It's not dumb.

Let's say I decide right now I'm going to punch the next person who walks down the street in the face. Two minutes from now, a woman walks down the street, and I punch her in the face. Am I being a misogynist?

It's not disingenuous in the least bit. There is a specific reason he used that word and a good reason why you defended it.

I don't know how you use the English language but I was taught to use words in the way they were intended to be used. I don't call small furry animals that bark cats, and I don't describe ice cubes as warm, and then say "you know what I meant". This is especially true when discussing politics or law.

We understand each other, or no?

It is disingenuous. Whatever you think of his word usage, your pointing it out is standing in as a substitute for an actual argument.

What is the reason you think I have for defending it?

If I have to explain why the word "racist" is politically charged language, then i don't think we should be having a political discussion.

There is absolutely nothing racist about Trump's ban. Nothing. It specifically targets people from certain counties which is absolutely within the president's power. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. Calling it racist is absurd, especially so in light of the vastly different racial groups from those countries. Someone from Somalia and Yemen and Iran and Syria are extremely different. Comically so.

Yeah, kind of.

Although I'm sure you see the difference between this and when Wil was talking explicitly about he he would treat women.

Ten posts ago was the time you were supposed to realise you're trying to come up with imaginative ways to explain away how a guy who thinks he should be allowed to molest women when he sees fit is a misogynist.

And, to add, in our case Wil was okay with whoever going in the men's bathroom. It's the women he wanted to accost. So don't give me any more of this **** about how he's got some weird misanthropic equality.

If someone is homophobic and I described them as "racist", would that be correct use of that word?

You do not. I asked what you thought my reason was for defending it?

See this is kind of amazing because you write this as if the fact that it is within the president's power implies it isn't racist, which is ridiculous. Also, the courts seem to disagree that it is within the president's power.

Yeah, for like the 800th time, it's not racist. It's discriminatory against Muslims.

You're wrong.

Nope, he was talking about how he would treat people going into a women's bathroom.

I realized this in my first post, but I find it entertaining.

Nah, if his daughter we're in the men's bathroom I think he would care who went in there.

No.

The reason why the Lefterrorists use the word "racist" for every situation under the sun is because it carries shame value to them. In many parts of the country and world, it's somewhat acceptable to be a misogynist, homophobe or run of the mill bigot. But almost nowhere is it ok to be an open racist. Thus, instead of being honest about the situation, and put real energy into educating about misogynist, homophobic or bigoted attitudes, they focus on winning now. And shaming people publicly has almost always resulted in instantly winning, so of course they're going to keep using that tactic.

So if you hate Muslims, then you're a racist. Because if you were only a misogynist, homophobe or bigot, then you might actually BE a Muslim.

I didn't say that. I said it wasn't racist because it's not targeting a race. That's what the word "racist" means.

And the courts were wrong. It'll be overturned.


It absolutely is not. It's discriminatory towards certain people from certain countries. It does not ban Muslims from anywhere outside of those specific countries, which is a judgment call the president, specifically, is allowed to make. If you are a Muslim from Argentina, are you banned? No. Therefore your statement that it is "discriminatory against Muslims" is simply false.

It is not racist, and it does not ban Muslims. It bans certain people from certain countries that are viewed as a risk by the president of the united States, which is well within his power.

I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect in your assessment of this.

Yeah dude but when you intermingle the two points it makes it sounds like one implies the other, like if you want to be clear you need to write better.

I mean maybe, but it's pretty LOL for you to declare with confidence that it is within the president's power when so far he has tried and failed to do it.

Lol, no, dude, it's super obvious to anyone paying attention that it is just the best implementation of a "Muslim ban" he thought he could get past the courts, and even then he failed because he is an incompetent buffoon surrounded by slightly less incompetent buffoons.

Want to see when Ol' Zwarte shows that he doesn't know MLK was a "leftist" or a leftist?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...?highlight=ami

Why the heck didn't you file an amicus brief with the SCOTUS? Would have really helped out ya boy Trump.

I'm not declaring it's within his power by pulling it out of my ass. I'm saying it's within his power because I looked it up.

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Like, do you actually have any idea what you're talking about here? Would you like to bet on the outcome of this when it reaches the supreme Court? Let me know, I'm willing to make a small wager.

Lol, absolutely not. This is YOUR view on it, and I think when it gets to the supreme Court I'll be proven correct.

Wil said he wouldn't mind if it were his son and a trans person or male went in there. What he wanted to do was police the women's bathroom to his own standards.

Will wasn't talking about assaulting men. He was talking about assaulting women. That's misogyny.

I think you are way off in your mysogynist argument.

How can assaulting someone with a penis possibly be mysogyinistic?

Maybe read what I've actually said.

[ ] - Giving two ****s.

We should be absolutely clear here; my view is not predicated on whether it is within his power or not. That is clearly debatable.

My view is that "it's super obvious to anyone paying attention that it is just the best implementation of a "Muslim ban" he thought he could get past the courts". This view is absolutely correct no matter what SCOTUS says. The SCOTUS just determines whether he was right about being able to get it past the courts.

Nah.

If you want to argue that it is misogyny because he feels the need to protect his daughter but not his son, then I think you'd have a better shot, although I'd still disagree.

Can we just agree to call it advocacy of sexual assault?

Seems reasonable.

No, it's because he wants to assault women when he sees fit.

Wrong. He wants to assault people entering the women's bathroom when he sees fit, specifically because he fears some of them may not be women.

Right, so assaulting women.