.
Don't insult my intelligence mate.
Being seen as a good person by people I'm fighting politically would be like being proud of being called "a good person" by someone like Donald Trump. I don't want to be liked by people like him.
If the majority of people are starting to like me on this forum... its either because I succeeded in making a change or because I screwed up somewhere.
I don't remember saying that I would never do anything to hurt everyone. I don't believe that I should have any kind of respect for people who holds and spread beliefs that can hurt others.
When I call someone a bigot, I describe their belief system as what it is. Facing the fact that we hold problematic belief CAN be hurtfull, yes. I don't deny that.
But again, I'm not a saint. With those people..
I will not insult,
I will not harrass,
I will not threaten,
I will not physically hurt,
But I won't be nice and respectfull.
Indeed.
And I'm not claiming that I'm better than anyone. Again, I'm just a leftist and I'm not a saint.
----- Let's be serious and lets calm down the trolling for a moment: ------
If there is one thing you must understand about me. Is that no matter the numbers of labels I will put on people or on you, I'm a result of my experience. My belief in the power of human change will therefore always surpasses everything!
Which means that when I call someone a Bigot or even a fascist, I hold absolutely NO hate toward the person.
I might be angry against them, I might be dissapointed by them, I might be hating their belief system and I might do everything in my power to stop them, but I will never hate them. Hate is not an emotion that can solve problems, empathy on the other hand does. And its because I know that things can get better and because I worked on my empathy (and that is still a work in progress) that I'm still here labelling you and other people.
I'm not doing that out of hate, I'm doing that to make you realize your point of view. Because I know that people can change if they face their reality.
Now, I'm not saying that labels are the best way to proceed. I would love to have other tools, but sadly, I've come to understand that explaining things, sharing knowledge, science or my own journey and debating doesn't help really either.
So yes, I use and I will continue to use labels. First because new people needs to understand that bigotry is fought on this forum and has a contradiction, but also because I expect those labels to have an effect and make people face their realities just like I faced mine.
The injonction to nuance is a common tool used by liberals and confusionnists. This is the belief that in nuance rely the moral high ground, the superior mindset. This is also what leads those individuals to believe that "there is good on both sides" and therefore put them in a fragile position of equilibrium between two opposite sides.
And what happens when we push this belief to the extrem ? Well, this happens:
A fascist action in the name of progressism.
To anyone reading this: Never let yourself be fooled by people who tell you to have a more "nuanced" approach when you are talking about subjects such as oppression of minorities, racism or sexism.
You don't need to be nuanced on those subject. People are suffering and people are dying because people like them refuse to face the problems of society through a radical lens.
As for this:
How naive do you need to be to consider that you can be seen as a good person when you bring a radical progressive rethoric in a forum field with confusionnist, conservatist and apolitical meritocrates.
Don't insult my intelligence mate.
Being seen as a good person by people I'm fighting politically would be like being proud of being called "a good person" by someone like Donald Trump. I don't want to be liked by people like him.
If the majority of people are starting to like me on this forum... its either because I succeeded in making a change or because I screwed up somewhere.
I don't remember saying that I would never do anything to hurt everyone. I don't believe that I should have any kind of respect for people who holds and spread beliefs that can hurt others.
When I call someone a bigot, I describe their belief system as what it is. Facing the fact that we hold problematic belief CAN be hurtfull, yes. I don't deny that.
But again, I'm not a saint. With those people..
I will not insult,
I will not harrass,
I will not threaten,
I will not physically hurt,
But I won't be nice and respectfull.
Indeed.
And I'm not claiming that I'm better than anyone. Again, I'm just a leftist and I'm not a saint.
----- Let's be serious and lets calm down the trolling for a moment: ------
If there is one thing you must understand about me. Is that no matter the numbers of labels I will put on people or on you, I'm a result of my experience. My belief in the power of human change will therefore always surpasses everything!
Which means that when I call someone a Bigot or even a fascist, I hold absolutely NO hate toward the person.
I might be angry against them, I might be dissapointed by them, I might be hating their belief system and I might do everything in my power to stop them, but I will never hate them. Hate is not an emotion that can solve problems, empathy on the other hand does. And its because I know that things can get better and because I worked on my empathy (and that is still a work in progress) that I'm still here labelling you and other people.
I'm not doing that out of hate, I'm doing that to make you realize your point of view. Because I know that people can change if they face their reality.
Now, I'm not saying that labels are the best way to proceed. I would love to have other tools, but sadly, I've come to understand that explaining things, sharing knowledge, science or my own journey and debating doesn't help really either.
So yes, I use and I will continue to use labels. First because new people needs to understand that bigotry is fought on this forum and has a contradiction, but also because I expect those labels to have an effect and make people face their realities just like I faced mine.
You also have to know other people have their views based on their own life experiences. Last week I told my friend we should write our life story. I'm sure it would be a best seller. She said Sure, but we need to check the statutes of limitations. lol. So I have had more years than I care to admit in experiences that developed my thoughts and reality, especially as it pertains to the United States. The problems I learned from the time I spent in unsavory areas with high crime. My biggest knowledge and growth was when I became a parent. Which my parents swear saved my life because I was on the path to nowhere good really fast.
So just like you, I will preach the problems I see and how they need to be addressed to help people grow positively, especially in communities that are broken apart.
Now we both clarified our views are developed from the lives we lived. Why are your thoughts better than mine?
Probably yes. That's why this is only my secondary mission here. My first mission is to show that there is a contradiction in front of bigotry, confusionnism and conservatism.
Indeed.
Because sharing SOME of your beliefs is hurtfull for others.
- Sharing the belief that trans should be excluded from competing in their own gender is hurtfull for them. It a beliefs based on nothing but stereotypes that is only helping transphobic narratives, something that can actually kill people of this community.
- Sharing the belief that systemic racism doesn't exist actually prevent people from questionning the institutions and therefore do something about a problem that is documented by science and that is killing people.
- Sharing the belief in meritocracy only prevent people from questionning our model of society and enable inequalities to prevail in a world where people are lead to believe that we can only be rich if we really put in the work. Its an oppressive belief that denies the existence of capitals and the fact that only those who holds priviledges can succeed.
Indeed.
Because sharing SOME of your beliefs is hurtfull for others.
- Sharing the belief that trans should be excluded from competing in their own gender is hurtfull for them. It a beliefs based on nothing but stereotypes that is only helping transphobic narratives, something that can actually kill people of this community.
- Sharing the belief that systemic racism doesn't exist actually prevent people from questionning the institutions and therefore do something about a problem that is documented by science and that is killing people.
- Sharing the belief in meritocracy only prevent people from questionning our model of society and enable inequalities to prevail in a world where people are lead to believe that we can only be rich if we really put in the work. Its an oppressive belief that denies the existence of capitals and the fact that only those who holds priviledges can succeed.