Political Litmus Test
-
I see it as the job of the non-stay at home parent to support the stay at home parent. Who is not "society."
That would make sense to a "no such thing as society" Thatcherite.
Filed under: YES... WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS
-
And yet yes.
And yet, as I said, no matter how much you desperately want it to be so, that's not what I was defending. I spent a few minutes trying to find the Donald saying something about throwing her out or whatever but I gave up. I'm not saying it's not in there, and that's beside my point.
And of course the immediate reaction from the Right is to go digging, find that the person concerned has a history of protest (shock! horror!) and conflate protest with unacceptable disruption and violence in an attempt to paint her protest in this instance as illegitimate.
And of course the immediate reaction of @flabdablet is to conflate what some people do or say with what I do or say.
-
@boomzilla said:
I see it as the job of the non-stay at home parent to support the stay at home parent. Who is not "society."
That would make sense to a "no such thing as society" Thatcherite.
I don't know anyone like that so I'll just have to take your word for it.
-
-
greens are mounting serious challenges to the power of establishments everywhere. Therefore, greens must be demonized at every opportunity
Oi! Dese 'umies iz makin fun a' da Orkz! Krump 'em, boyz!
ORKS!ORKS!ORKS!ORKS!ORKS!
-
It's a fair reaction to someone who has shown up specifically to disrupt.
Trump's entire campaign is specifically to disrupt.
Hmm...that sounds familiar....
Yeah, I know, Trump's vitriolic language builds his opponents' and their supporters' hatred of him and his, too.
-
No. Which, contrary to your imagination, isn't a defense of instances where there has been a similar reaction to such a thing.
Your meaning here is extremely clouded. Are you saying that Trump's supporters have not thrown out people sitting quietly while wearing hijabs?
-
@boomzilla said:
No. Which, contrary to your imagination, isn't a defense of instances where there has been a similar reaction to such a thing.
Your meaning here is extremely clouded. Are you saying that Trump's supporters have not thrown out people sitting quietly while wearing hijabs?
It's only clouded because it differs from what you imagined that I would say and you actually noticed the cognitive dissonance this time.
Trump's entire campaign is specifically to disrupt.
Disrupt what? I don't think there's any real rhyme or reason to his campaign. He continually throws stuff out and goes with what works and drops what doesn't.
-
clearly Fox has a reason for his behavior - probably a very close-to-home reason
This is covered in the guacamole thread.
-
Well I don't read that thread. Because awhellnaw
-
Well I don't read that thread. Because awhellnaw
It's kind of amusing for the first few thousand posts, before it devolves into the same 5-10 people arguing the same points over and over again.
Filed under: [then it's hilarious][1]
-
Regardless. If nobody knows why it's there, I dont see why we should have to keep it around. At the very least, lets stop maintaining it, let the passage of time decides what happens to it.
-
When a person dies, their wealth doesn't just magically appear in their offspring's pockets. There are laws, and processes, and a whole fuckload of traditions in place to ensure that rich families get to keep their money. Inheritance is a social institution, therefore if a person uses their inheritance to goof off, instead of ever doing anything productive, they are doing that with the support of society.
-
If there was a shut gate somewhere, and no-one could tell me why it was supposed to be shut, that would bother me on a deep emotional level. Why won't somebody just open it already! Gah!
Because the other monkeys would beat the shit out of them, mostly.
-
Regardless. If nobody knows why it's there, I dont see why we should have to keep it around. At the very least, lets stop maintaining it, let the passage of time decides what happens to it.
Yes, that sounds like a much better idea than trying to understand what you're doing. Please stay away from my code base.
-
I intend to.
-
Yes, that sounds like a much better idea than trying to understand what you're doin
But
If nobody knows why it's there,
perhaps documentation sucks. First I would ask for documentation, and if it does not materialize, thenI dont see why we should have to keep it around. At the very least, lets stop maintaining it, let the passage of time decides what happens to it.
-
-
@boomzilla said:
Disrupt what?
Society at large.
Like...he wants to fundamentally transform America?
-
Like...he wants to fundamentally transform America?
He wants to fundamentally destroy it.
-
@boomzilla said:
Like...he wants to fundamentally transform America?
He wants to fundamentally destroy it.
So
diddoes Obama, so what's the big deal?
-
So diddoes Obama, so what's the big deal?
No he doesn't. Obama stands up for minorities, at least. Trump, on the other hand, is using the same tactics as Hitler. No, really. Every single characteristic of fascism is embodied perfectly by Trump's campaign.
-
No he doesn't. Obama stands up for minorities, at least. Trump, on the other hand, is using the same tactics as Hitler. No, really. Every single characteristic of fascism is embodied perfectly by Trump's campaign.
-
Trump, on the other hand, is using the same tactics as Hitler. No, really. Every single characteristic of fascism is embodied perfectly by Trump's campaign.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140800778006/lets-talk-about-hitler
-
If he were female and Asian – with exactly the same policies – would we be comparing him to Hitler every five seconds?
Yes. Yes we would.
-
And unlike Hitler, Trump has never made reference to ethnicity. Trump often mentions countries of origin and also religion. But so far, not ethnicity. Not ever.
So hate based on religion is not a bad thing?
That article is shit.
-
So hate based on religion is not a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing if sects of that religion want to kill everyone.
That article is shit.
I think about half of it is, but I think he otherwise does a fair job of rebutting the Trump=Hitler thing.
-
Trump, on the other hand, is using the same tactics as Hitler. No, really. Every single characteristic of fascism is embodied perfectly by Trump's campaign.
I can think of a big one right off the bat...Trump is pretty anti-war. Fascism would not have been much without war and expansion...
-
It's not a bad thing if sects of that religion want to kill everyone.
I'm sure there's genocidal Christian sects somewhere, too.
-
@mott555 said:
It's not a bad thing if sects of that religion want to kill everyone.
I'm sure there's genocidal Christian sects somewhere, too.
And if there are, I'd have a severe problem with them and would not want them immigrating here. Not sure what your point is.
-
It's not a bad thing if sects of that religion want to kill everyone.
And if there are, I'd have a severe problem with them and would not want them immigrating here.
So... ban all Christians?
-
So... ban all Christians?
No, but I would definitely argue for increased vetting of Christian immigrant applications coming from regions that have a high proportion of the hypothetical genocidal sect...just like Trump.
This line of attack is pretty weak if it relies on "What If" scenarios...
-
increased vetting of Christian immigrant applications coming from regions that have a high proportion of the hypothetical genocidal sect
Yes, this is exactly the same as "a complete ban on {religion} entering the United states until we can figure out what the hell is going on around here". Both clearly specify that they're only talking about people from troubled regions and not blanket accusing all members of the religion in question.
-
>If he were female and Asian – with exactly the same policies – would we be comparing him to Hitler every five seconds?
Yes. Yes we would.
Please let someone know when you notice that the air in your bubble starts getting stale.
-
@mott555 said:
increased vetting of Christian immigrant applications coming from regions that have a high proportion of the hypothetical genocidal sect
Yes, this is exactly the same as "a complete ban on {religion} entering the United states until we can figure out what the hell is going on around here". Both clearly specify that they're only talking about people from troubled regions and not blanket accusing all members of the religion in question.
Well, what's wrong with that? Shouldn't we figure out what the hell is going on (and fix it) when we deliberately ignore when people claim that they want to be terrorists?
-
Why is it OK to ban all muslims but only christians with a close link to terrorist organisations or terrorist sympathising countries?
<attempt 2
-
Why is it OK to ban all muslims but only christians with a close link to terrorist organisations or terrorist sympathising countries?
You can't think of any reasons?
-
Islamophobia?
-
-
Why are muslims different to Christians?
-
Why are muslims different to Christians?
You mean aside from high profile terrorist attacks by immigrants of one of the two religions?
-
Anders Brevik is a christian terrorist. I hereby ban all christians from entering my country
-
Anders Brevik is a christian terrorist. I hereby ban all christians from entering my country
He also states that he has never personally identified as a Christian, and calls his religion Odinism
-
I vary between
and
Depending on how I interpret the questions.
What makes me left leaning?
Well, I agree that regulation is needed in order to protect free-market, but only when it makes the market more free.
For example, I agree with tariffs and I hate NAFTA.
You need to protect your market in relation to the competition it has with it's own citizen's companies. It makes no sense for an American company to compete with a foreign one where the foreigners are satisfied with much less standard of living.
That also means prioritizing American workers and only allowing green cards when there isn't an American to hire. Sorry, guys, I don't care if there's a really amazing guy in India. If he isn't willing to become American, and there's 10 Americans interviewing that reasonably fill the role, no more visas for you.
What makes me libertarian?
I don't give a shit what people do in their own home. If you ask me what my personal convictions are, I'll tell you, but those convictions apply to me. If it is a relationship that affects me, or could affect me, I don't need you to ask me first. If you think you can mislead me into a relationship, hell no, I speak up.
I bet a lot of people expected a different result from me.
-
I know you're just trying to trip up people into hypocrisy of some kind, but the way I see it, if any people group (regardless of what defines that group) is causing major trouble, then any country is justified in wanting to keep that people group away. That's just common sense. I don't care if they're Presbyterians, the Dutch, Shia, or Star Trek fans. If their actions and values are not in line with the culture they're trying to emigrate to, everyone would be better off if they immigrate to a group more consistent with their culture. The world is more than big enough for that.
I should also clarify (since certain users are almost certain to read past what I wrote and listen to shoulder aliens instead) that this is the process of legal immigration we're talking about. No one is suggesting mass deporting of anyone who is here legally. Regardless of where you came from, if you survived the vetting process and made it here legally and didn't stir up trouble, you should be able to stay.
-
Right, but "Muslims" is a big and diverse group. If I converted tomorrow, would I be banned from the US under Trump's proposal?
I get the argument that people from known terrorist supporting states, or with links to ISIS, are more likely to cause trouble, but what about an imam who regularly preaches peace and rejection of ISIS's ideals? Why should they be lumped in with them?
Basically, what I object to is
All muslims
. That casts a massively wide net, one that would never be mirrored with another religion. You completely glossed over that and seemed to be saying that you were fine with banning all muslims, but if there were nasty christian terrorist groups active you'd only want to ban people known to be affiliated with those groups
-
I get the argument that people from known terrorist supporting states, or with links to ISIS, are more likely to cause trouble, but what about an imam who regularly preaches peace and rejection of ISIS's ideals? Why should they be lumped in with them?
You're mixing up ivory tower with pragmatism.
National sovereignty comes first.
If you're a Muslim and you're living in a country that is ideologically opposed to western countries, and there has been some problems with accepting people from your country, western countries have the right to shut down their border to yours.
But even if they had no reason, a country has a right to shut its own borders. What if a nation was overpopulated? It shouldn't have to defend its reasons to other nations for the sovereignty of its own borders. If France decided it wanted to close its border to Americans, I have no right to argue with them, or break their law and sneak in.
-
-
Anders Brevik is a christian terrorist.
Who is neither Christian nor an immigrant to the US. So what?
Right, but "Muslims" is a big and diverse group. If I converted tomorrow, would I be banned from the US under Trump's proposal?
Possibly. But you're giving him way too much credit by calling it a proposal.
Basically, what I object to is All muslims.
Well, fuck off and try to influence the policy in your own country. Anyways, based on what he said: "until we figure out what's going on," that could be very quickly if you removed the astoundingly retarted stuff like ignoring public statements supporting or aspiring to terrorism.
People like you who scream "Racist!" or whatever at every shadow are probably doing as much harm as anyone.
-
As an American, my speech isn't free IN France. (unless France grants that)
It's free in America.
I can say whatever I want about France.
But I have no right to call France into court.
There is no international guarantee of rights.