You acted like I was reading breitbart or something. There is actually pretty incredible consistency among every single source. The fact that they are consistently wrong in one place says more about the media than it does about me.


(But I'm sure you complete a full investigation before every vague, condescending post... except when you admitted today to giving your opinion about a topic you knew nothing about. You should try being less terrible sometimes. You are clearly too smart for this shtick)

can commies really be smart?????

So you really want me to take off my belt for this bull**** I don't particularly care about? That's pretty masochistic.

Aside from an op-ed from the Times, What non-right wing sources are you using that are A) covering this case imnam equal manner that is being covered by the right wing media and B) using the same language as we find on the vast majority of the top searches when we look for info on google?

"Try to bully ya, strong arm you, inspire you with fear, it has the opposite effect."

Whether you want to explain to me how I'm wrong/dumb/racist/whatever and the way in which you decide to do so are both entirely up to you.

I never claimed that left wing sources were covering this in an equal manner. Clearly this story fits a narrative that the right wants to move towards and the left wants to avoid.

I heard the guy talk on a podcast and saw that the facts of his story seemed to be corroborated by the NYT op-ed. (There shouldn't be a lower standard with regard to the dissemination of facts in opinion pieces. The only difference is that they are making judgements about these facts) After that I saw that all of the other right wing outlets were covering the story and using similar language.

Not sure what you guys are complaining about. TheMadCap acquiesced to every point in a pretty gracious manner which is kind of rare. It's a win-win, just take it.

True.

Some people would complain at a funeral.

He said I was terrible. That's a paddling.

Should of hit the white people at Evergreen with a tomato like in Northern Exposure.

Someone asked how PC is bad for the left, or something like that, like what sorts of things should we talk about that we don't because of PC. As I've said before, I don't think PC itself is the problem, if PC is simply good manners with respect and empathy to those whom we may have little in common culturally. The problem with PC is it's abuse, by idiots and aholes who think anything they disagree with on race, sex, gender, religion, etc., amounts to disrespect and offense to one marginalized group or another.

That perverted use is not only evidence of closed-minded orthodoxy and a signal to others of solidarity with the "cause", but a blunt object to shame and push out those who would question or challenge the party line. This is dangerous, not only because it leads the "cause" down ever indefensible paths, but because it creates a space for opposite, antagonistic orthodoxies to do the same thing - and then those antagonists are held up as evidence of the need for such strict adherence to the "cause" to begin with, to pick a side, to fight the good fight. A vicious circle surrounding an anxious center.

Freddie DeBoer points out something I've tried to discuss here once or twice to the typical cries of "scientific racism", which is really just one demonstration of the above.

https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/05/
Nobody should be physically attacking Charles Murray or the alt right, advocating to shut down those voices. That only strengthens them, and this ought to be evident by now. They should instead be arguing with such voices, patiently adhering to scientific evidence and reason. Nor should people be abusing PC, accusing those who explore those lines of argument of rote bigotry. That mindset, or mind block, leaves many of those arguments effectively unchallenged, whatever truths they may yield to be misinterpreted and manipulated, and that serves no good cause, least of all the vulnerable groups the left seeks to protect.

Fair.

I agree no one should be physically attacking them. Using speech to shut them down is fine.

This is wrong. You can certainly point out the weaknesses and mistakes, but engaging in argument is pointless because the people advancing those arguments are not interested in the truth.

If evidence of bigotry exists, it should be pointed out. You think that posting pro-Holocaust propaganda isn't bigoted as long as a cartoon frog is included, so we may disagree on what counts as evidence.

The 'Heckler's veto' is not free speech. You want to debate on stage, fine? You want to shout down your opponent, not so much. Unless you're willing to make your point and leave, like the Caesar play. If you shout and you're told to leave and you don't, you begin to damage your case - a la BLM at the Bernie rally.

Are you saying that those who use the frog to mock their opposition are advocating genocide? You seem to lack a sense of perspective.

Okay, they'll just make their point and leave. Sounds good.

I don't have time to figure out if people who are calling for genocide are serious or joking. Either way they're scumbags.

Jokes you don't like make people scumbags? Does that also make you a scumbag for not liking things? That which you apply to others can be applied to yourself.

It is said about a third of the population lacks a sense of humor. Perhaps you fall into this category?

Arguing is on the weak side of choices to make when confronting prejudice and supremacy. Bigots can't handle people simply showing up, which makes arguing less valuable than showing up while observing and reporting that racists can't handle people showing up.

Plus the thesaurus seems to give some of them trouble.

If you think pretending to be a Nazi and harassing people is funny, then you are a scumbag. If you whine because people actually believe what you say, then you are a stupid scumbag.

Because usually they're not showing up to places where real bigots are - just people they try to tar with the bigot label without any evidence behind it.

Your lack of perspective and your hurt fee fees are noted, snowflake. Don't forget to turn in your oppression points in for some sweet merch (unfortunately, the store isn't selling clues, but regressives would never buy one anyway).

People don't need help identifying prejudice and discrimination because they can do it themselves. You do appear to have a tar brush for people.

Apparently they can't. The word bigot has been broadened to "anyone that disagrees with a Regressive". You can't put that genie back in the bottle, as you appear to be a part of the problem.

The fact that you are defending racist and antisemitic memes is just so precious. How dare I take people who say they hate Jews and blacks at their word!

The problem is, you want to assign the words to them, not that they're actually saying what you think they're saying.