This is amazing. Juan claims that experts have proven that the far left is full of "beta males" and have millions of data points backing it up.

Then, when asked for evidence for his claim, he links to an online personality test. Not the results of the test or aggregate data--just the actual test itself.

You can't make this kind of stuff up.

Juan literally only self educates from YouTube. He is very, very dumb.

Frantic still pissed that juan turned him down for a date. Lol

No they did not savagely attack people with weapons for holding different political views you fool. Rightly or wrongly they brought weapons to defend themselves and others attending the rally.

How come a few days ago at the event replacing Anne Coulter's there was no violence ? Antifa did not counter protest the event and minus antifa there was no violence. This is not a coincidence.

This is your response to my asking for citations backing up what you claim are the results of scientific research? really? And I see 13ball owned you simply by re-posting your reply in which you, in response to another poster's request for citation, simply linked to an online personality test as if to say "See? The existence of an online personality test supports the alleged research findings I tout as underpinning my slander of left wing thought and people.".

Do you not understand what we are asking for? despite the simple, standard request? FYI there actually is research being done into political ideology in behavioral psychology - actual research - not like the imagined research of your idiotic bluffs that you assume must exist, somewhere.

Here is an example of actual research from psychology which supports claims I make about conservatives being very fearful people:

Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risks Differently

Do you see how this might explain Trump's claims of murderers and rapists flowing across the border would resonate with conservatives? Even though the claims are absolutely false?

Here is another:

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition
Wow look at those correlations. That certainly aligns with common experience, except for the last one. Who knew conservatives actually have lower self esteem? They seem so sure of themselves...a little too sure as it turns out. Wil's feeling threatened by hearing a foreign language being spoken makes sense in the context of these correlations.

And just so you don't think I am picking only unflattering results of research into the conservative psychology, here is a study exploring why conservatives are happier:

Why are Conservatives Happier than Liberals?
"easiest recession ever"

(the poor people) "They should drill for oil in the food deserts IMO"

Those are conservative quotes from this forum exhibiting the attitude that no amount of suffering by others will dent their personal contentment in the slightest.

I was curious how full of **** you were and I have my answer- all the way. You are all the way full of ****.

Since you have no studies to back this up whatsoever, can you at least give your own personal, biased, anecdotal, meaningless observations backing this up? To start with, what is the "far left" in your view? Very few here would qualify, in my view.

And what are "beta males" in your view? Is it just defined on affectations or on real social status? because when I see a jacked dude with a pickup truck with testicles hanging off the back and with bumper stickers claiming his membership in the armed forces, I immediately think "beta male", which is probably the opposite of what you think. In my view, this is a guy who is nothing but a tool. He can make all the claims he wants but at the end of the day he is being sent out to risk his life for a bunch of thin lies and and waayyy less than market value. That's a tool. You can go to the gym 3 hrs. a day, you can get into pointless fights, you can do any desperate thing to signal to the world how masculine you are, but if you're ultimately just a tool then I don't see that as being an alpha male.

So let's define the terms "far left" and "beta male" before continuing so that we both know what we are actually referencing.

This seems like a dumb distinction. If Antifa showed up and no one else did there wouldn't be violence either.

Certainly some on the alt-right are looking for violence because they explicitly say they are. I agree that some of the racists will only defend themselves, but that's true of some antifa types as well.

Antifas sole purpose is to cause violence and intimidate people. Its is a violent organisation. They would only assemble in order to do this, no such thing as an

If the same could be said of the free speech side then we would have seen violence the other day. Victor stated that Trump supporters were traveling the length of the country to attack people that didnt agree with them politically. If that was the case we would have seen violence the other day.

Whats your definition of alt right btw ?

Yeah the few hundred people in Antifa groups are looking for violence. So are the tens of thousands in right wing militia groups, in a thousand different white supremacy groups and with the support of millions of typical Trumpkins who fantasize about running over protestors who block roads, drool over cracking skulls, and call protestors traitors.

LOL

Whats funny is the right protecting free speech and the 1st amendment. Outside the libertarians they have been and are its biggest threat.

Fascist Republicans want to do away with freedom of speech. The truth is their biggest enemy.


https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/sta...77772847382528

Wrong.

Fake news is their biggest enemy. Republicans believe in freedom of speech. It's the liberal fascists who want to shut down free speech.

Look at Berkeley.

Berkeley is not the goverment. You should be more worried about governmental threats to free speech.

You're confusing freedom of speech with an obligation to give you and your hateful views a platform. Berkeley is not obligated to do any such thing. That doesn't violate your freedom of speech--you can still go on twitter, go on twoplustwo, go on facebook and spew as much hate as you like.

1) My views are not hateful, unlike yours.

2) Berkeley shut down free speech after threats of violence from liberal fascists with views similar to yours.

3) My freedom of speech has already been violated on twoplustwo by being shut out of the Politics forum through extremely biased moderating. There's a prime example of the left shutting down free speech right here on this very site. LOL

Broadway, fortunately we have this modest effort of a forum where freedom of speech is only be slightly limited.

Can I ask you not to use Pv7.0 to complain about the modding of another forum please. ATF is the best place for that.

Ok. Sorry.

But it was pertinent to einbert's post.

What I was saying before my posts were so rudely deleted is that you don't understand free speech in the slightest Sushy. Free speech only applies when the government is censoring you. You post about this subject constantly but you don't even have the most basic understanding of what we are arguing about. And my question is, why don't you take the time to learn the basics before posting?

No problem, just letting you know for the future.

Re Free speech. Can i clarify what you mean because this comes up so often. When you talk about free speech being shut down by Berkeley or ..., are you referring to the ideal of institutions/forums allowing people to say whatever they want rather than the legal issue of free speech?

Liberal fascists? Not everyone who uses force is a fascist. Fascism has a definition, it's not just that everything employing violence or absolute intolerance is itself fascist. Those are tactics; fascism is an ideology.

When we bombed Germany to hell were we being fascists? or fighting fascists? As it happens, the ideology of fascism is still alive, even Nazi style ethno fascism, and represented openly in the parts of the republican constituency. People who oppose that fascism, even with violence, are not themselves fascist. They might be criminals. The might be unethical. But they are not fascists. They are a small reminder, like that given when Trump tried to come to Chicago, of how fascism is not going to be tolerated.

Shutting down free speech by the use or threat of violence is the definition of fascism.

Not really though.

Protesting a hateful right-wing speaker is not fascism. That's actually exercising freedom of speech.

Again, you don't have the first clue what freedom of speech actually means. You're completely ignorant and so it's impossible to have a conversation with you.

There is no way for you to prove she is hateful. You ever here of the word libel fella? Just because you disagree with her/everything doesn't give you the right to use violence to stop her from speaking.

You're wrong.

Non-violent protesting is not fascism, I agree. But using or threatening violence is most definitely fascism. Do you not understand the difference?

If you are going to accuse someone of being completely ignorant, maybe get a clue yourself first, OK.

P.S. I know exactly what freedom of speech means. Clearly you don't.